1934-04-26

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee onlbanking and commeroe.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64 respecting Dominion Companies.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a revision of the existing Companies Act and also of the Companies (Clauses) Act, with some modifications of the general statutes which were formerly parts 4 and 5 of the present Companies Act.
In the first place the Companies Act at present existing deals with companies with share capital as well as corporations without share capital. It is proposed to divide the provisions of the existing Companies Act into two parts, the first dealing exclusively with companies with share capital and the second with corporations without share capital, which carry on their operations without
pecuniary gain. It has been found that joining the two together has led to mistakes through misapprehension as to which sections should apply to these two very different classes of companies. Then the present part 2, which is really an enactment of the old Companies (Clauses) Act, and which contains provisions applicable to companies incorporated by private statute of this parliament, has been made part 3; it was formerly in part 2. The other parts of the act are general.
Upon careful consideration of this bill I do not think it will prove to be one for discussion from a party point of view or really from a political point of view. The bill contains very stringent provisions with regard to the auditing of the accounts of companies and the publication of such audited accounts. The bill also contains very strict and stringent provisions with regard to the issue of prospectuses by companies or by underwriters on behalf of companies. In fact it has seemed to me at times that these provisions are perhaps too strict having regard to the conditions which prevail at the present time. They are so much more strict and stringent than the provisions of the provincial companies acts that if this act is adopted I think it may result in a very serious diminution in revenue for the consolidated fund, because until provincial acts are amended or modified in like manner many applicants for charters certainly will go to the provincial authorities rather than to the dominion authority. The provisions with regard to auditing and the issuing of prospectuses are more stringent in this bill than in any other act in any British country at the present time. I make that statement with confidence, after having examined most of such acts. Therefore I trust this bill will receive the careful consideration of hon. members of the house before it is dealt with by the committee of the whole.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is there any provision in the bill with respect to the restriction of the issue of securities?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly; first the provisions with regard to the report of the auditors are very stringent, and in the second place the company's securities can be issued and sold only by means of prospectuses issued by the company or by its underwriters under provisions which are very stringent indeed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
dominion loans
['The first intimation I had about\nthe rumours to which the hon. gentleman refers was in the statement which he made. No application for leave has been received from the High Commissioner.']
Mr. GIROUARD:: What is the total amount of the loans contracted by the dominion government from August 15, 1930, to March 31, 1934?


Mr. RHODES:: This information will be found in complete detail in the budget speech of this year, to which I would refer my hon. friend.



Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	How many pensioners were cut off from February 1, 1933, until the order to restore them was issued?
2.	Have they all been restored?
3.	How many pensions were cut off between January 25, 1933, and February 1, 1933?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	1.003.
2.	Pension has been restored, or is in process of restoration, in all cases to which the order in question applies.
3.	Information is not available as daily records are not kept.


LAKE AYLMER, DISRAELI, QUE., BRIDGE
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Did the dominion government contribute to the cost of construction of the bridge erected in 1933 by Mr. Poudrier, on lake Aylmer, at Disraeil?
2.	If so, what was the amount so contributed? Mr. STEWART (Leeds):
1.	and 2. The dominion government in its relief measures does not deal with individuals but only with provinces and, consequently, would have no information regarding such a contract with Mr. Poudrier.


THREE RIVERS, QUE., UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. BOURGEOIS:: 1.	From December 11, 1933. to March 31, 1934, how much did the government of the province of Quebec claim from the Department of Labour on account of direct relief for the city of Three Rivers?
2.	How much of it has been paid?
3.	Is there any amount still outstanding, and why?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$01,363.39.
2.	$60,709.16.
3.	There are at present in the Department of Labour accounts amounting to $654.23, payment of which has been recommended to the governor in council.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF INSPECTORS
Mr. BOULANGER:: 
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The commissioner's reply is included in the same sessional paper as the telegram referred to; however, a copy is attached hereto, together with translation thereof which was sent to Dr. Duguay.
Ottawa, July 19, 1932.
Dr. L. Duguay, M.P.,
St. Joseph d'Alma,
Quebec.
Dear Dr. Duguay:
I am in receipt of your collect telegram of July 18th as follows:
"Am informed that federal inspectors will be accompanied by provincial inspectors. In what group will be found the honest people?"
In reply I beg to inform you that the inspectors of this branch act independently of any provincial inspectors. There are occasions when, as result of requests from this department. the provincial representative may visit a location at the same time for the purpose of producing documents which are in the possession of the province.
Your information that federal inspectors are accompanied by provincial inspectors, as you will see, in essence is not correct although it is quite conceivable that these men may even arrive at the same time. You may rest assured that the federal interests are being taken care of in the proper manner.
Yours truly,
Harry Hereford,
Commissioner.

High Commissioner jor Canada
(Traduction)
L'Assistance Federale Contre Le Ch6mage Ottawa, le 19 juillet 1932. Dr. L. Duguay, M.P.,
St-Joseph d'Alma,
Comte Lac St-Jean,

Cher docteur Duguay,
J'accuse reception de votre depeche du 18 juillet. expediee port du, telle que suit:
"Apprends qu'inspecteurs federaux seront accompagnes d'inspecteurs provinciaux dans quel groupe se trouveront les honnfetes gens?"
En reponse, je dois vous informer que les inspecteurs de ce ministere agissent indepen-damment de tout inspecteur provincial. II arrive quelques fois que, comme resultant de demandes faites par ee departement, le repre-sentant provincial peut visiter une locality en meme temps, aux fins d'obtenir des documents qui sont en la possession de la province.
Votre information que les inspecteurs fededraux sont accompagnes d'inspecteurs provinciaux, comme vous le constaterez, n'est jusqu'a un certain point pas exacte, bien qu'il soit tres coneevable que ces hommes puissent meme arriver en meme temps. Vous pouvez etre certain que les interets federaux sont eflicacement proteges.
Veuillez agreer, monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs.
Bien a vous,
Harry Hereford,
Commissaire.


DISRAELI, QUE., BRIDGE
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Was the dominion government prepared to contribute $1,750 towards repairs to the Disraeli bridge on lake Aylmer, in 1933-34?
2.	Did the provincial government of Quebec make such a request?
3.	If so, on ivhat date?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. On September 19, 1933, the province submitted to the dominion for approval a program of bridge construction proposed to be carried out by the province as a relief measure included in which was an item reading as follows:
County of Wolfe,
Municipality of Disraeli, Aylmer lake
Reinforced concrete slab on steel beams. Concrete abutments. One span.
Number of unemployed, 35.
Working days, 3,500.
Date of completion, 31/3/34.
Estimated total cost, $8,800 including approaches, $500.
Estimated manual labour, $4,000.
Proportion to be paid by the dominion, $1,750.
However, as the agreement entered into between the dominion and the province respecting relief measures did not provide for dominion contributions towards the construction of bridges of the nature contemplated in the province's proposal, dated September 19, it was deemed necessary that a separate agreement be entered into in this respect. A supplementary agreement was consequently prepared, approved by the governor in council, signed on behalf of the dominion by the Hon. W. A. Gordon, Minister of Labour, and transmitted to the province for completion. This agreement, however, was never signed by the province.


HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. There is a persistent rumour throughout the province of Ontario, in the city of Toronto and even in the corridors of this building, that the High Commissioner for Canada in London, the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, has asked for leave of absence to come to Ontario somewhat earlier this summer. The assumption is of course that the request has been made so that he might be in a position to participate in the provincial election, if and when it is called.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. If the hon. member has a question he must proceed to ask it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am proceeding to
ask it. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the High Commissioner has asked for leave of absence somewhat earlier this year than last year?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The first intimation I had about
the rumours to which the hon. gentleman refers was in the statement which he made. No application for leave has been received from the High Commissioner.



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weir
Marketing Act-Mr. Casgrain
[Stage Direction]
(Melfort) for the second reading of Bill No. 51, to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provisions in connection therewith.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker,
apparently, we are passing through a period of schemes and systems generally known as plans or planning. We have but to read the newspapers and reviews to find all kinds of economic reforms advocated by so called learned men, economists and governments. We find an example in the Republic to the south of us with its NRA and various systems. Every one has a new scheme to end the crisis or depression. Perhaps, some day, the right system will be found. It is to be desired. I do not think, however, that the government by its bill No. 51 submitted to us, has discovered the real remedy. The people at the next election, will be given an opportunity to choose between facism, socialism and democracy. Among all the systems proposed, I still prefer democracy. We cannot further try out all kinds of expedients and systems or be satisfied with a policy of evasion or hesitation as the one adopted since four years. Democracy will have to be founded in the future on an economic regime so as to insure the material needs of humanity.
Man has always been an individualist. Society has taught him to organize. Thus we have been given definite working hours, scales of fixed wages, the regulation of work for women and children, etc. In all cases society has always kept in mind the protection of the individual's liberty. That is what has been left out in the bill under consideration. What is lacking to-day, is a fair distribution of wealth. Wealth is in the hands of a few only. The great evil is that its distribution is not proportionate to our requirements.
In the United States an effort is being made to remedy this state of things; a greater demand is sought from the consumer by enhancing his purchasing power. I do not think that to attain such an end, production must be curtailed or limited. It should be increased so as to satisfy the requirements of all. We are suffering from too great an abundance, the result of an unwise distribution.
[Mr. Bennett.1
Does the bill introduced, at present, by the government solve these problems, while safe-guai'ding the individual's liberty? I do not think so. The title is a long one: "An Act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of national products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection, therewith." I wonder whether the results will be as slow in coming as the government was in introducing this bill. I prefer the title given to it somewhere: Natural Products Marketing Board. I, moreover, prefer the title to the bill itself. The bill is very elaborate and so is the title. As I stated the government was slow in submitting this bill. Were I to criticize the government I would state that it is four years late. I fear that it is a still-born infant, that the government will never put into force, and even if it is explained to the people, especially in our province, they will not put any faith in it. I do not think that the results expected will even be realized, because the provisions of the bill are of a nature to harm the farming class rather than benefit it.
In four years the government has amended, changed and increased the tariff, signed agreements with almost all parts of the Empire, helped industrialists, manufacturers, bankers, insurance and railway companies, and it is only to-day that they give a thought to the farming class.
Fear is the beginning of wisdom. Elections must certainly not be very remote.
Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: You have never given it a thought yourself.


Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):: You may reply in your turn, if you wish, but please do not interrupt.
As the title indicates, the bill aims at helping the farmers. It is strange that the government has delayed so long to think of them. The establishing of a Bureau for Translations and the revival of titles were far more important! We all believe that the farming class should be assisted, it is the most important class in this country; however, where we differ is on the means to be taken, on the economy itself of the bill, if I may thus express myself.
The title is not the only thing to consider, sanction or swallow, so to speak, it is the provisions of the bill which must be examined. We must consider how this bill will work and what results will be derived.

Marketing Act-Mr. Casgrain
The government gives us a new pledge. It is again the peddler of 1930, with a bag full of fine promises who appears in the person of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). Apparently, the devil is not dead; to-day, he stall endeavours to deceive the people. The government and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) are well aware that promises can no further deceive the people; they, therefore, offer a bill. As always, the leader of the government wishes to do things on a large scale. He therefore submits to us schemes. He is an expert in the matter. We find in this bill, if we take section by section, nothing else but propects and schemes. There is nothing definite, it is an act to administer project's and schemes. Projects and schemes which will be carried out by whom? By a representative number of persons. Administered by whom? By individuals, persons who are unknown to us and are not named in the bill.
We have had, for the last four years, more than enough of this kind of legislation. We have had projects and schemes to end unemployment, yet unemployment still prevails. We have had projects and schemes to settle the sale of wheat, yet wheat remained unsold. We also have had some to save the C.P. Ry. Perhaps, the C.P. Ry is saved, but the government had to put up a guarantee, and there is nothing to assure us that they may not have to forfeit this guarantee.
All classes of society are taxed more than ever. The national debt has increased and again the people, especially the farmers will be called upon to contribute. This scheme will entail a large outlay which will not be controlled by Parliament, but under the exclusive authority of the governor in council, the Minister and the boards which the government will appoint to carry out this act.
Has the government ever thought of making inquiries in the United States in connection with the cost of investigations made by the United States government on certain items of the tariff? I am informed that certain investigations, ordered by the new administration in the United States, especially on two items, had cost more than $25,000 each.
This bill is full of complications and legal obscurities. How many persons will he appointed to the Central Board? What will be their salaries? The bill makes no mention . of it. The commissioners will certainly be easy going business men as to money matters, especially on the eve of an election. Their remuneration is not fixed; no doubt it will be
in the thousands of dollars. Moreover, a large staff will be set up, secretaries, stenographers, clerks, accountants, experts, inspectors, investigators and informers, as many persons who will act as election agents appointed by the government to satisfy our friends opposite who will require positions to hand out. It is stated that the government intends to amend the Election Act, so as to decrease the cost of its administration. I think that the 6aviag which will result from amending the Election Act will amount to nothing owing to the further expenditures incurred by the enforcement of this act.
These officials will be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, and what will be their salary? No mention is made in the bill.
There is also a proposal to indemnify industries, those which bow to the Act for the losses incurred through the decisions of the Board. In what ratio and how will this indemnity be granted? No mention is made and apparently there seems to be no appeal from decisions which will be fatal to some of the people interested.
The Board will be empowered to purchase with our money such natural products which may be thought too abundant, so as to destroy them if the market is congested. It will be authorized to purchase buildings and warehouses. These are some of the exorbitant powers that the government grants to persons who will be chosen by it and over whom we shall have no control. What will be the assets of this new Board? No mention is made in the bill. Those in industries will be called upon to pay charges to the Board for services rendered, what amounts will they be? The bill makes no mention. Licences will be issued or sold. On what terms or conditions? We do not know. The government will foot the bill of this extraordinary organization. The deficit will be a large one, in proportion to the business carried on by the Board. Have we not already incurred enough liabilities: through the deficits of our railways; through the guarantee of $60,000,000 to the C.P.R., the guarantee to the wheat pool which amounts to almost $15,000,000?
Local boards may also be established under the authority of the province which will cooperate with the Central Board at Ottawa.
These boards will also have their own budget and, again, the people will be called upon to meet the deficits.
The consumers for whom no provision is made in the bill will receive no protection
2550	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Casgrain '
yet they will be called upon to reimburse those in industries the charges made by the central and local boards.
This bill, sir, will no doubt have the same fate as that of the Board of Commerce and the one known as the Fair Price Act which was introduced in the house some years ago, in the last days of the Union government and which was found to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court. According to this bill, the board will be empowered:
(a) to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality or grade of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality;
It is like saying to the farmers when, where, how and at what price they will market their products and this without consulting them or any petition on their part.
Representing in the house a farming constituency I cannot do otherwise than protest against this bill because I see a threat against personal liberty. I do not think that any farmer in my constituency approves of it.
The right hon. Prime Minister himself stated about a year ago:
It is the effort of each of us which will save the country. [DOT]
He has perhaps changed his mind since then, because, to-day, he seems to desire that one man alone should control the destinies of farmers and dealers.
No one is opposed to cooperation for the marketing of natural products, as it was practised under the supervision of cooperative societies, here and there throughout the country. What we are opposed to is compulsory cooperation which places the farmers at the mercy and under the exclusive and absolute authority of a certain group and even of the minister who, under certain circumstances, will have the administration of this act.
In this regard, I warn the hon. Minister of Agriculture to be on his guard because he has other colleagues who would like to administer this act-especially the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens)-and should he not be on his guard the enforcement of this act might well be transferred to another department.
The British Marketing Act seems to me fairer and affords more freedom to the producers by only accepting advocated schemes after they have been submitted and ratified by parliament. Why not adopt the same policy? Over there, the liberty of parlia-

mentary institutions and of the representatives of the people is still safeguarded. As the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. March) so well put it recently: " If such a policy is carried on any further, members will have nothing to do. We will simply be here to register our vote on bills which the government enacts owing to its large majority and we shall no longer be responsible for the enforcement of these acts."
The present bill also restricts, when it is thought proper, the importation or exportation of certain products. Is this not withdrawing from the members and parliament the exclusive right they have of legislating on the tariff and trade? By granting these powers to the governor in council and to the boards to be organized under his authority, do we not abdicate the most important powers and rights entrusted to parliament so as to regulate the revenues, expenditures and taxation?
In my opinion this bill is as bad as the one on doles that we have been forced to sanction for the last four years ever since the government is in office.
I am opposed to this bill, sir, because it grants too extensive powers to these councils and boards. These powers may be summarized as follows: to fix the sale, regulate the price, supervise the margin of profits and impose heavy penalties without parliament being consulted, for, if this bill is enacted and put into force, the state becomes, at the same time, controller of production and trade. We have had for the last four years a government of unemployment, and should this bill be enacted we shall have a government of traders.
I am not astonished to find our friends on the extreme left supporting this bill. It is in keeping with their ideas. If I am not mistaken, they were the ones who, in 1930, moved a resolution in connection with mass production and marketing. They had given it the title of " Cooperative production-Cooperative marketing."
We protested against such a measure at the time as we protest to-day against this bill, because it embodies the same principles and, in my opinion it is purely and simply socialism. We wish to assist the farmer; however to do so, it is not necessary, I think, to set aside the principles of our British democracy and borrow from Russia her soviet system which, to-day, is ruining her; it is unnecessary to "stalinize" our farmers so as to improve their lot and restore prosperity to this country.

Marketing Act-Mr. Casgrain
In the course of this debate certain members on the extreme left criticized our leader for having pointed out the dangers which this bill contains and the harm it does to our parliamentary institutions and liberty: Let me simply say to these hon. members that if we enjoy, to-day, privileges and freedom granted to us under the British Crown- and that a number of them have sought in this country because they were denied to them in their native country-it is because we have always had in this country, especially in the liberal party, active and disinterested men, like the present leader of the liberal party, who have unceasingly fought for the people's rights and opposed any encroachment.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) quoted, yesterday, a list of those who requested this measure. He enumerated quite a number, however, I noted that they were mostly associations which purchase and market agricultural products. They are not associations of farmers or growers which request this legislation. I have not heard any one read in the House any petition or resolution of groups or associations of responsible farmers, requesting or approving this legislation. For my part, I have not received any.
We are not alone, sir, in protesting against this bill. Many hon. members opposite have spoken in favour of this scheme; however, with restrictions and reserves and suggestions to the government to reconsider certain sections. Last evening, one of them confessed to me that the greatest objection to this bill was the compulsory cooperation; that is what we are opposed to.
Commercial and business men neither seem to approve of this legislation. Mr. Major, who represents the Board of Trade, considers this measure too revolutionary. He states:
I am afraid business is being overburdened with all sorts of regulations and restrictions.
Mr. Wieland, President of the Board of
Commerce asserts:
There was danger in the tendency of governments to seek control over private enterprise and business more than was necessary.
Mr. Wieland, President of the Board of Trade:
The government was trying to do something that was beyond its power.
Mr. Hamel, of the Olive-Dorion, Limited of Montreal, states:
I thought the board was to be given enormous powers and they might stop a lot of speculation m business-which would be a good thing; but if the board uses its powers to order the
destruction of natural products, in a similar way to what had been done in the hog market across the border, then he was wholly against it, believing that nature should take its course -to interfere with it only invited disaster.
Mr. Ernest Cousins, who is at the head of an important company of distribution of cream and milk, thinks that this measure "would react against business generally."
Mr. Clarke, also at the head of a large company, stated:
The chamber is opposed to the government in business.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Read also the statements of the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I could also quote statements made by members opposite, friends of yours who made certain promises in the course of last election, who, however, have not kept them.
The people will judge the Government as they did at the last by-elections.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Do not bother about the elections!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Gazette editorial: The bill would open the door to more government interference in business. It provides for a maximum of meddling in lines of commercial activity. It is an unprecedented departure. It is questionable if any British government anywhere has ever had or attempted to have such absolute control over private business. The bill overshadows in importance anything previously submitted to this parliament.
(Translation). A few days ago, sir, our distinguished Prime Minister of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, referring to this bill, said:
Ottawa wishes to assume the control of our forests, mines, fisheries and natural products. We shall reply: No. However, we are aware of the attempt which is being made and the spirit with which the dominion government is inspired. Mr. Duplessis, leader of the provincial opposition in the course of the session which has just closed expressed the same fears. I wish to congratulate him.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: There is a righteous man in the Conservative party!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) turning towards us, yesterday, to dispel our fears, reminded us that we had delegated our powers to the Board of directors of the Canadian National Railway to whom we had granted full authority. That is a fact, however, the individual's liberty was not affected or limited. We did not prevent or force the people to use
Marketing Act-Mr. Casgrain

this railway, we did not expropriate them, we withdrew none of their rights. The sums required by the Canadian National Railway are voted each year, are controlled and verified by a committee of the house composed of representatives of the people, and they are the ones who vote these definite amounts. There is nothing in this bill which limits the amounts which the Central Board or the governor in council may expend. There is no clause in this bill which compels that the minister must submit to the house a report of its activities in connection with the expenditure and administration of this act. No amount is fixed. It is another blank cheque that the government requests from us so as to endeavour to redeem its pledges.
Mention was also made of the act known as Workmen's Compensation Act. It was the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I think, who referred to it yesterday to prove again that the citizen's liberty and rights had been undermined and taken away. By such acts, the citizen has lost nothing, his rights and privileges have not been decreased. Quite the opposite, they have more guarantee, less outlay and justice is rendered more speedily. At all events, all the workmen's unions of this country have requested such laws, they benefit the workmen.
How do you wish us, sir, to grant the government the powers which it .requests by this bill, to manage the business of our farmers and fishermen, when we witness such a shameful failure in the administration of the country's affairs for the last four years?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):: Hear,
hear!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was
amazed, last evening, to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) request our cooperation. You will recall, sir, each time the bill for direct assistance was submitted to the house for consideration, our distinguished leader and other speakers on this side requested the government to move certain amendments and accept some of our suggestions. We also requested the government to adopt certain amendments in connection with the tariff, we begged of them to lower the customs duty, to find markets more easy of access for our farm products. The government paid no attention to our requests. Moreover, how do you wish us, sir, to cooperate with a government which, for the last

four years, ever since it has held power, has not redeemed its pledges. Were we to help the government we would be equally guilty of treachery and of its misdeeds. I, for one, think we should not approve this measure neither any measure brought down by the government from now on until prorogation, because the government has lost the people's confidence. I have but to point out the results of the byelections which have been held within the last year: Restigouche-Madawaska, Yamaska, Mackenzie, South Oxford, which have written across the skies of this country the sure defeat of the government at the next election.
It is often stated that we have no practical suggestions to make to the government. My colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for Quebec Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) spoke the other day of Mr. Albert Rioux. The latter- and I agree with his views- on this subject- states:
At present, farmers must meet their liabilities with a 40 per cent deflated dollar. There should he a readjustment of the debts and mortgages.
We believe that a good farm loan would he an excellent tool to carry out this adjustment.
However, I think that the government, if it wanted to show its desire to help the farming class, could amend the Farm Loan Act, which was simply an experiment when it was introduced; it could also make provision in order that the people of Quebec and the eastern sections could enjoy the same advantages as the farmers of the west. In the province of Quebec as well as in the eastern provinces, the homestead is generally more valuable than those of farmers in the west, yet the loan is limited to 20 per cent on buildings. I think it is unfair for those who borrow that the loan should not be proportioned to the total value of his property. The farm loan is not well distributed between the two sections of this country. The 6 per cent rate is not very encouraging for farmers of long standing because it does not afford them an opportunity to replenish their stock or improve their farm; it neither encourages younger people who show some desire to farm and wish to become farmers. The Quebec government endeavours to neutralize the disastrous effects of this act by contributing to part of the interest which the farmers must pay. That is quite a help; however, the Dominion government should amend this act

Marketing Act-Mr. Bowman
in the interest of the farming class. What is more, instead of the bill No. 51 which is submitted to us the government should endeavour to find means to decrease the price of all things necessary to develop the land, forests, mines and fisheries. It should also endeavour to find new markets which are more easy of access in order to dispose of the products of these industries. That would be, I think, the best solution to the problem.
I am not alone in advocating such reforms. In fact, the other day, at the Bank committee Mr. Jackson Dodds, a gentleman of high standing in the financial world, stated that what was required to remedy our ills were markets and also more trade. That is what is required, yet the government does not bestir itself.
Another thing which the government might do would be to lower the price on gasoline. According to last year's statistics, we consumed in this country 503,800,000 gallons of gasoline. Two years ago the consumption was 100,000,000 gallons more. Why permit this gasoline to be sold at 7 to 10 cents dearer than it should sell? Who profits by it? Who are those who benefit by this spread of 7 to 10 cents between the cost and sale price? They are the Rockefellers, the Standard Oil of New Jersey, the Imperial Oil of Canada and other oil companies which are branches of the Imperial Oil of Canada.
These are as many problems which deserve the consideration of the government and which they could solve if they desired to help the farmers, the fishermen and all who are engaged in production or in the development of our natural resources. To help the Quebec farmers, the government should grant them, as well as to their sons, the same advantages as were offered in the past to immigrants who settled in Quebec or in the west: reduce the transportation rates of railways; increase the farm loans, instead of decreasing them as it has done for the last four years; cease incurring liabilities to erect a building for the legation at Tokyo; giving work to Japanese, when our people are in want and are starving, it would be better to give the money to our farmers; discontinue purchasing expensive paintings for the National Gallery by which the friends of the government benefit; cease granting subsidies to insolvent companies in order that they may improve or build ships to transport cattle
to the European markets and thus prevent them from robbing the farmers. There are as many measures the government could take to help the farming class, if it were in earnest. The farmers, deserve to be helped and we should do our utmost to assist them with a scheme to meet their circumstances. Briefly, to quote the poet's words, as I have already done elsewhere:
Remettre en honneur le socle et la charrue,
Repeupler la campagne aux depens de la rue,
Grever de taxes les riches et degrever les champs,
Avoir moins de bourgeois et plus de paysans.


Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the house with respect to one or two aspects of this bill, may I first congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) upon having introduced such a forward measure. For some time, in fact practically from the time this government came into power, a bill of this nature has been under consideration and I think the minister and the government are to be congratulated upon bringing forward the provisions contained in this bill.	'
Before dealing with certain of the provisions of the bill I should like to refer briefly to some of the arguments and statements made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the address which he delivered on April 19. I listened to his remarks with considerable interest but at times I thought I had either misunderstood some of his statements or had not clearly understood the nature of the legislation. However, upon reading over his address I found that I had understood correctly what he had said. I then became even more surprised at some of the statements he made on that occasion. I do not suppose there is an hon. member of the house who is more capable of clearly understanding legislation and the difference between fine phrases or wording of clauses and paragraphs than the leader of the opposition. I am all the more surprised at the interpretation he has put upon this bill. Throughout his whole speech he referred again and again to the fact that the bill restricted production. At the very first of his speech, as reported on page 2334 of Hansard, we find him stating that the principle and essence of the whole measure is restriction of production. This phrase is used again and again. Probably not less than eight or ten times we find him making the statement
Marketing Act-Mr. Bowman

that this bill has for its object the restriction of production. I contend that there is not a single clause or paragraph in the bill to warrant that statement being made. The right hon. gentleman stated also that this bill would create monopolies but I have failed to find any section of the bill which would warrant a conclusion of that kind. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) has stated that if this bill is passed it will lead to trade reprisals by foreign countries but I cannot follow his argument in that respect. We find a rather remarkable conclusion drawn by the leader of the opposition and appearing on page 2336 of Hansard as follows:
This law declares that once these different boards to be created in the manner I have described have made certain regulations they may go to the extent of prohibiting a man from working on his own property-
Surely that is a far-fetched interpretation to place upon this bill and I contend that there is absolutely nothing within the four corners of the measure to justify any such conclusion. Later on at page 2341 the right hon. gentleman in referring to the products and commodities covered by this legislation states that it includes boots, shoes, clothing and furniture. I say again that there is absolutely nothing in the bill to justify a statement of that kind by any hon. member of this house. He makes another reference a little further down the same page. The right hon. gentleman states that if this bill were put into effect Canada could not trade with any country, for instance, which wanted to ship oranges or coffee into the dominion. Well, this is the first time I have heard that we have ever grown oranges or coffee in Canada, because the very paragraph to which the leader of the opposition referred relates to "natural product" as defined in the bill, which is a product of Canada. Once more therefore he has drawn an improper conclusion. But I was more amazed at two other statements he made in the speech to which I am referring. He says in effect that this measure is not to help the producer but is intended to trick the C.C.F. group in this house. Perhaps it might be well for me to read exactly what he said in this connection, At page 2334 we find the following:
The members of the C.C.F. to-day are congratulating the government on this legislation which it has introduced. Is it not a nice spectacle to see an hon. member, the leader of the C.C.F., which party regards itself as the antithesis of Toryism, congratulating Tories on their legislation, as my hon. friend has done in his speech this afternoon and that because it

goes the length of further extending state functions in a manner which will inevitably serve to create a bureaucracy.
I can quite understand why the leader of the opposition should be surprised at someone in some other corner of the house than this side supporting the government, because during the past four years he has found no occasion in any legislation of importance to support the administration or even to offer constructive suggestions. I say, he has found no occasion to take this stand during these very perilous times through which we are passing. Further on he says:
We have our Tory friends opposite introducing legislation which, like the spider and the fly, is aimed at catching a few flies which happen to be at the far end of the chamber -
I do not know whether those in the corner of the house are to be congratulated on that reference or not.
-they are prepared to walk into the spider's parlour for the time being to help it get through this particular legislation. But I am afraid the inevitable fate of the fly awaits them.
Just why this party should want to capture the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I do not know. I am quite certain he would not prove to be a fly if we did catch him; he might turn out to be a bumble bee or a hornet. In any event it has been made clear that the policies of the C.C.F. and the policies of those who sit on this side of the house are diametrically opposed, and at no time that I am aware of has the leader of the C.C.F. group failed to express clearly and distinctly precisely what his views were on the policies of the government of the day. At page 2341 the leader of the opposition had this to say. He said that this is really not a measure to help the farmer or the producer but is an ordinary election dodge. He quotes the provision that the governor in council may:
(b) prescribe the forms of such licences, the terms and' conditions thereof and the persons who shall have authority to issue the same;
On the strength of that the leader of the opposition arrives at this conclusion:
That is a fine power to give to a government on the eve of a general election, to send around the country 'a lot of agents of the government of the day with power to issue licences to the producers in the different localities.
It seems to me hardly conceivable that in 1934, during these times, we should find the leader of a great party coming to a conclusion such as that in respect of the bill before the house. If that were one of the objects of

Marketing Act-Mr. Bowman
the bill, if it were mere trickery to entrap the third group in this house, it is conceivable that this bill would receive the support which it is receiving in this house? Is it conceivable that it should receive the support of six or seven provinces of the dominion? Is it conceivable that it should receive the support of the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell)? Is it any wonder that when the leader of a great party makes statements of this kind with regard to a measure of so much importance to the primary producers of Canada, the leading Liberal newspaper in Ottawa, the Citizen, in an editorial of April 25, 1934, should have the following to say with regard to this negative opposition, which has been directed against the government and its policies during the last three or four years under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman? The editorial in question states:	.
It is simply a negative factor in parliament, offering neither light nor leadership in Canada's most critical period of economic readjustment.
Further down, referring particularly to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) this editorial makes the following comment:
This session there is no such excuse, but Colonel J. L. Ralston's speech on the budget last Monday afternoon made it clear that the opposition sterility is due to something more than tactics: it is a state of political barrenness. The light of Liberalism is flickering so feebly on the opposition side, it is quite liable to go out altogether when the Liberals come back into office.
I think these statements sum up the situation pretty well when conclusions such as I have referred to are drawn by the leader of the party opposite with respect to the measure which is receiving the attention of the house. And be it noted that throughout the whole of this discussion, as in discussions which have taken place during the last four years on measures of major importance in this house, no alternative propositions have been put forward. We have simply had destructive criticism; that has been the tenor of the debate from the opposition benches from the time this measure was introduced until this moment.
Let me turn for a moment or two to the principle of the bill, to which discussion is limited at this stage of the proceedings. I think the principle of the bill is very clearly and concisely set forth in the description of the act in these words:
An act to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
All hon. members, even those of the opposition. will agree that there is at the present time some necessity for marketing legislation in Canada. Surely when there is keen competition among all countries to obtain foreign markets it is well that our products should enter those markets in the best possible condition; that they should be properly graded; and that the time of marketing should be carefully studied. If we consider just what has happened in the past, in the marketing of hog products, bacon and ham, in the old country, the present situation with respect to cheese, the matter of apples which was so well dealt with by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and so on with respect to all our natural products, it surely is conceivable that to market them in the best possible manner, under regulated conditions under the direction of experts, should be of advantage to the producers and to the country. Therefore, under the provisions of this bill we have a marketing board set up. It is given the powers enumerated in clause 4, subclause 1 (a) of the bill, as follows:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality or grade of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality.
Those are the board's main general powers which are further amplified by subsequent provisions of the clause. Under subclause 5 of the same clause the marketing board is empowered to set up a local board which may act as the agent of the main board or may exercise the powers of the marketing board itself. The method of procedure to get some action from the board is clearly set out in the bill. I do not wish to go into details with regard to that; those clauses have been read so frequently it is with some hesitation I read them again, but subclause 1 of clause 5 states:
A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme for the regulation of the marketing of such natural product by a local board under the supervision of the board.
Two points are to be noted; first, that the clause is permissive; second, that the scheme may be got under way by a representative number of those interested. It is quite true that under another clause a scheme may be initiated or got under way by the minister,



Marketing Act-Mr. Bowman
but the regular, ordinary manner in which action would be obtainable under the bill would be under the provisions of the clause which I have just read.
I have set forth very briefly and in a general way the principle of the bill. In order that orderly marketing may be carried out, certain further powers are given to the board. Under clause 12, subclause 1 and 2, power to restrict imports and exports is given, not to the board itself but to the governor in council. I am quite prepared to admit that the provisions of the bill with regard to exports are pretty wide and may be due for amendment. The provision with respect to imports is not as wide as that with regard to exports. It is to be noted in reading that clause that power to limit imports extends only to those natural products which enter Canada in competition with regulated products, while in respect to exports the provision is much wider, referring to all natural products. On first thought I am inclined to believe perhaps "natural product" should be changed to "regulated product," so that the power of the governor in council may be restricted to exports coming in in competition with regulated products as defined in the bill.
The other important provisions of the bill, those coming under part II, give the right to investigate the spread in prices as these products find their way to market. Clause 16, subclause 1 states:
The minister may, at the request of the board or upon his own initiative authorize an investigation into the cost of production, prices, spread, trade practices, methods of financing, management, policies, grading, transportation and other matters in relation to the production and marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of any natural product.
In other words, under the provisions of this legislation power is given to the minister from the time the product is ready for the market at each step, in transportation, in sale, right up to the time it comes into the hands of the consumer, to investigate thoroughly all those stages in order to ascertain whether the charges made during that process are fair and reasonable. Surely it is not too much to ask that the primary producer be given the right to inquire just how his goods are handled and what each step costs from the time they leave his hands until they reach those of the consumer. I know that in the province of Manitoba, from which I come, there is a feeling that the producer is not receiving as much of the consumer's dollar as he should, that the spread is much too wide. I know the farmers 
feel that if they had the right to investigate the commissions paid, the charges for processing, for packing and handling and so forth, they would be much more satisfied. More than that, an investigation or two such as we have had by the Stevens committee certainly would help clear the air and would bring good results even if nothing further should be done.
Some objection has been taken to this bill because it is said that if it is put into operation business will leave the ordinary channels. Personally I do not take that view. I believe if both the producer and consumer feel they are getting a square deal, they will carry on their business with much greater confidence through the ordinary channels.
I have dealt very briefly, I must admit, with the act. I congratulated the Minister of Agriculture upon having introduced the bill; I am inclined to think, with the hon. member for Melville, that perhaps the bill has been overdue for some time, but it is here now and we have an opportunity to examine its provisions and make it a workable measure. If during consideration of the bill in committee changes are deemed necessary, let us amend the bill in order that it may be practical and of real benefit to those whom it is intended to help. Surely we need not go back to the reign of King William or Queen Mary to find out what we should do; surely we need not read the Magna Charta, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition. The producer only wants a fair deal. A chance to realize at least the cost of production and perhaps even to make a little profit.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bowman) made reference to the charge of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the government had changed itself into a spider, temporarily, and had woven a web with which to entrap hon. members in this comer of the house. Well, my memory is still fresh enough to recall many webs cast by the leader of the opposition when he held office; I still remember some of the spells and webs which they threw out to entrap at least the votes if not the continuing support of some of us in this corner. But all have failed and will continue to fail.
I may say to you, sir, as doubtless you have observed in your tenure of office as Speaker of this house, that we never vote for either political party. Hon. gentlemen continue to make the grievous mistake, when we support

Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
the principle of a measure, of charging that we voted for their party or against it. We have not done so, nor are we doing so in this case. When I state to the house that I propose to support the principle of this bill and to vote for its second reading, certainly I am not voting for the Tory party, nor would I be voting for the Liberal party if they were the body to bring forward such a bill. I am not voting against the Liberal party when I vote for this bill; I am voting for the principle of a measure in which I believe, and which I think should have been introduced some years ago. If I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and the government upon bringing in the measure let me say that I congratulate them on having had the excellent good sense to adopt almost the exact proposals of the C.C.F. movement, the very proposals which have been put forward by my own organization, the United Farmers of Alberta, for some years, and that have been advocated from this corner of the house for the last three years at least.
The necessity for economic planning has become more and more apparent to every student of economic conditions and of changing social affairs throughout the world in recent years. The complete breakdown of the competitive system has demonstrated the necessity for something in the way of ordered direction. The complete failure of private initiative adequately to deal with anything except its own private interests and greed has demonstrated again the necessity for some greater measure of direct control by the state of the activities of industry. One of the greatest apologists for the present system has diverged so far as to recommend a transformation as well as a reformation of most of our institutions. His name is familiar to most hon. members. Sir Arthur Salter has said:
We need to reform and in large measure to transform this system.
I congratulate the Conservative government on having decided to take at least one step in the direction of the transformation and reformation of this system. Sir Arthur continues :
We need so to improve the framework of law, of institutions, of custom and of public direction and control, that the otherwise free activities and competitive enterprises of man, instead of destroying each other, will inure to general good. In the organization of industry, of credit and of money we need to supplement the automatic process of adjustment by deliberate planning.
Then he throws out this warning, in which I concur:
If we fail the alternative is an intervening period of collapse and anarchy, followed by chaos and a different system inconsistent with political and personal liberty.
I had thought of dealing with this abstract question of liberty, which has been argued so earnestly by hon. gentlemen to my right, but the question has been handled so excellently by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) that I do not propose to cover the ground further, except to suggest to hon. members that they sit down some evening and consider what element of liberty is possible to them in a complex order of society such as we have to-day. There is no liberty left to-day, nor can there be in a society of this kind, that would enable a man to step beyond the border of his own personality and affect the relations of another individual. For individuals liberty must end when it impinges upon or overlaps the liberty of another individual. In the condition of society to-day it is inevitable that there must be an increasing amount of direction and ordered planning, if we are not to have what Salter describes as inevitable chaos and anarchy. As a matter of fact, to this stage the entire development of our state of society has been on the basis of a modified form of anarchy; it has been on the basis of a form of individualistic ruthlessness, which has now succeeded in destroying reliance in itself and compelled the bridling of the beast. A nationally controlled economy is essential for these, among other reasons: There has been throughout the world, and particularly in recent years, a complete abandonment of the old philosophy of laissez faire, the philosophy of free competition, the philosophy of the right of the individual to extort and extract from society all he can get, irrespective of its effect upon society. That is the procedure which has been so eloquently condemned in so many excellent encyclicals from Rome, and pronouncements from other places. I could refer hon. members to my right to the Rerum No varum and again to the encyclical Quad-ragesimo Anno in which limitless free competition is held largely responsible for the misery and degradation of to-day. I ask those hon. members if they do not think it is time we should recognize the soundness of this contention, and to govern ourselves accordingly. It is utterly essential that for the good of society the state must step in and assist in directing the evolution and the economic growth of the state.
2558	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)


Mr. BRADETTE:: Does the Pope ask for
governmental socialization?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, certainly he does.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Oh, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would
refer the hon. member to page 38 of the encyclical in which His Holiness states that wherever industry possesses the power to dominate the community such industry should be state owned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But it is not business
socialization.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, whenever it dominates the community or to the disadvantage of the community.	Yes. he
even goes that far. He goes as far as this bill goes when it recommends state direction of the activity of industry in the interests of the state, rather than of the individual. He recommends control in the interests of the state. Again and again that is pointed out particularly in the last encyclical Quadra-gesimo Anno. The utter failure of every attempt made in recent years to restore the slightest shadow of economic internationalism makes this planning now definitely necessary. My dream is of a brotherhood of men throughout the world, operated on the basis of the cooperative principle. But I say that to-day that is impossible of immediate attainment because of the nature of man. himself -his greed, his selfishness, and because of the building up of these wretched barriers against trade.
Let us be realists in this matter and, facing the facts as they confront us and the failures that we have had in these years past, undertake now to do what we can to organize, and in an orderly way direct internal economy of the.country so that we may be ready, when the time comes, once more intelligently to step into the international field and extend the marketing of our products, as well as our international relations, in the broadest and kindliest way possible. Furthermore, there is a growing realization on the part of individuals within our state these days -that there is an increasing obligation upon the state itself, under conditions such as confront us now, to undertake greater responsibilities in respect of the conditions of certain classes whose standards of life have become so reduced as to he a stigma on the system under their administration. These are some of the reasons why I find a planned economy essential-and not only essential but in-
evitable. Apart from these reasons, the altered technique of production in modern years has made it essential. You cannot any longer leave to the increasingly fewer and fewer groups of individuals the complete domination of your industrial life. And yet that confronts us at the moment as an absolute fact. You must deal with that problem. You will have to face the problem of cartels and combines, just as this government is today, in a sort of way, attempting to investigate the tremendous effects of the growth of centralized industry in this country, such as is found in chain stores, department stores and so on. These are problems which must be dealt with, and no longer can society be left completely subject to the domination of these growing economic and social powers which are vested in the hands of a few individuals operating under the old system.
But Mr. Speaker, T cast this warning out: The object of the bill before the house is, to my mind, the important feature. First we must deal with its object, and secondly the administration to follow. But the object of the bill should not. under any circumstances, be the destruction of wealth. We should not place ourselves in the sacrilegious position of destroying those things which the Almighty, in cooperation with our efforts and those of science, has succeeded in placing at the disposal of the human race. The object of the measure should be, rather, to develop the means by which we can increase and expand the consumption of the great wealth to the extent to which our people are to-day capable. I am now going to say that this bill, alone, will be quite insufficient, in the long run, to achieve that end. However it is a step in the right direction. It is one phase of national planning. But if hon. members are going to delude themselves and the public into imagining that merely the arranging of marketing technique will solve their present problems, they are gravely mistaken. They have to go at least one step farther, namely into the field of distribution, by steadily increasing the consumptive power of our people. If they do that, then they will have taken in my opinion, the two most essential steps towards the building of a new state and a new social order in which, through the encouragement of the growth of cooperatives, on the one side, collectively owning the essential basic industries, and direction by the state of the other essential secondary industries, we will have brought into being what we are proposing in our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation manifesto.

Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
What an amusing thing it is, Mr. Speaker, to find the leader of the opposition going around the country last summer and at one point saying he could agree with half of our program, at another that he could agree with two-thirds of it and at another with three-quarters of it, and now we find him preparing to throw out the first essential feature of the program, and the Conservative party stepping over and saying, "We will take it up, so it is all right." That is really most amusing. I think that, after all, history will have a little laugh or two at the strange shift of activity in the political field of Canada.
At any rate we, the C.C.F., have a plan. I congratulate the government for, at least in part, accepting that plan. Of course we are not the only nation on earth doing it, but I am glad this government has at least begun. But let them not ignore the fact that until we have solved the general problem of increasing the purchasing power of the masses, we will not have taken the proper steps in the direction of the permanent solution of the problem of distribution and no marketing act alone will be sufficient.
Referring now to subsection (e) of section 4:
(e) to assist by grant or loan the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, storing or conditioning the regulated product, and to assist research work relating to the marketing of such product;
I am convinced, and shall so propose when we reach committee, that that provision should refer solely to cooperative societies; that the government should not undertake to assist by grant or loan institutions operated for private profit. But if they will modify that provision so that it will apply only to cooperative bodies, and expand it so that it will enable the extension of necessary aid for the creation of processing plants, then they will have gone a long way towards the complete acceptance of what in this regard we have been proposing for some years. This government, if it is to make effective the provisions of this bill, must extend to the organized producers in say the live stock industry, the poultry industry, or the dairying industry, facilities for going into the processing stages of such industries. If they do that they will have done a great thing for the primary producers and less than that will not justify the optimistic speeches made by some hon. members opposite with regard to the probable effects of this measure.
I further support the bill because of subsection (j). which provides that the board shall have power:-
to cooperate with any marketing board or agency established under the law of any province to regulate the marketing of any natural product of such province and to act conjointly with any such provincial board or agency;
With that clause I read section 5:
5. (1) A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme for the regulation of the marketing of such natural product by a local board under the supervision of the board.
These two clauses, taken together, show me definitely that this bill has for its purpose the stimulation of interest in the organized cooperative movement in relation to the agrarian industry of this country. Any bill that has that object within its ambit must receive my support and will continue to do so. I am not a socialist; I have never been a socialist; I have never read any work of Karl Marx except what paragraphs appear in current digests or magazine articles. But I am associated with a movement that for more than a quarter of a century has struggled to find an intelligent solution of the problems of the primary producers, to whom I belong. As a result of this twenty-five years of earnest effort they have come to certain crystallized opinions. These opinions were not suddenly arrived at but are the result of the study of these questions from the distant past until to-day. Resolutions come forward from the locals, are discussed in the district associations, in the constituency associations and then go on to the annual convention, passing through a series of sieves in order to ascertain whether they have merit and are sufficiently intelligent to go forward to the parent body. If they reach the parent body and are adopted they become the policies of the movement itself. I doubt if there is any body in this dominion, outside of the agrarian and to a similar degree -the labour movement, that has applied so much constructive, democratic thought to the problems and the solution of the problems that are facing our people to-day. As a result of the efforts, the struggles, the studies of these two bodies, working quite apart from each other all these years, it was suddenly found that we had arrived at almost exactly the same conclusions on the major national questions with which the country is concerned. So we met and formed a federation, known, as hon. gentlemen all know now, as the Co-
2560	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
operative Commonwealth Federation. The organization to which I belong, the United Farmers of Alberta, constitutes the largest and most powerful part of that body. Our whole philosophy is based upon the development of cooperation.
Cooperation has flourished in many nations; some fifty-three countries to-day have an enourmously extended growth and development of that movement, both in the producer and the consumer fields. I shall probably, if I have time, give hon. members some figures concerning it, for they are amazing. But in Canada the development of the producer end is of comparatively recent growth. We have had substantial consumer cooperatives for many years. Now hon. members, particularly some to my right, rise and criticize the cooperative movement as having failed and broken down, and brought loss to those concerned. I wish to meet that challenge to-day. I want to tell this house, what many hon. members, including the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) well know, that the cooperative movement has not failed in Canada, that the cooperative movement, particularly on the producers' side, continued to flourish until the coming of the collapse of the capitalist system-an the ambit of which it tried to work-in the years 1928 and 1929. When we received a severe check at that time it was not because of any inherent weakness in the cooperative principle itself, but because the dead weight of the evils of capitalism had carried the whole system down and ourselves with it. The cooperative movement in the live stock industry continued even after the year 1929; it continued to flourish until England went off the gold standard. It could have still continued to make progress had not this government adopted the insane policy of attempting artificially to sustain the gold value of the Canadian dollar, thereby bringing about a condition in exchange rates that meant to us the loss of at least ten dollars on every head of cattle we shipped that year to England, with the resultant collapse of the live stock cooperative pool. The Fordney-McCumber tariff has had an extremely serious effect on the cattle industry, but that tariff was but one of the acts that tended to destroy us; the second act was that of this government in maintaining artificially the gold level of Canadian currency after the abandonment by England of the gold standard.
Now I come to the wheat pool. It has been subject to challenge by hon. members here and by newspapers outside. I made it my

business in that year of great controversy when the price of wheat went to $1.70 to go straight to the heads of the pool in Winnipeg and find out the true condition of affairs. Remember, it was charged that the pools had deliberately held wheat off the market in order to hold up the European buyer. I found that that statement was completely false. It can be ascertained by any hon. member on application to the pool for their day sheets that they offered for sale real wheat on almost every day that year. Further, they offered wheat frequently at prices below the Winnipeg level. The reason for the collapse at that time was, of course in part the wild speculation on the Winnipeg exchange, and a condition in the grain market in Canada and Chicago completely out of relation to the Liverpool market. We had an artificial stimulation of
.	m
price here, and most of the trading if not all in these days was being done on option. We might have stepped in as a pool and sold our wheat on option; we might have sold it at $1.70 on option, but, as was proven by subsequent events, had we done so we would have found that the option buyers would not take up the options when the time came for call. That is what was feared at that time, and justly feared.
Now let us come to the question of loss. Hon. members who will take the trouble to study the figures will find that the wheat pools of this country lost less per bushel handled than the private grain trade. Have hon. members forgotten that the great Alberta Pacific Grain Company nearly went under, with a loss of three and a half million dollars in that year? Have they forgotten that James Richardson & Sons nearly went to the wall in that year? Have they forgotten that the great " man of destiny " of the wheat market in Canada, the man who was held out to us as the real authority of wheat marketing in Canada, James Stewart, was fired from his position because of the losses his company sustained under his presidency during that year? Do you find that the wheat pool justifies its position? Not only do we find that but we find that our people have continued to have faith in it and we propose to continue to support the principle. We believe in it firmly and we believe that eventually it will succeed in at least checking and probably expelling the profit system and in bringing a fairer share of the consumer's dollar to the producer. For

Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
these reasons, as well as for those others I have mentioned already, I propose to continue to support this measure.
I have often heard discussions in this house b>
expert agriculturists to the effect that quality of product is the keynote to market security. In what country is quality the highest? It is the highest in that country with the most intelligently and highly organized cooperative movement-Denmark. Sweden also is particularly good in quality, and is also a strongly cooperative country. To me those two states stand out as a fair example of what a successfully ordered society can do in the midst of a general world calamity such as we are facing at the present time. People tell me that continuity of market demand will depend upon quality.
I answer by saying that quality will depend not only on continuity of market demand but on stability of prices. There must be some certainty on the part of the producer, not only that he is going to be able to find a market but that he is going to be able to market his products at prices which will justify the effort and investment entailed in producing high grade products. If this bill proposes to go in that direction, I am for it.
I am utterly impatient with those critics who assume that this bill will cause a destruction of opportunity and will impose bureaucratic boards upon a system of free society. I cannot stomach that sort of thing nor can I understand a man who will put forward such an argument in the face of the conditions now existing in this country. We farmers have no freedom to-day; we have no market; we have no power; we have no money; the only right we have is to go to work. We can work in the fields from daylight to dark and then starve or worry over our debts during the winter.
An hon. member to my right during the course of one of his speeches stated quite cleverly that he believed this bill was a step forward, that it might win a battle but the eventual result would be that we would lose a war. I suppose he meant the war with the system but he did not clear up that point. The fact is the farmer-I am one-has lost both the battle and the war. Action is imperative and must be taken. The system under which we have lived or have tried to live has destroyed us. Hon. members know that I am telling the truth when I say that western agriculture has been reduced to a [DOT] state of peasantry. Unless steps are taken
the southern parts of the western provinces will eventually be depopulated. Something must be done to get us out of the appalling misery in which we find ourselves. In my opinion the farmers will remain in this state until they are prepared to organize efficiently for the purpose of furthering co-operative aims. This can be done by taking advantage of the provisions contained in this bill and in time the farmers may reach the state where they can challenge the power of the competitive system to destroy them. You and I cannot go down to a farmer and lift him up by his neck. We cannot pick them out one by one and solve their problems. We cannot superimpose upon unorganized farmers a system which will save them. The farmers must organize and I hope it will be made clear subsequently in committee that this bill proposes to give the utmost encouragement to the organization of primary producers, agriculture and others, so that they themselves may be able to take advantage in a democratic way of the provisions of this bill. I do not like the idea of this or any other government superimposing upon any branch of agriculture a board which will completely control the industry without the consent of the majority, but I do approve of the setting up of a central board which will have as one of its objectives the encouragement of the creation of pools and other cooperative movements among the producers of every branch of farm production and primary producers generally. We must aid in developing the sense of the responsibilities of citizenship, and I believe this bill may be an excellent move in that direction. That is another reason why I support the measure.
With the exception of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) my hon. friends to my right have treated this measure with scant courtesy. I ask them if they have taken the trouble to study the report issued by the University of Saskatchewan which deals with the outlook for agriculture in that province. The forecast given there for that province is true also of Manitoba and Alberta. I should like to give one or two quotations from this report. In dealing with cattle, the report states:
With regard to cattle, it is mentioned that the Canadian beef cattle industry experienced in 1933 the most distressing year since 1896.
In connection with hogs it states:
There is a probability that if feed prices remain low by the end of the year there will be an over-expansion of hog production.
2562	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
No doubt there will be a further fall in prices. With respect to the prospects for the future, it states:
Prospects for 1934 are mentioned as unattractive. Shortages of food, feed, and seed, losses of horses, poor machinery, and prospects of the most serious outbreak of grasshoppers ever experienced have to be reckoned with. On top of all this the bill for assistance during the period of adversity also awaits settlement.
I draw the attention of the house to these facts: The interest alone on the present farm debt of Saskatchewan is so great that it would take four-fifths of all the money received for the entire wheat crop of 1934. Let me repeat that statement. The interest charges on the tremendous farm debt in Saskatchewan is so great to-day that it would take four-fifths of the total cash receipts of the wheat growers of that province to meet that charge alone. The farm taxes of the province would take two-fifths of the total cash receipts. If the farmers of that province are to meet the interest and taxes for 1934 they will have to receive one-fifth more than they do receive. Is not the position perfectly clear to hon. members? Is it not clear that we should undertake some action to bring about first, a restoration of morale; second, an increased encouragement to cooperative development and, third, with the assistance of the state a more orderly and intelligent marketing of our production. As I have said already, our own program calls for these very things, as for example:
The new social order at which we aim is not one in which individuality will be crushed out by a system of regimentation. Nor shall we interfere with cultural rights of racial or religious minorities. What we seek is a proper collective organization of our economic resources such as will make possible a much greater degree of leisure and a much richer individual life for every citizen.
To attain that we recommend the adoption of a system of planned economy, the planning of the production and distribution of the things that are essential to the national life of our people. Our program is:
The first step in this direction will be the setting up of a national planning commission consisting of a small body of economists, engineers and statisticians assisted by an appropriate technical staff.
It is interesting to note in connection with the general problem that one of the most eminent authorities in England, addressing a meeting of the British Association in 1933. recommended that there should be constituted in England a third house apart from the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This third house was to consist of the intellectuals
fMr. E. J. Garland.]
of the country-not of intellectuals alone, of course, but of scientists-and the duty of that house would be something apart altogether from those of the legislative bodies. After all, the average politician has no time, in fact not one of us has time, to undertake more than the thought and labour entailed in meeting the day to day problems of the state which, heaven knows, are considerable enough in any event. We have little opportunity to sit down and attempt to work out or even to anticipate the distant results of our policies or to consider what other policies should be brought in to cope with events that are discernible in the future. It is suggested that this third body should sit in an advisory and consulting capacity, anticipating the problems that may arise and advising upon them, so that we might get ready to deal with them. Now, that is not original. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) and others in this corner have time and again recommended the setting-up of just such a body. We call it an economic council, but genial gentlemen over there, obsessed with the institutional traditions of the country, insist upon calling it a third house. We do not insist upon that designation. As the hon. member for Red Deer has pointed out, the house has in effect accepted the policy but it has not yet been put into operation. Surely the government must realize the tremendous use they could have made of such a permanent national economic council during this crisis in coping with problems such as confront us. And so our program continues:
The task of the commission will be to plan for the production, distribution and exchange of all goods and services necessary to the efficient functioning of the economy; to coordinate the activities of the socialized industries; to provide for a satisfactory balance between the producing and consuming power; and to carry on continuous research into all branches of the national economy in order to acquire the detailed information necessary to efficient planning.
It is now certain-
And this has already been referred to in the quotation from Sir Arthur Salter and in my own reference to world conditions.
It is now certain that in every industrial country some form of planning will replace the disintegrating capitalist system.
This is obvious to all who have eyes to see or to read.
The C.C.F. will provide that in Canada the planning shall be done, not by a small group of capitalist magnates in their own interests,

Marketing Act-Mr. Ernst
but by public servants acting in the public interest and' responsible to the people as a whole.
We do not, particularly those of the U.F.A., which is the most powerful body in the Canadian Cooperative Federation, regard it as at all essential to undertake any vast dislocating series of socializations or nationalizations of industry. We do not believe it is necessary. We have come to the firm conclusion that the extension of the cooperative principle with nationalization of key industries and monopolies will carry with it all that we desire to secure at this stage in the attainment of our program.
In this regard I would quote the following from No. 4, the section on agriculture:
The intense depression in agriculture to-day is a consequence of the general world crisis caused by the normal workings of the capitalistic system resulting in:	(1) Economic
nationalism expressing itself in tariff barriers and other restrictions of world trade.
We are definitely opposed to the continuance of that state of affairs, and when the time comes for its removal we propose to remove it as quickly as possible in order to establish harmonious trade relations with other countries.	.
(2)	The decreased purchasing power of unemployed and underemployed workers and of the Canadian people in general.
This is another reason for agricultural depression.
(3)	The exploitation of both primary producers and consumers by monopolistic corporations who absorb a great proportion of the selling price of farm products.
If this bill is directed-and I believe that this is the purpose-towards the control of those middlemen or intervening private processing companies or corporations, then I am for it. I want to extend its powers so that we shall be able to deal adequately with the tremendous problem that is facing us to-day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Edward Joseph Garland: And so, Mr. Speaker, I propose to support the second reading of the measure.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: I would hesitate to transgress upon the time of the house or to take part in the debate were there not certain misconceptions of this bill abroad in my own province, misconceptions which have been to some extent stimulated and fostered by the speeches of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) and the
hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I intend to devote a good portion of my time to dealing with one product in which my constituency is particularly interested, namely, fish, and I make no apology to the house for doing so, because if there is one industry which has been the orphan of politics it is the fishing industry. Not only has it been the orphan of politics, but the pulse of policy has been so feeble on many occasions that it was scarcely perceptible.
When the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough was speaking on this measure, he made certain observations with regard to the industry which were so fantastic that I do not believe any onp would pay attention to them had they not hppn uttered by a man who has spent his life in the fishing industry. Before T d;sruss the hon. gentleman's views however may I paint a picture of the industry itself. It is necessary to understand the problem with which we have to deal in order to see whether the measure which is before us will be efficacious as a solution. We have in the industry two principal forms of fish, fresh fish and salt or pickled fish. I include in the category of fresh fish processed fish such as smoked and frozen fish. I call it fresh fish because it is processed and marketed from the seaboard by corporations which have large plants and capital investment. We have also the salt fish industry which is an individualistic industry; individuals along the coast produce the fish and sell it to the exporter, who in turn ships it to the foreign markets. I have described it as individualistic, but it is not entirely so, because the largest centre happens to be the town of Lunenburg, where the industry is carried on by vessels manned by twenty to twenty-five men.
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said that so far as Lunenburg was concerned the industry was cooperative. I regret that I cannot agree with that. If you call the following process cooperative, then it is cooperative. The men work on vessels in which they may or may not own a share and they work, not for wages but for a proportion of the proceeds of the catch when it is sold. That in my opinion is not a cooperative system; it is simply an alternative to the payment of wages. Sometimes they make more and sometimes less, but when their fish are dried and are ready they are sold to the exporter, who is certainly not in the cooperative business. He ships them to the foreign market. In years gone
Marketing Act-Mr, Ernst

by we had markets in Europe, in South America, notably Brazil, in the West Indies, in Porto Rico and in Cuba. One by one these markets have been falling away and as we lose each market we have so many more fishermen out of employment. We reached our peak probably during the years of the war, certainly the peak in price. But from 1920 there has been a steady and continuous decline in the salt fish industry. We might just as well face the facts. Some of the things I shall say this afternoon will not, perhaps, be appreciated in my constituency, but the first vital blow which was struck at the industry was when prohibition was introduced into the United States. When the Volstead Act came into force, some of our fishing vessel owners discovered that they could make a great deal more money by putting their vessels into a different trade and they took them out of fishing. They did make more money for a time but they struck a vital blow at the fishing industry because there were no vessels immediately available to replace those taken off. The markets which those vessels were able to supply were lost and perhaps will remain forever lost, and those owners were the first real enemies of the fishing industry, at least in Lunenburg county.
From 1920 to 1929 there was a continuous decline, slow but perceptible, and after 1929 when the crash came which we call the depression, the fleet which had once numbered 150 vessels dropped to twenty-five and an industry which had once given employment to thousands of people in my native county now gives employment to only a few hundred. That is the situation. Coupled with that there is another fact which I think we have to face and which may not be palatable to the fish exporters: we have at no time made any exhaustive study of our market requirements; we have shipped the product prepared in the same way as was done by our fathers and grandfathers and said to the market: That is what we have, instead of trying to meet what the market might particularly want. Furthermore, we have had no system of compulsory grading or inspection. It has been possible to go to Labrador, buy what we call "slop fish," bring them to Lunenburg, put them in casks, as is done, and ship them to the markets of the world on consignment as Lunenburg number one. I say that that has been done. It has been done in my county, and it has been done in Newfoundland as the report of the royal commission there shows. What must happen to markets under those conditions?

They must decline, so that the industry itself is in some measure to blame for the decline. What is true of Lunenburg is true of the whole coastline because the individual fisherman is in the main a producer of salt or pickled fish. What has been the result? I know the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has visited the maritimes, but if some other hon. members could see the pitiable conditions under which those fishermen have been living during not only the last three years but the years of so-called prosperity, they would be staggered and astounded. Conditions among those fishermen have been terrible; they have been living on a yearly pittance which we could spend in much less than a month. I am sorry that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is not in his seat. He has criticized and condemned this measure, and pictured to those men who are living in that misery and are in exactly the situation I have stated: If you have this measure, you will have a board in Canso, in Pictou, in every little village along the coast; you will have dictatorial officials coming along and saying that you cannot land your fish to-day or at all. What is the true situation? Does not the house agree with me that an industry in that condition needs control, coordination? I do not know of any other in Canada which needs it more. I believe a local board is required to coordinate that industry; I believe further that when they have done something to coordinate it and have made a study of the requirements of not only the markets which we have but those which we have lost because we want to regain them; if they inaugurate a system of grading and inspection which guarantees to the ultimate consumer that he is getting what he is paying for, we shall be able not only to retain the markets we now have but to expand the industry and to regain some of our lost prestige. Moreover, I believe if we carry on under the direction of the board a vigorous campaign of education among the fishermen in an endeavour to produce a better article-and no one can tell me that the article which was produced a hundred years ago cannot be improved upon; there must be methods of improving it-we can better the economic lot of the fisherman and help him to get more money for his product.
One more word about the salt fish industry. May I say that a royal commission investigated the fishing industry in Newfoundland where conditions are very similar to ours and where they compete with us in foreign markets. That commission found there the

Marketing Act-Mr. Ernst
same conditions as I have pictured as existing in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland to meet the need of her industry, has taken exactly the step which I am suggesting. If we are to maintain our markets and not be driven out of them entirely by our competitors, we shall have to do as they have done.
One word as to the fresh fish industry. This stands on an entirely different footing; it is carried on by corporations that buy from the primary producers, if you care to call them so, from the individual fishermen, and they also catch some fish with their own boats. These fish they ship fresh or processed. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough said that their product was sold entirely in Canada. That is not quite accurate because a considerable quantity goes outside, although the larger percentage is sold within the dominion. The fishermen who sell to those companies get for their product only a pittance at present, hardly enought to sustain life. What is the trouble there? I venture to assert-and this statement is not going to be popular-that it is cut-throat competition among the companies conducting the business. One company cuts the other company's throat. A small man, a smaller dealer than another, unable to get into the market in any other way, ships a carload or more of fish on consignment. The result is a break in the market price which is not passed on to the consumer here or elsewhere but is passed back to the fisherman who gets only a pittance. I am not blaming the companies. So long as they have to exist under cutthroat competition, just so long must they buy as cheaply as they can. But if a board had control, this system could be eliminated and, if so, the fisherman of Nova Scotia might get at least a cent a pound more for his fish without increasing the cost to the consumer, especially if the price spread were investigated from the time the fish leaves the water until it gets into the fryingpan in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal or elsewhere. For these reasons, so far as the fishing industry is concerned, I am thoroughly convinced that this measure will be a real help, if applied. My fear, however, is that thanks to the bogeymen and ghosts that have been conjured up by people like the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, the fishermen will be afraid of the measure and of having any scheme applied to their industry. I interpret the legislation to mean that there will be no board unless the industry or at least unless a representative part of the industry asks for one. In the measure there is, it is true, a compulsory feature,
but I interpret it as meaning simply this, that if in the event of two areas, let us say Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, adopting a plan for their fishermen and Prince Edward Island not doing so, it became impossible to carry the plan through to fruition with Prince Edward Island staying out, then it would become the duty of the central board to compel Prince Edward Island to come in and not break the market for the other two provinces. This clause looks to me purely like an emergency one and I repeat my only fear is that the industry will be afraid of it because of statements that have been made in the house and outside respecting the evil aspects of the bill, evil aspects which really do not exist.
I do not intend to take up more time in dealing with the question of fish, nor to transgress upon the time of the house at any great length, but I want to make one or two general observations about the bill itself. It is of course in essence a marketing bill. I apprehend that its principle is the principle of marketing. I freely confess that I do not like some of the details contained in the bill, but I hope it will be amended in committee. I am in favour of control, so far as control is possible, in connection with marketing. I have spoken of fish; I understand [DOT] perfectly that the scope of the bill will include all natural products. If it can help the fishing industry, however, I feel quite certain that it can help the farmer, whether he be in the east or in the west.
Some of the observations that have been made in connection with the bill astound me. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) spent some two hours in discussing the various features of the bill, but from the start the central theme of his argument was that the bill usurps the rights of parliament, is derogatory to the rights of parliament, infringes upon the rights of parliament and is unconstitutional. I concede that the parliamentary system of government is the best system that has been devised as yet; at the moment I know of no better system, but unlike the right hon. gentleman I cannot look upon our parliamentary system as being something divine. It is man made, and I do not know of anything man has made that cannot be improved upon. The functions and privileges which belong to parliament were not of divine creation; they were given to parliament by man over a period of years, and I do not see why man in his wisdom should not take away some of the functions from parliament if he so desires. There is one function, however, which he must not and

Marketing Act-Mr. Ernst
cannot take away without destroying the institution itself; that is, parliament must represent the sovereign and supreme will of the people. When parliament wishes to assert that will it must be permitted to assert it in whatever form that assertion may take, but when parliament wishes to delegate some of its power to a central board I cannot see in that delegation any usurpation of parliament's authority. That which is delegated surely cannot be usurped; that which is delegated can be taken back by the body which delegates it, and consequently I see nothing in this bill which infringes on the great and vital prin-cip'e of parliamentary government.
The right hon. gentleman seems to be doing something which has become characteristic of him. He looks to the past for his guidance, but after having looked to the past, instead of setting his face to the future he keeps looking backward while trying to go ahead. That is true of more than one hon. member opposite. I have listened to many of their speeches in connection with this bill, and many of those to which I did not listen I have read. I could find only one hon gentleman opposite who really objected to a marketing bill on principle, and that was the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). That hon. gentleman, who is an economist and a man of distinction, holds views on economics which are incompatible with control. I respect his views, though I cannot agree with them. I could agree that we might allow everything to move freely, as gravity might dictate, if we could all start over again as babes in the woods, as innocent and as unspoiled. But when we are dealing with a world such as we have to-day I cannot agree with the hon. member's theories.
Many other hon. gentlemen spoke, but I do not recall another who disagreed with the principle of the bill. They criticized it in detail. I am not going to class the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) with the Liberals, but his speech was a mirage of impossibilities. Difficulty after difficulty, nonexistent, was conjured up by the hon. gentleman in a complete misapprehension of the whole situation, and the same process was followed by nearly all who sit to the left of the Speaker, with the exception of the little group sitting almost directly across from me.
In listening to these speeches, Mr. Speaker, one thought struck me. It was not what has happened to the Liberal party but what has happened to Liberalism as interpreted by the Liberal party. I have no quarrel with Liberalism; I can respect any man's honest 
convictions, but surely it is not Liberalism that is being preached by the Liberal party in Canada to-day. It is the dead shades of past Liberalism, with no future. Another thought has struck me during the past three years, which have been three of the most difficult years in the history of this or any other country; I refer to the utter lack of constructive suggestions to come from hon. gentlemen opposite. They may consider it the function of an opposition to bide their time and reserve their policies until they are in power, but it has occurred to me again and again that in a difficulty such as we are facing to-day they owe more than a party duty to their country. They owe a duty to the country which transcends party, and if they have anything constructive to offer at least they should present it and give the country the benefit of their suggestions.
I promised that T would not presume at any great length upon the time of the house, but one other thing that has astounded me has been the degree of apprehension which the Liberal members of the house have manifested towards those who sit to thpir left. They seem far more afraid of the so called left group than I am. though T do not say that I am representative of those who sit around me in that respect.


Edward Joseph Garland: You are younger and more intelligent.


William Gordon Ernst: I am not sure of that, though I admit the crime of youth. I should not like to see those who sit to the extreme left in power in this country, because I think they are radicals and their views, at least under present conditions and for many years to come, are incapable of application.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are followed in this bill.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. member for
Bow River (Mr. Garland) made the same statement this afternoon. For the reason I have given I should not like to see them in power in this country but, Mr. Speaker, if we had not had radicals-I am not saying in this house alone, but in the world-I wonder whether civilization would not have almost halted. Many a radical, far out in advance of the practical, has been of inestimable benefit to the people of his country and to the people of the world. I have not the slightest doubt that when Wilberforce began to advocate the abolition of slavery he was classed as a radical by those around him, and I remember reading

Marketing Act-Mr. Rheaume
that even royalty, in the last century, classed the staid and proper Mr. Gladstone as something of a radical. I look upon a radical as one out in front with a lamp, sometimes showing us where we should go but more often showing us where we should not go, though in any event giving good service to the country and to the world.
I have transgressed further upon the time of the house than I had intended, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that those who oppose this bill fail to realize that the world is moving forward. The world is on the march; times and circumstances are changing with great rapidity, and if we are to keep pace with the world we must move forward. If we fail to move forward, just as surely as fate we will be engulfed in the tide of difficulties which follows every forward march. The world has moved forward since the dawn of history; sometimes the path has been tortuous and usually it has been difficult. I see in this measure-perhaps it is done unconsciously, so far as the government is concerned-some degree of planned economy. It is my view that planned economy, or socialism. is going eventually to be accomplished. Personally I prefer planned economy. This measure has been called socialistic by hon. members who sit opposite. It is not, because if they would read it they would find that it does not destroy capital or take away profit, both of which form part of the capitalistic system. At least for the present time I believe in the capitalistic system, but not in that capitalism which was allowed to run riot in the years gone by. I repeat that hon. members who oppose this bill are ignorant of what is going on in the world around us. I do not use the word "ignorant" in an unkind sense, but I do say that they have failed to grasp the realities of the situation and the fact that the world is changing. Personally I feel that when I vote for this bill I am voting for something which will put us on the path to progress.


Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. John's-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
closely followed the speeches delivered by hon. members opposite who are in favour of this bill. The comments of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) who has just sat down have not convinced me of the merit of this bill.
The hon. member stated that his party had the support of the small group at the extreme left. For some time past, the two parties seem to agree, and according to the statement of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) he seemed quite astonished at
the attitude of the Liberal party as regards this measure. In another speech, he stated that, in the course of his parliamentary career, he had been designated under various names, but never as Liberal. May I say to the hon. member that the bounds of the Libera] party are too broad to include him because he is too narrow-minded. That is why he is a member of the C.C.F. whose ideas clash with those of the Liberal party.
I think, sir, that this famous bill rather forms part of the Conservative party's campaign literature for the next election. I read this bill twice. If I refer to the debate which took place in the house, yesterday, between the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties, I must conclude that opinions differed while the ruling of the Speaker finally leaned on one side; in fact, as in all decisions.
Briefly, I must state that the more this bill is discussed and examined, less we understand it. Nothing definite is mentioned, it is a bill which, when distributed in rural sections, will allow every member to interpret it as he pleases. I also think that this bill is introduced so as to further help the trusts. Farm products are selling less and less since 1930. I am of the opinion that the only way to help the farmers in order that they may receive reasonable prices for their products, would be to find them markets, as the Liberal party did before the Conservative party took office, in 1930; there will then be no need of creating a Dominion Marketing Board.
Let the government be bold enough to break up coalitions and wipe out the trusts, allow free competition on markets where farm products are sold, and I am certain that the farmers will receive profitable prices as they received previous to 1930.
A few years ago an investigation was held in connection with milk. It was stated before the committee that a trust existed in Montreal. The Conservative party had not the courage to interfere. I have here the Monthly Farm Bulletin of the Bureau of Statistics for January, 1934; at page 34. the price of milk is given for 1927 to 1934, at Halifax, Montreal and Toronto. They are the retail prices. At Halifax, milk sold at 27 cents per gallon between 1927 and 1932, and 23 cents between 1932 and 1934; a difference of 4 cents only. Why? Probably no trust existed there as in Montreal. During the autumn and winter of 1929-1930. milk sold between 28 and 32 cents per gallon, in Montreal, and during the winter of 1932, 13 cents. In Toronto, in 1930, between 28 and 30 cents, and in 1932, 15 cents. I think no such difference should exist in the price of milk; if one compares the price of
Marketing Act-Mr. Rheaume

milk, in 1932, in Montreal and Toronto with the price paid in Halifax the difference in the price is double. The dairy companies in Montreal bear various names; however, the owners or shareholders are the same. That is why farmers cannot obtain fair prices for their milk.
I am better acquainted with the marketing of cattle. A section of Bill No. 40 which was enacted a few days ago, compels any one who wishes to ship cattle to apply to the Minister of Agriculture so as to obtain a licence. When this bill was discussed in the agricultural committee-although I have not the privilege of being a member of this committee, I was present at a number of sittings- a conservative, perhaps, the best qualified on this subject, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), protested against this section, because he thought it would restrict competition. The minister will grant licences to whom he pleases. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated in the house recently that when any person has a complaint to make, he should make it to the government and not to his member. I am quite aware that if one's representative is a liberal, it is futile to request fair play. I therefore conclude that in order to obtain a licence from the Department of Agriculture, one must necessarily be a conservative. This does not agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Marquette who advocates free competition in the cattle market in order that farmers may obtain better prices.
At the committee which investigated the spread of prices and mass purchases, the hon. Mr. Parker, Minister of Agriculture, in Saskatchewan, and the hon. Mr. Mackenzie, Minister of Agriculture, in Manitoba, advocated a federal commission to investigate all the phases of the breeding and marketing of cattle, so far as domestic trade and exports are concerned. I have here some of the evidence taken at that committee. On April 19, Mr. Mackenzie of Toronto, a butcher, who is no more connected with any company but was in the employ of Gunn's Limited for 22 years and manager of the beef department of the Canada Packers for 5 years, stated that when in the employ of the Canada Packers he had eight purchasing agents under him. He even told the committee that the purchase price was fixed at a meeting held by these eight purchasing agents, after consulting with the agents of Swift Canadian Company. In giving evidence this gentleman, moreover, stated that the Canada Packers purchased 68 per cent of the goods which were shipped to the Toronto market, and that Swift Canadian purchased 32 per cent. Faced with the evidence

of an absolutely independent butcher such as Mr. Mackenzie, will the government not have the courage to put an end to the speculations of these profiteers? It might, perhaps, be stated: These companies purchase their goods at low prices, they are therefore in a position to sell them cheap and the consumer thereby benefits. But such is not the case and I know what I am talking about. Ever since this trust was formed, in 1927-1928, the companies of Gunn's Limited, Davies, Canada Packing and Harris Abattoir, are controlled by the Canada Packers. Previously, four salesmen travelled throughout Quebec in order to dispose of their goods, they came to Saint John as well as other cities. There were therefore four salesmen competing with one another. To-day, there is no more competition, we are at the mercy of one salesman or rather of two if we include one from Swift Canadian Company. As I stated just now, according to the evidence given by Mr. Mackenzie, the latter company purchases about 32 per cent of the goods sold in this country. For the remainder, the farmer, the breeder of hogs, calves and steers must accept the conditions of a company which purchase over 50 per cent of goods that are sold and which controls the market of butter, eggs, pork, hams, and all similar products. These two companies have no favours for small dealers, they are all for the trusts. They deal with the companies known as the Atlantic and Pacific, Dominion Stores, Stop and Shop, etc. These chain stores pay 1 cent or li cent cheaper than the small dealer, the corner grocery store, and carry on an unfair competition by only selling for cash. Yet the government does not interfere! At present there is a committee of the house holding an inquiry, still the government introduces this bill before receiving the report of this committee.
I state, sir, that the government must necessarily consider this question and go to the root of the evil. The farmer is shamefully fleeced by the dairy and meat trusts. The government held an investigation in connection with coal companies and what was the result?
They did not even have the courage to lay on the table of the house this report, it was hidden away. An inquiry was held on tobacco, and when a member requested that this report be tabled, it was held back for a long time. Does the government lack courage?
When it is a question that might effect the interests of large subscribers to the election funds or friends who stand high in the conservative party the government shows a lack of courage.

Marketing Act-Mr. Rheaume
In the inquiry on coal it was proved that the people of Quebec were being fleeced. The small dealer is not guilty in this connection, he simply is an agent for a wholesale merchant and the latter fixes the price. There are never two agencies, in the same city, for coal which bears the same trade mark, probably because this might create some competition. As trusts prefer to deal among themselves, it is practically impossible for the small coal dealer to make both ends meet, and the consumer is the one who is fleeced.
I wish to again refer to the statements made before the committee. If hon. members opposite desire, they may read the evidence which was given by Mr. McLean, president of the Toronto Packing Co., at a sitting of the committee, held on March 7, 1934. This witness stated that there was no agreement between companies, yet Mr. Mackenzie asserted that sometimes it was agreed beforehand to pay half a cent or one cent less per pound of meat. Do hon. members opposite realize what half a cent or one cent less per pound means? On a average steers that are sold on the market weigh 1,000 pounds; one cent less per pound makes a difference of $10 per head. This means that a farmer who has eight steers for sale is only paid for what five steers would sell and therefore is giving three away. That is where the evil lies.
The intention is to fix the prices. I have here the Trade Information Bulletin for April 21, 1934. At page 243 under the heading "Trade imports of meat and cattle of the United Kingdom," I find the following paragraph :
One does not always realize that chilled beef is not considered or dealt with like a product which can be kept in storage. Its condition is at its best after its arrival on the British market. A committee of distributors on the Smithfield market fixes the quantity which should be offered each day for sale, and the placing of these quantities is done as much as possible in proportion to the tonnage which each consignee disposes. What is offered for sale each day is sold and the sales effected as a matter of course at the end of each business day, so as to market the stocks for that day; this is done at times at a much lower level.
How can one fix the prices of meat on the market? If the quantity of meat offered for sale on the market is too large one day what would happen if all sales were suspended or should it be decided that not a steer or calf graded as first quality should be sold less than five cents per pound? When a farmer or a dealer ships a carload of calves to the Montreal or Toronto market and those companies do not require them or will not pay five cents per pound, what becomes of the calves? Will the farmer stuff them in his pockets and
bring them back home? Someone might say: Slaughter them and put them in cold storage. Will this remedy the evil? This meat to be kept in storage must first be frozen, and when frozen it will not command the price of fresh meat. To keep it in cold storage? That means a further outlay, as someone must take care of this meat. If it is left in cold storage two, three, four, five or six months, what will be the cost? Will this meat then be put on the market and compete with fresh meat? When an hon. member wishes to purchase a piece of fresh veal, he will not accept frozen meat instead if he happens to know the difference. I see the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin) who nods his head affirmatively. I know that he is a connoisseur, and enjoys a good* meal. Even if he were told that fresh veal sells 20 cents per pound, while frozen veal 10 cents per pound, if he wants fresh meat he will pay the higher price.
This veal which has remained in cold storage for five or six months has to be Eold. What will be the price? In fact, it would have been more profitable to the farmer to accept four cents at first and return home with the money in his pocket. If he happens to be a dealer, will the bank loan him the money? Probably, but at a rate of seven per cent, payable each month. After six months of cold storage, he will not be able to sell his meat at a price to cover the cost of the storage and the interest he has paid out. If a real remedy is sought, new markets must be found.
I quote another excerpt of the evidence given by Mr. McLean, president of the Canada Packers:
Canada has an annual surplus of 250.000 head, and every year up to 1929, Canada shipped to the United States or to England-mainly to the United States-250,000 head. The Fordney-MeCumber tariff closed'-first partly and then totally-the United States market, to our cattle; and the only market we now have is the very limited market of the United Kingdom which is not to be despised, under the present circumstances. Were we able to ship 100,000 head per year to that country beef would sell 3 or 4 cents more.
Mr. McLean is not a Liberal, he is a good Conservative. He is a friend of the financier, Sir Joseph Flavelle. What does he suggest? He suggests to open up new markets. We will then easily dispose of our products. The trusts must be wiped out and competition must be free. As I stated just now, what was done in Toronto where there are four salt meat establishments? They were merged, and to-day, the farmer is fleeced. That is where the evil lies.
Marketing Act-Mr. Rheaume


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: Will the hon. member allow me to put a question to him?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Certainly.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Will the hon. member be so kind as to inform the house whether he is arguing in favour or against the bill?


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Against it. There is nothing in the bill which might help the farmers. From the very outset of my speech, I think, I made this clear. If the trusts in connection with the marketing of milk, butter and eggs are abolished, prosperity will return to our rural districts. Open up markets. The house has heard the statement of Mr. McLean to the effect that there is only one way to enhance the price of beef from $3 to $4 per cwt; it is to open up markets. When we had markets under the Liberal regime, did the farmers complain? Were not the workmen employed? It is futile to endeavour to cure a patient if the ill is unknown. And the farming class suffers from the greatest ill. The moment the farmer loses his purchasing power, the manufacturer cannot dispose of his goods and the workmen cannot work. There is but one solution, open up markets. Give our manufacturers the advantage of exporting their goods so as to give work to our people. Workmen are not inclined to be stingy, when they have money they spend freely. During the war they paid potatoes $7 a bag and as much as 80 cents a pound for butter. In those days they were earning and 74726-163
could afford to pay such prices. To-day they can purchase potatoes at 40 cents a bag but they have not 5 cents in their pocket.
Before submitting a bill like the one under consideration, which means nothing and is simply an empty piece of legislation, let the government carry out the scheme suggested by the Ministers of Agriculture of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) no doubt is personally acquainted with the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan who has offered to cooperate with him and moreover, is not a Liberal. If the government will not accept the cooperation of members on this side, let them accept that of the hon. Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan. No doubt he is a good Tory.
My suggestions sir, are these: let the government abolish the trusts, let them do as in the United States get down to work. I am not against the capital system. No, however, I am opposed to organizations which fleece the people, the producer and the consumer.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, very early in this debate it became apparent that His Majesty's opposition was a party of divided counsel; that it did not speak with one voice because apparently it possessed little or no unanimity. In fact, four distinct positions have been disclosed during the course of the debate. First, there is the position of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King); second, there is the position of the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance); third, there is the position of the hon. members for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) and Ontario (Mr. Moore), and, finally, there is the position adopted by the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), which is entirely different from the other three.
The position of the leader of the opposition was stated very clearly at the commencement of his speech. He does not object to the principle of the bill as we understand its principle, but he does object to certain features which spring from that principle. I mention this because at the commencement of his speech the hon. member for Ontario stated that he had not observed that his leader had approved the principle of the bill. What is

Marketing Act-Mr. Bury

the principle of the bill? It is simply the regulation and control of the movement and marketing of goods to the export markets. The hon. member for Ontario made it very clear that that is what he conceived it to be because in explaining why he would not follow the argument of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), he stated that he would not do so because he wished to confine himself entirely to the principle of the bill. From then on I think I can say truthfully that his speech was confined exclusively to the merits or demerits of control or interference with the individual freedom of the producer and with marketing. On the principle as so stated the leader of the opposition not only declared his own personal attitude but spoke, whether with authority or not, I cannot say, for his whole party. He said: "Liberals stand for regulation and control," and later on: "It is generally agreed that regulation is necessary." Once you have established that principle, the other questions of the amount of control and authority to regulate which shall be given, the particular body in which that regulating power shall be vested, and the means, method and manner in which that regulating control shall be exercised, if properly speaking principles in the strict sense and not merely details, are at the best very subordinate principles which might very well be left to the committee stage.
The leader of the opposition placed great emphasis upon his objection to the bill because of its being an attack on the constitution. I think I am safe in saying that there has not been a major measure introduced in this house by this government, from the time it came into office in 1930 until the present time, to which that objection has not been raised by the leader of the opposition. So often and so regularly has it been made that I think hon. members, not only on this side but many of those opposite and the country at large, have come to the opinion that a constitution which has been so overworked should be given a rest-put out on grass for a while. The charge, however, has been answered very effectively by the hon. member for Regina. That hon. gentleman has smitten the right hon leader of the opposition between the joints of his harness and, to add insult to injury has done it with a shaft taken out of the opposition leader's own quiver. I am aware of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Marketing Act of 1922 is no longer in force; I am aware also of the fact that the argument of the hon. member for Regina is not an absolute answer, being a 
tu quoque one. And we on this side of the house would be the last people in the world to think that because the leader of the opposition had adopted certain principles and had embodied them in a bill, therefore they were sound ones and we should be right in following his example in our legislation. While that is all true, there is a measure of poetic justice in a man being levelled by a shaft which his own fingers have feathered. And the right hon. gentleman's harness is uncomfortably full of joints and his quiver inconveniently full of just that particular kind of shaft.
The second argument which the leader of the opposition levelled as an objection to the bill was that it restricted marketing and made for monopolies. I am going to ask the house in its sheer, cold sanity to answer this question:	Which course is more calculated
to restrict marketing and to make for monopolies, the course in which every producer and exporter is allowed to produce and export whatever he chooses regardless of quality, of grade, of condition, of volume or of time, insisting upon his own individual right to do what he likes with his own product, whenever he likes, in any measure he likes and in any way he likes? Or the course of regulating the flow of those products on to the market and of securing that their quality, their grade, their condition, the time of their delivery on the market, shall all be so chosen and so determined that their effect on the market shall be most beneficial to the traders and producers themselves? Only one answer can be made to that question, an answer which does not require any hesitation or doubt. The question itself carries its answer on its face. If you want to destroy, not to say restrict marketing, you will do it with a vengeance and with velocity, if you follow the first course, and the velocity will be an increasing one until it stops altogether by reason of the process of exhaustion because there is no more trade to restrict; it will all have gone. As to monopolies, is the policy of the bill calculated to produce monopolies? I am not a business man and therefore I speak with bated breath and whispering humbleness in the presence of men who have forgotten more business knowledge than I ever had or ever shall have, but it appears to me that the conditions that make for monopolies are not so much the conditions of prosperous trade, when the individual, robust, lusty and ambitious trader is able to make a profit and to remain in business and continue competition-not that condition of things, but such a condition of

Marketing Act-Mr. Bury
trade that the profits of trade dwindle and almost disappear, when individual traders are wiped out because of that, and men who remain in business are forced to combine in order if possible to preserve a little bit of the business that is still left. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that what will foster trade and promote its prosperity is not an influence that will make for monopoly; and in so far as it may do so, such monopolies can then be more easily dealt with and curtailed or restrained.
The right hon. gentleman advanced another argument which deserves some notice. He objects to the bill because it involves the extension of state functions, and he contends that the extension of governmental functions is absolutely impossible without bureaucracy. A moment ago I asked the house to consider and answer one question. I would ask the leader of the opposition to consider and answer another one which I now propose, and which, since he is not in the chamber, he may read, if he so desires, in Hansard. Was his own government, holding power from 1921 to 1930, a bureaucratic government? If he were here I should be able, I imagine, almost to feel even at this distance, the heat of indignation engendered by the question. To accuse the Liberal government, of which he was head from 1921 to 1930, of bureaucratic proclivities or practices, or of manifesting any symptom or sign of bureaucracy, is as near blasphemy as anything can be in political controversy. His government, the pure flower of unadulterated democracy, bureaucratic!
Yet let me remind the house that the whole history of the development of government has been nothing more than the extension of the powers of the government and of the state. When you go back to the early history of British government and the evolution of British governmental institutions, back almost into the mists of early history, you discover that the functions of government were very simple, very few, rudimentary and crude. To keep the king's peace between the lieges of the realm; to defend the realm and the lieges of the realm from attack from foreigners; to raise levies and dues that were proper to the king for himself personally and as representing the state, for the maintenance of his dignity and for the well-being of the state; and to dispense civil justice as between liege and liege-these, in brief, were the simple and few functions of government at its beginning. And the whole process of history has been to add to them century by century.
Did anyone raise the cry of bureaucracy in the House of Commons of Canada until 1934?
74726-163J
I had not heard so. The right hon. gentleman stepped into a government that had grown by this process, yet he never seeimed to experience the slightest difficulty or inconvenience about exercising its functions because it was bureaucratic. Does he think he can stop this movement to-day? He cannot stop it. It must go on; government must take to itself greater powers and rights for the well-being of the people as a whole. In his horror of bureaucracy the right hon. gentleman went out of his way, no doubt through sheer kindness, to give a warning to the leader, or one of the leaders of the group in the comer. He told the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that this bill was not conceived or framed or brought into the house for the ostensible purposes for which it appears to have been brought in. No; it was brought in as a web to catch the unwary feet of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. What a hope! I am not going to follow the right hon. gentleman in his argument, for the realm of cobwebs is one in which he is far more at home than am I. His whole speech was filled with them, fine-spun theories which he wished us to take for facts, and gossamers which he wished us to accept and build upon as substance. Well, spinning and weaving are very admirable and interesting occupations. They kept one lady very much out of trouble for twelve years while her husband was gadding about in foreign parts. To prolong her task she found indeed that she had to unweave what she had woven. I think sometimes that the right hon. gentleman himself often follows her example and unweaves much of what he had previously so vigorously woven. But while it may be interesting as a pastime, I suggest that if he wants this house and the people of this country and even some of the members of his own party to hang the whole weight of the trade of Canada on the fine filaments he has spun in his brain here in this chamber, not this party nor the country nor I think many of his followers will be willing to take that risk.
Let me turn to another objection which he has advanced. It is the objection that a certain local group in this country can devise a scheme and force it as law upon society when it has been approved by the minister. Well, there are just a few small mistakes in that statement; they are very trifling and not of much moment. It is not a scheme that is enforced on anyone. It is a law. It is not enforced on society, as I understand it, but on a group of producers. Nor is it en-
Marketing Act-Mr. Bury

forced when the minister approves it; it is not enforced and does not become law until the governor in council approves it. If I do not shock the modest susceptibilities of hon. members may I illustrate it in this way: It is conceived as a scheme by the local body; but it may be stillborn. If the obstetrical science and skill of the dominion board brings it to a healthy birth, it still is only a scheme and not a law. Not until the governor in council cuts the umbilical cord does it become a separate entity with a really separate, independent existence, and then it, as Shakespeare's "Pity" in Macbeth, "like a naked new-born babe, comes striding the blast." Then it becomes law. And when it becomes law, it becomes so not because it is a scheme of a local board, nor because it is a scheme that has been approved by the Minister of Agriculture, nor yet because it is a scheme that has been blessed and sent forth by the governor in council; it becomes law by virtue of a statute of this house, passed by the other place and assented to by the crown.
Before I leave that, may I say this further word: the right hon. gentleman objects very strongly to the idea of compulsion, compulsion that is by any authority other than parliament, which, of course, can exercise all the compulsion it wishes. All I can say is that one member and he, by no means the least stalwart or vocal of his followers, who represents the riding of South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), is at issue with him there. The hon. member for South Battleford said very frankly: Why, that is the reason the wheat pool failed; it failed because it had not compulsion; we want compulsion and we want it, not by parliament but by the producers. Oh, oh! Who speaks now about the danger of monopolies? In the bill the compulsion is not by the producers but by parliament in a certain way after certain safeguards have been observed. But let me come back to the hon. member for South Battleford. He
is,	I am afraid, the Achan in his leader's camp. He has cast lustful eyes on that accursed thing, compulsion, which he wants for himself and his fellow producers. And he is brave, bold; he knows his opinions and does not fear to voice them. When he sees his right hon. leader coming through the [DOT]camp searching for the accursed thing, compulsion, to find where it is hidden and housed, he comes boldly out of his tent door and asks: "What are you looking for?" "I am looking for the accursed thing, compulsion." "Well," he answers, "I have it right in here; what are you going to do about it? Are you going to take it away from me? I found
it,	or at least, if I did not find it, I got it.

It is my wedge of gold and Babylonish garment, and I can't see why you should take it from me." What will the right hon. gentleman do? He cannot very well ask the ground to open up and swallow the hon. member and the accursed thing, because the ground might open up too widely and might swallow him as well as his recalcitrant follower, and the wedge of gold and Babylonish garment.
We will leave my right hon. friend himself to extricate himself from that dilemma; because I wish to deal with another objection raised by him. It is this, that the definition of "natural products" includes boots and furniture. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard that. I turned up the clause in question to read the wording of the definition. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) dealt with the matter in part, but he dealt with it only on the assumption that it came within the second limb of the definition which has to do with food and drink. Nobody for a minute ever supposed boots or furniture could very well come under the category of food or drink. Then it must come, if it comes anywhere, under the first limb of the definition, and how does that read? It reads thus:
"Natural product" means any product of agriculture or of the forest, sea, lake or river.
And there we stop. How can we get boots and furniture into that definition? Well, I give the right hon. gentleman a present of the furniture, but I should like to say something about the boots. As I was thinking over the matter a ray of light

perhaps that is an understatement-a flood of light swept into my darkened understanding and I wondered how it was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) had overlooked such a palpable fact; for though this may not be so in his part of the west, there is in my part a little plant which grows in the woods and on the prairies and which they call lady's slipper. And after all, it is no strain of English or of concepts to pass by a quite simple, rapid and short transition from lady's slippers to ladies' shoes and from ladies' shoes to ladies' boots and from ladies' boots to men's shoes and from men's shoes to men's boots, and there you are.


Mr. McINTOSH:: And Dutchmen's breeches.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If a responsible leader of a responsible party thinks it well to argue along such lines, I hesitate to say what effect his other arguments will have upon the ordinary men of the street or upon the ordinary members who sit on the back benches of this side of the house. For me it certainly discounts much of his other reasoning.

Marketing Act-Mr. Bury
May I turn for a minute, in the time that is left to me, to the speeches of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). When I listened to the hon. member for Weyburn I could not help thinking of two works of English literature. There was an Englishman who lived at the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth century named Edward Young, I have no doubt an ancestor of my hon. friend. He is known to posterity and literature as the author of a very voluminous work, I think in nine volumes; I never had the courage to read them because I have nightmares enough naturally without adding to them artificially. His work is entitled Night Thoughts. The second work that was brought to my recollection in hearing the hon. gentleman's speech was a very exquisite little lyric of two verses written by an Englishman who died in 1921 and who therefore was a man of just yesterday, F. W. Bourdillon, whose lines are known to nearly everyone in the house:
The night has a thousand eyes,
The day but one.
The second verse commences:
The mind has a thousand eyes,
The heart but one.
And the moral of the verses is that the thousand eys are no good and the only eye that is good to give light either in physical or in moral or mental matters is in the one case the one eye of the day, and in the other the single eye of the heart. It seemed to me, as the hon. gentleman was speaking, that in order to damn a bill with whose principle he absolutely disagreed, instead of addressing himself to the principle, he went back to his ancestor and to Bourdillon and borrowed the thousand eyes of his ancestor's night to scrutinize meticulously and microscopically every clause and subclause, every phrase and word which might by any conceivable method of misrepresentation or twisting be made liable to abuse. Then he heaped all those words and phrases, clauses and subclauses, with their gigantic and innumerable possibilities of abuse on the floor in the centre of the chamber and asked: How can you gentlemen pass a bill that is liable to such enormous and multitudinous abuses? May I just remind the hon. gentleman through Hansard, because he is not present, that there has never been an act put on the statute books of this country, passed by this house and by the upper house, that has not been almost in every clause capable of abuse. If you are not to pass
any bills because they are capable of abuse, you will never pass any bill in the House of Commons of Canada.
Now I should like to say a word or two with regard to the very moving and weighty speech of the hon. member for Ontario. The hon. gentleman is an avowed apostle of laissez-faire; you might sum up all that he had to say by way of argument on this bill in two words: "Hands off." Don't interfere with the principle of free production and free marketing by the individual. The work of production and of marketing are the twin arks of the cult of industry and trade, and the impious hands of no government, nor of any board created by a government, must be allowed to be stretched out to touch them for the purpose of steadying them, however much the carts on which they go may threaten to overturn. But a hundred pairs of other hands, thrust forward from every direction over the whole of this dominion, animated by any and every motive that may be conceived and, working for any different end, may push and jostle, shake and rock those arks to imminent disaster, and yet nothing will happen. Why? Because nature, as she has laws in the physical world, has laws in the economic world also, and nature will so operate through her economic laws, under and through, over and upon these two hundred hands working from different directions and for different ends, as to resolve all their conflicting forces into one resultant which will establish steadiness and progress.
That is a wonderful picture, Mr. Speaker, but is it anything else? Have we not known in the history of Canadian trade and of the trade of other countries that this theory will not work? Have not other countries awakened to that fact and determined to put into operation the principle which is embodied in this bill? Are we not to-day facing the competition of those other countries? What will be the fate of our trade unless we are prepared to adopt the part of wisdom and regulate our exports?
Let me take another line. I am not now concerned with the producers; I am con-concerned only with the great mass of humanity in Canada whose welfare depends upon the trade of this country. Burke has a wonderful phrase, true in part and false in the remainder. He speaks about a great body of people "who have been doomed by providence to live upon trust." I deny the "doom" as I deny the "providence;" but I admit the "trust." I cannot think of a more tragic condition than that great numbers of the people



'COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Marketing Act-Mr. Bury
of this country, for the last four years and more, have been compelled to live so terribly upon trust. Most of us here do not have to live upon trust; we have something more substantial at our backs. There is no need for trust in our case, and therefore we do not know what it means for a man to come home day by day, week by week and not know whether or not he will have a job next week or next month. People who, by hard work and thrift, saved a little money, bought their own homes and put by a little money in the bank for a rainy day have been forced out of employment in the last four years and have seen their little reserves dwindle away as a man sees the blood flow from his body through a wound, sees himself get whiter and whiter and wonders whether any person will come to staunch the flow before the blood is all gone. Many of these people came long ago to the day when they had to go home and say, "I am out of a job." They still had their little home and a little money in the bank, but how long does that last? Taxes mount up; the little money in the bank goes and finally they lose their home. Then they have to live, not upon trust because they have nothing to trust, but upon relief. I can imagine what this must mean to a man and woman who have never gone through that experience before; who, almost to the days of their old age, have been self-sufficient, selfsupporting and self-respecting, and who have never asked for help from anyone. Now, because of economic conditions, they are in danger of losing their self respect, their sense of self confidence and their morale. It is nothing to laugh about. So I say that if this bill will do one ounce of good in the improvement of the trade of this country I will support it with my whole heart.
That is what we need1; we must have improvement in our trade. We cannot play fast and loose with the trade of Canada, and if that trade is suffering by reason of uncontrolled marketing in foreign markets and in Great Britain, the only great market we have to-day, then I say it is the duty of this house and of this country to support any measure that will bring back trade and that will enable us, in competition with the regulated trade of other countries, to secure that which we have been given a chance of securing and keeping through those gTeat imperial agreements which were obtained by this government two years ago.
I am afraid I have trespassed1 unduly on the time of the house, but I should like to add one remark. The right hon. leader of

the opposition speaks of this bill as a breach of constitutional right and custom, and others characterize it as a radical, revolutionary measure. I say it is not a radical, revolutionary measure; it was as inevitable as the rising of the sun. It is the correlative of the demand1 on the part of the producers for the assistance of the government. The moment any body of producers comes to a government and says, "We are a key industry of this country, and the well-being of the country depends upon our 'being able to carry on our business successfully," whether they be wheat producers, coal producers or any other body oi producers, at that moment is created the right of the government and of the people of the country, the taxpayers whose money must be used for this purpose, to say, " We have the right to know that your business is being carried on efficiently and economically, and that our money will not ibe thrown down a sink hole." That is an absolute correlative right enuring to any government as the result of any form of assistance, whether it be by means of subsidies, lower freight rates made possible only by government payments or anything else; it is the right of the taxpayer who supplies the money to see that the business of the producers and exporters is carried on as effectively and economically as possible.
I can imagine the individual producer meeting the first representative of the board with the question, " Who are you?" The answer, of course, would be, " Weil, I represent the marketing board," to which the producer replies, " What do you want?" The inspector answers, "I want to see what you are exporting; I want to see your product. You must have it graded, 'because we are trying to prevent low grade products, or products of inferior quality or in inferior condition from going to the markets of Great Britain."
Mr. VALLANCE:: The producer would
put the dog on the inspector.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: His answer to that-if the
hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Val-lance) can contain himself-is this: "These are my products; you did not raise them. I raised them on my farm, by my work, and I paid for the labour with my money. They are my products. And that market across the Atlantic ocean, in Great Britain, is my market." That is what he says. Is he right? I say emphatically he is not right. It is not his market; it is the market of the Canadian people. It is the market which every other producer may use equally with him, and he has no business, no legal right, no moral right

Marketing Act-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
by wrong and careless marketing of his products to injure that market for all other producers.


Mr. PAUL MEROIER (St. Henri) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the preamble of this bill No. 51, under consideration reads as follows:
An act to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
I see in this bill a total upheaval of trade in Canada. Up to the present, our Canadian trade was highly organized. We have in London, a High Commissioner, in other countries, like France, Japan and the United States, legations; in every country trade commissioners ; provinces have even their own trade agents in all European countries. The provinces of our Confederation have burdened their budget in order to send to these countries of Europe and even Asia, representatives, experts in trade, who keep in close touch with the provinces in order to market most advantageously the products of this country. The department of Agriculture was in the best of shape when he left office in 1930. Heads of industries also did their utmost to carry on trade relations so as to sell their products on the markets of the Empire and Europe. To-day, in considering this bill, I find that the situation in Canada seems desperate; the government desires to upset and reorganize everything, it is intended to set aside provincial cooperative societies and other associations of farmers organized not only to improve farming methods but also to instruct farmers in the best methods to sell their products on the Canadian markets. All this is to be set aside and trade conditions in Canada are to be regulated.
First, the principle of the bill is wrong, it is wrong because it interferes with the practices and the privileges of the province of our Confederation. It is wrong because it invades the prerogatives of provincial governments which have organized their own methods of farming in connection with dairy products, cattle breeding and all things connected with agriculture and the dairy industry. Moreover, this bill sets up federal interference in private organizations. I contend that the government has no right to act thus, that this bill is ultra vires, nor has it the right-as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Bury) has just stated- to tell the farmers: Your products do not belong to you, they are the property of every body. Since the effort was a personal one,
the farmers should have the right to trade as they please. In these times of modernism, when everywhere are to be found innovators whose ideas have absolutely nothing practical and who advocate principles which cannot be put into practice, the government delights in innovating everything with this bill which, if it were a declaration in a judicial case, it would be subject to as many motions for particulars as there are paragraphs.
I should not like to leave to my children a will thus drawn, because not one of the executors of any court of justice could understand it sufficiently to honestly apply the provisions affecting the various heirs.
Let us examine this bill. What is sought by it? What is the object? What is the Deus ex machina? I should like to meet the person who invented this scheme, the person who taught such principles to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and sought to create such privileges. Perchance are the tariff barriers of our country so high as to prevent our products being exported to the countries of Europe where they could be sold at a profit? Are the agreements of the Imperial Conference, held in Ottawa, not giving the results expected, is the sale of our Canadian products so small that our warehouses, to-day, are too full, and are we producing too much, because consumers have seen their purchasing power decrease?
Does the government wish, by means of this bill, to increase the price of our commodities or natural products? Then it would be a boom for the farmer. However, one must consider those who will purchase these products regulated by the Marketing Board and increase their purchasing power. This purchasing power is too restricted in this country, at present. We have not enough consumers, yet the government wishes to regulate exports and imports. I state that we will have to face a chaos in trade. Never will this be a success in this country, even if it be given a fair trial. This bill is simply a substitution to present to the farmers a sham Messiah just as the government presented to the unemployed in 1930. Some members were lucky enough to slide to Ottawa on butter. Today, the farmers are offered, with the idea of buttering them in the next election campaign, a new scheme which will disappear with the last ballot-box.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: The hon.
member forgets to state that his party slid down the valley of humiliation.
2578	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)


Mr. BOULIOT (Translation):: We are not in the valley of humiliation, we are on the war path.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: We shall
carry the war to Temiscouata.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay) is very snappish. He states that we slid down the valley of humiliation.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Your leader is aware of it.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: My leader made a statement which the hon. member did not understand. He did not contend that it was a valley of humiliation when the question of the Beauharnois inquiry came up, but that it was a short stay in a valley where the sides were steep, however, we have climbed them. May I suggest to the hon member for Lake St. John, notwithstanding all the esteem I have for him, that he should have a good look at the ceiling of this house, because, after the next election, he will never see it again.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I will expect you to help me in my county.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: He is not
at your mercy.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Be quiet,
there.


Joseph-Ernest-Henri LaRue: It is seldom
that you keep quiet yourself.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: If we examine this bill, we find that it is divided into four parts. The first, is the minister-one that is not designated, a shadow minister. This bill seems one of the harbinger signs of the result of the inquiry on the spread of prices. Ploughing is done in a very abnormal way in the House of Commons. We are at the plough while awaiting the horses which are held up in committee. This time, so as to be practical and conform to their scheme of upsetting everything, our opponents have put the cart before the horses.
Will this shadow minister be the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce? We do not know for he is not designated. Secondly, the Dominion Marketing Board; thirdly, the local board under the supervision of the dominion board; fourthly, the provincial marketing board. If these four working parts were put in a watch, I would feel sorry for the hands. It would never stop, the watch would never need winding. Section 3 of the bill reads as follows:

The governor in council may establish a board to be known as the Dominion Marketing Board to regulate the marketing of natural products as hereinafter provided.
But where are all our trade treaties? It strikes me that this is the home market, the local market of which we heard so much when we sat on your right, sir. However, this home market seems to have disappeared. The government intends to take possession of markets, create numerous channels, organize a commercial system, like a cartwheel, the nave of which will be the governor in council. No mention is made of the number of persons who will form part of this board; we do not know whence these people, these experts will come.
For some time past we have seen many experts in Canada, especially since 1930. For our banking affairs, the government sought an expert overseas in England. For our national ports inquiry the government also went overseas. There were no competent civil engineers in Canada. Where are we drifting to? There was another expert from overseas in connection with the last investigation. Briefly, there are no experts in Canada! Yet, there are men who have attained fame, highly gifted men, in this country, who could have been chairmen of these various commissions. Shall we again cross overseas to find a man having had experience with a marketing board so as to preside over the destinies of this Dominion Marketing Board? Paragraph 5 of section 3 reads as follows:
The board may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such technical, professional and other officers and employees as the board may deem necessary or desirable, and such persons shall receive such salaries or remuneration as may be fixed by the board with the approval of the governor in council.
If we possess such men in this country, where are they? In the various departments? Why not allow Canada's commercial organization to remain as it is. Since confederation we have been putting into practice new and improved methods. Why destroy everything in 1934? Why renovate everything? I see no reason to set aside a long experience in trade, agriculture and mines so as to carry out innovations wtih this marketing bill which no one can understand; it is not clear and absolutely impractical.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Hear,
hear.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Salaries will be fixed by order in council. What will become of the authority of parliament? What will become of parliament it-

Marketing Act-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
self? This board will build, purchase and sell. If buildings are constructed and it is desired to get rid of them, they may be sold. And this without being authorized to do so, when according to the statutes and the regulations of the various departments, no work can be carried out costing over $5,000, without asking for tenders, and no rural postoffice can be constructed costing $500 or $1,000, without having the item placed in the estimates and voted. I think it is shameful. To my mind, this provision of this bill detracts from the principles of good faith and sincerity established by our parliamentary usages heretofore. I contend that to act in such a way is to set aside parliament and its authority. This marketing board should not be controlled by a minister who can do any thing he pleases by virtue of this bill, even change a man into a woman. Under the circumstances, at least, parliament should be the legislative body to supervise the operations of this Board and thus protect the producer, consumer, exporter and importer. Section 4 is a whole chapter by itself, it could serve as an epitaph for this government after it has passed away. It is as follows:
The board shall, subject to the provisions of this act, have power (a) to regulate . . .
Listen to this,-it is amazing!
... to regulate the time and place of marketing .. .
The time and place of marketing certain natural products, this will be very fine with the various climatic changes existing in different parts of this country! The crop of Quebec strawberries will be very late.
to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality or grade of the regulated product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality;
Absolutely, dictatorial powers! Together with the marketing board the minister will decide what products should be marketed, when, where, how and at what period. Does the government want all the producers of Canada to quarrel among themselves? Does it think it can regulate the marketing of farm products in such a way? What a hue and cry will rise on all sides! The enforcement will be a risky one and, under the circumstances, the farming class to which the government wants to show some favour, will never be satisfied. The government will be unable to help them with the enforcement of such an act.
Let us examine the privileges conferred on this board:
(b)	to exempt from any determination or order any person . . .
The big man who slips out by the small gate!
from any determination or order any person or class of persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product or any class, variety or grade of such product;
That is quite a privilege! In the first paragraph it is explicit, all will be regulated; in the second paragraph, there is one exception, some will benefit by such a privilege. Who will they be? I should like to have a reply from some of my government friends of Quebec who support the government, they must have closely studied this bill. I should like to see them rise in the house so as to explain to us who are the people that will be compelled to go to the market with their natural products, at what period, place, date and with what kind of products and who are the persons that will be exempt. I wonder:
(c)	to compensate any person for loss sustained by exporting, storing or withholding from the market any product pursuant to any determination or order of the board;
Is the government prepared for an avalanche of claims and complaints? And inquiries galore! It will 'be worse than a coach-establishment so numerous will be the complaints! All will complain because all will have grievances. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickle) will not sell his heifers dear, I can assure him, and he will no more complain as he did the other day in the house.
(d)	to compensate any person in respect of any shipment made pursuant to any determination or order of the board to a country whose currency is depreciated, in relation to Canadian currency, for loss due to such depreciation;
What will be the cost to the government? Will this deflate our currency? I think it is deflated at present. If we are going to trade with European countries whose currency has depreciated, ours will also depreciate, this country will be the loser, and so will be the exporters.
(e)	to assist by grant or loan the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, storing, or conditioning the regulated product and to assist research work relating to the marketing of such product;
But we have wheat elevators at Fort William, Churchill, Vancouver, Montreal, Prescott, and even at Sorel; we also have cold storage plants in Montreal and here and there throughout the country. Shall we build more of them when we have enough to store our products that are to be exported but await a more favourable market?
2580	COMMONS
Marketing Act-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
Were I requested to sign a convention or a deed of sale containing so many obscure terms, I would not sign it and would also advise my client not to do so.
Now, how will this bill function? Section 5: "Marketing scheme." It is always a question of schemes; we hear nothing of realization; the government ploughs the desert and expects prosperity which is always around the comer. We see its shadow but it never appears and I think it will only come after the next Dominion elections.
5. (1) A representative number of persons engaged in the production and marketing or the production or marketing of a natural product may petition the governor in council to approve a scheme for the regulation of the marketing of such natural product by a local board under the supervision of the board.
Who will be these representative persons? I think I shall 'have to put the question to the "Key of Dreams," to a prophet or fortune teller. Who will be these representative persons who will request the minister to order that the price of a natural product be reduced on the local market and be regulated by a local" board? Further on we find that previous to approving a scheme, the governor in council must be convinced. All depends on the governor in council; the people have not a word to say in the matter. The importer will only import what he is told to import; he will bring into the country only the goods that the government wish to be imported, moreover, he will have to obtain a licence, because should he import without this licence he will be prosecuted and liable to a fine of from $25 to $500, or else go to jail. In these times of post-war freedom, when all countries seek the means to rebuild; renovate, to cultivate good friendship, it is not very encouraging for the farmer, the producer and importer to be drawn into this regulated scheme. No mention is made of the consumer in this bill. Industries also are left out. Nothing is mentioned which might bring back progress and prosperity .to this country.
The consumer seeks work and not the dole. The small property owner is at bay and those who have set aside a few dollars, honestly earned by the sweat of their brows, will see their money disappear. Second mortgage loans have no value to-day, and will be a total loss at the very first sheriff sale or given in payment to the first mortgagee.
However the governor in council must weigh everything before giving his decision, and all will depend upon the representative persons who will come before him so that he may decide what products will be put on the local market.

As to the provinces, the government relies on section 10. Note the stupidity of it:
10. Whenever a scheme relates to an area of production which is confined within the limits of one province, the governor in council may authorize any marketing board or agency under the law of the said province to be, and to exercise the functions of, a local board with reference to the said' scheme, and such provincial board or agency may be authorized to collect charges for services rendered in respect of all or any of the products subject to its regulation by reason of the aforesaid scheme.
Is there in Canada, one province in which a natural product is exclusively grown? Wheat is grown in the prairie provinces, but there are three provinces and, in Quebec wheat is grown for the requirement of the farm and that of the baker. Wheat is grown on a large scale in the west. The world's former granary has now become Canada's too full granary. There exists no product exclusively grown in the limits of one province and one can foresee that this section will never be applied.
If this bill in its enforcement has no practical purpose, I wonder why it was introduced in the House. No government will ever succeed to put it into force.
I still have faith in our Dominion and provincial Ministers of Agriculture, in our Trade Commissioners stationed in almost all European countries, who endeavoured by all possible means to extend our trade and advertise our products abroad. Our world trade crisis would not be so serious if our tariffs had not been so high ever since 1930. We are behind a wall, as I stated at the outset of my remarks. We shall be involved in a general upheaval, and the proof of this is the fact that we shall be obliged to indemnify exporters for losses sustained because the products they had to market were not the best quality. This means that part of these claims will come under direct assistance so far as farm products are concerned and which are only good enough for rural local markets and cannot be graded high enough to be sold on our first class markets or exported. This will entail direct assistance so as to reimburse people who sustain losses because the products of their farm, forests, mines or fisheries are not allowed on the market. How will you satisfy the people in this debauchery of general remuneration?
I shall now, sir, close my remarks. I have frankly expressed my vieiws. I have no faith in the efficiency of this bill. It clashes with our past agricultural history. It is not a remedy for the ills of our farming class. It cannot increase the prices; even if it did, the

Marketing Act-Mr. Gagnon
farmer would have to pay dearer for industrial products which he would have to purchase, while the consumers in the cities will be unable to purchase sufficient to subsist since his purchasing power is not increased. Our currency which we so highly prized hitherto will be deflated like the currency of foreign countries with which we trade.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate because it was impossible to anticipate that such a measure as this, which will bring to the farmers of Canada such substantial advantages, would be so strenuously opposed by the opposition. I recall that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), who has had a large experience in agriculture, stated in this housS last year on two occasions that he was in favour of a marketing bill. Societies and associations of farmers and business men all over Canada have for many months, indeed years, been clamouring for just such a practical and beneficial measure as we have now before us, and now the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his Quebec supporters are unearthing constitutional reasons for opposing it.
When I read the other day in Mr. Tasche-reau's organ, the Montreal Gazette, the interview in which he made such a violent attack on the federal government, I thought it was my duty to state my reasons for voting for this bill. I do not desire to be accused of misquoting him; therefore I shall give his statement as reported in the press:
"I do not know of a worse blow to Canadian unity and to the spirit that presided over confederation," declared Mr. Taschereau here last night in alluding to the federal government's marketing bill. . . .
"I note with much apprehension for the peace and well being of confederation, legislation now being discussed at Ottawa. I do not want it said' I am entering upon the federal domain; it is primarily the most vital interests of the provinces that are not only in jeopardy but in danger.
"First, the marketing bill. Ottawa wants to take control all at once of our forests, our mines, our fisheries, and our natural products. It will be easy enough to say ' no,' to this, but one sees the attempt being made and the spirit animating the dominion government."
Further on he says:
"I do not know of a worse blow to Canadian unity and to the spirit that presided over confederation. The danger is at our doors."
That is the amazing statement that Mr. Taschereau is reported to have proffered. Such sweeping allegations are too amazing to carry conviction to the minds of the people of Quebec. Mr. Taschereau has condemned himself by his own actions. When Bill No. 51 which we are now discussing was first introduced into this house, many provincial governments sent to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) telegrams of approval and a great number of provincial legislatures then in session immediately passed unanimously the necessary enabling legislation in order that those provinces might cooperate with the federal government and their people enjoy the benefits of the marketing act. Mr. Taschereau himself, like the premiers of all the other provinces, received a copy of this bill, and what did he do? Did he denounce it in the Quebec house? Did he attempt then to show to the members of the Quebec assembly that this marketing board bill was detrimental to agriculture and industry and a blow to confederation? He merely expressed some doubts as to the propriety of the proposed legislation and immediately saw to it that the legislature unanimously pass a bill whereby the people of Quebec could cooperate with the federal government in the creation, operation and maintenance of a federal marketing board. The bill that was passed in the legislature of Quebec is bill No. 243, "an act to aid the putting into effect in this province of any federal act having as its object the marketing of the natural products of Canada and of any federal act respecting bankruptcy as regards compromises between creditors and debtors."
After Hon. Mr. Taschereau had taken such a commendable stand, he now turns round and in the most dramatic way asserts that confederation is threatened and the unity of Canada endangered by this bill. What logic! What consistency! If this bill were so bad, would it not have been the duty of the Quebec premier to refuse to pass the enabling legislation, which was nothing more or less than an approval of the federal measure? Nobody would have objected to Mr. Taschereau stating his reasons for refusing to commit his province to any policy which might destroy the so-called paramount rights of the province if such rights in his opinion were being encroached upon by the federal government. One might say that such views were highly hypercritical and were offered only for political reasons. However, I think the real motive for their utterance is the realization that the crisis is coming to an end, that unemployment is decreasing and, as the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) said a moment ago, prosperity is coming and is as inevitable as the rising of the sun above the horizon. The premier of Quebec

Marketing Act-Mr. Gagnon
will then be deprived of the opportunity of making capital out of the depression and playing politics with the relief granted for unemployment, and he does not conceal his disappointment. Wild statements such as these would do much to destroy the unity of the Canadian people if they were taken seriously by the people of Quebec. However, our people are used to such outbursts from Mr. Taschereau. He makes them on every occasion according to his mood and fancy.
Mr. Taschereau has said even more than that; he has commented upon the tax of ten per cent on gold. In the same interview he stated that "this ten per cent tax on gold beats all." I do not think I need comment any further upon that statement beyond saying that the federal government was granted the right of taxation by the British North America Act. The province of Quebec, like all provinces, receives a large subsidy from the dominion government. According to the estimates for 1934-35 this province will receive a subsidy of $2,592,013.68 which might be collected by way of taxation. Last year the deficit of Mr. Taschereau was about $7,000,000, and were he not receiving this subsidy, his deficit would be more than $9,000,000. When Mr. Taschereau makes such an amazing failure of his own administration, he has no right to attempt to teach a lesson to this government. I shall say only a word with respect to this tax as I shall comment further upon it during the debate on the budget. The only answer to be given to Mr. Taschereau's criticism is one which is clear, concise, obvious and unequivocal-we are going to take taxes off the farm and put a tax on gold. If Mr. Taschereau is not satisfied, we shall continue to do our duty.
On behalf of my native province I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) for having initiated such a commendable piece of legislation at such an opportune time. For a long time the farmers have been crying for help; we must think of them, we must encourage them, we must help them and we must save them. As has been said by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), the prosperity of industry depends upon the prosperity of the farm. If you save the farm, you save the country; we are going to save the farm and thereby save the country. I need not repeat what has been so clearly stated by my hon. friends on this side, that the purpose of this bill is to provide for the orderly marketing of farm produce in order to stop competition between producers, regularize production, improve the quality of farm products, regulate

exports and arrange and promote cooperation between producers so that they may be assured of a reasonable profit. This legislation will also eliminate the disparity which now exists between the costs of production and the prices received for farm products. Everyone admits that the low price of farm products is killing agriculture and destroying the economic life of this country. The bill now before the house is a bold measure with far-reaching consequences, but every one admits that the sad plight of the farmer requires bold, sweeping and appropriate remedies. When agriculture is struggling, statesmen must be awakened. In other words, this is not the time for long and fruitless speeches; it is the time for a prompt, bold and definite action. But our Liberal friends are afraid of action and they certainly deserve what has been said of them by one Liberal newspaper in Ottawa, the Ottawa Citizen. Listen to what this paper said on July 28, 1933, the anniversary of the grand, sweeping victory which took place on July 28, 1930. They say:
Nothing has been more pathetic in Canadian politics since 1930 than the failure oi Liberals in parliament to advance any effective alternative to the government's policy.
And later:
The self-satisfied ignorance of Liberals on other issues in world politics, as on the collapse of international finance, the progressive departure of nations from the gold standard, the revolutionary experience in national planning, particularly in Russia, Italy and the United States has done more to turn young people away from the Liberal party into the ranks of the C.C.F. than anything else.
That is what one Liberal organ thinks of the enlightened views of the Liberal party.
I can assure the Minister of Agriculture that this marketing bill is receiving the approval of the majority of the farmers of the province of Quebec. Yesterday the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) quoted the opinion of the distinguished president of the Catholic Union of Farmers of Quebec. He alluded also to the resolution which was passed unanimously by that association approving of the provisions of this bill. I shall not repeat what the hon. member said in that regard, but I should like to quote to the farmers of Quebec the opinions of associations of farmers in other provinces. I hold in my hand an article which appeared in the Farmer's Advocate, which is published in London, Ontario. This publication was first published in 1868 and has continued ever since without interruption. It states:
The agricultural marketing bill introduced in the House of Commons by Hon. Robert Weir,

Marketing Act-Mr. Gagnon
Minister of Agriculture, on March 26, has been described as ultra-modern and drastic, but it is not too modern and certainly not too drastic to meet the needs under the emergency conditions that exist in the primary markets of Canada. It is closely patterned after the British Agricultural Marketing Act and, moreover, it grants the powers and' establishes the marketing machinery for which agricultural organizations from one end of Canada to the other have been asking. It is a fine piece of up-to-date legislation and provides the solution for agricultural marketing problems that are causing anxiety in many branches of the industry to-day and in numerous districts where ruinous prices exist because the old-type marketing machinery is rickety and inadequate.
And again:
In the first place the proposed legislation at Ottawa provides for a marketing board which will have power to regulate exports and direct the organization and functioning of local marketing boards or schemes in Canada. Two illustrations will suffice to show how this board could be of distinct advantage to the agricultural industry. During the months of May, June and July we manufacture approximately 125 million pounds of butter in Canada. Our net exports for the year are in the neighbourhood of 3 million pounds, but this very small surplus is sufficient to depress prices to such an extent that dairy farmers lose $5,000,000 because of the thimbleful of butter which is over and above domestic market requirements. The home market is preferable and there is no one creamery man in Canada philanthropic enough to say, "I'll export all the butter I make and thus keep the market clear for all you other fellows." Moreover, there is no legislation under which a creamery man may be forced to export a quota or percentage of his make. Hon. Mr. Weir personally took the matter in hand last summer and quietly induced a number of creameries to export some butter. What appeared to be a threatening situation was thus relieved' and butter prices held higher than they otherwise would. A marketing board, endowed with reasonable powers, could achieve the same end much more expeditiously, with more justice to all butter makers, large and small, and with far greater advantage to the dairymen of Canada. Moreover, it is proposed to compensate those who incur a loss when exporting under orders of the board and, moreover, adjustments can be made by the board when sterling exchange is a further disadvantage to the Canadian exporter.
May I quote now from a publication which has a great reputation in Ontario; I refer to the Ontario Grower, which is published in Hamilton. Turning to the first page of the issue of April 10, 1934, I read:
Monday, March 26 will stand as a red' letter day in the history of Canadian agriculture.
On that date, Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, introduced in the House of Commons Bill 51, "An Act to Improve the Methods and Practices of Marketing of Natural Products in Canada and in Export Trade, and to make Further Provision in connection therewith." And thus was instituted a move toward the establishment of an administration of Canada's natural products but on a basis that is primarily voluntary in procedure.
If I quote now a few extracts from the editor's opinions you will see how much this piece of legislation is praised by farmers of all classes.
The new federal marketing act, officially known as the Natural Products Marketing Act, is now before parliament. It is a farreaehing measure, drastic in some of its clauses, radical in thought, but a piece of legislation that comes into being because of absolute necessity. The act is destined to help those industries which, apparently, cannot help themselves. It provides for the appointment of a federal marketing board to supervise, control and organize trade, to give some guidance and direction to producers, in order that production plans may harmonize with market requirements and to prevent, as far as possible, undue fluctuations in supply, should prove to be a step forward'. The act possesses a very important feature, inasmuch as it provides the opportunity for the producers of any commodity to become thoroughly organized, to gain complete control of the marketing of their product, and have a voice in trade policies governing that product.
May I also quote the opinion of a man whose reputation stands high in the city of Quebec, Mr. J. S. Royer, the distinguished president of the Canadian Fruit and Vegetable Jobbers' Association. At a convention of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce held in Toronto in the month of October he made a speech on marketing legislation which caused a sensation. I will quote a few extracts from it:
Mr. President,-
I have the honour to be the president of The Canadian Fruit and Vegetable Jobbers' Association, a trade association of wholesale fruit and vegetable dealers which has since its inception, ten years ago, held an associate membership in the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and has therefore followed very closely your valuable deliberations and conclusions.
For your information and probable enlightenment may I refer to the fact that imported fruits, having an average annual value at point of production over the past five years of some $20,000,006 and vegetables of some $6,000,000, have been handled by our members. In addition of course we distribute domestic fruits and vegetables of approximately the same value. Just here I would stress the point that while the five year average value of fruits is approximately $20,000,000, the rapid and consistent decline over the years is from approximately $26,000,000 in 1929 to but slightly over $11,000,000 in 1933, and while the average value of vegetables was $6,000,000, the decline has been from over $8,000,000 in 1930 to $4,000,000 in 1933. While values have decreased to this alarming extent I am satisfied that volume has been maintained, thus indicating a reduction in farm market values of at least 50 per cent. As a further indication of the extent of the business in which I am chiefly interested I will tell you that last year the city of Montreal alone consumed approximately 14,000 carloads of fruits and 8,000 carloads of vegetables.
The marketing of this vast volume of a highly perishable product is no simple task,

Marketing Act-Mr. Gagnon
particularly under the climatic conditions prevailing in Canada, and more particularly under present day conditions when the few remaining who have not been converted to the slogan "Fruit for Health" hesitate to buy what they consider to be a luxury and non-essential product.
While there are those who contend, and probably rightly so, that the present difficult position of agriculture is due in no small part to overproduction or surplus, I personally believe that in so far as fruits and vegetables are concerned the problem will find its solution through organized distribution. Dean Clement of the University of British Columbia recently defined a surplus as "that part of any crop or commodity which cannot be sold at a price which would pay for its production." If one accepts this definition then one must also believe that almost the entire fruit and vegetable crop of Canada was surplus last year as I am satisfied that but a very small percentage was sold at a price which would return the cost of production.
Even before the wave of non-buying struck Canada we who are in the fruit and vegetable business realized the unsound position of the Canadian grower due to the lack of organized and businesslike marketing methods at the point of production. Numerous conferences were held both between the growers themselves and between the growers and outside agencies which resulted in the establishment of cooperative marketing associations. A number of these have been successful to a degree but the percentage of failures was heavy and voluntary cooperation has in the net made but little progress. Even when organizations are formed the members face constant temptation to desert due to the fact that those outside can more readily find a favourable market for their few cars and so average a higher return than is possible for an organization which must take both good markets and bad and so average lower. However without organization chaos only results and all secure the low average prices so prevalent to-day. Opportunities for direct marketing by so great a percentage of the individual producers discount the advantages of large scale marketing. Failure of cooperative marketing in consequence has resulted through the impossibility of securing and maintaining control of supplies so long as the voluntary support of the producers has to be relied upon.
Changed conditions in recent years have made it evident that the major problems of distribution require unity of plan and marketing. Indeed, the useful results of planned marketing, once the necessary unity of policy has been obtained, are so evident as to warrant measures being taken to bring this about. Thus we find legislation to this end in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. In all the principle is practically the same, that is, to make possible the control of the entire distribution of any product, or in any one area, and so prevent the ruinous so-called competition which, instead of being the life of trade, has proven to be the death of business. Few things are more pitiful than to see a man spend his life selling his services for less than they are worth and arriving at old age with nothing but a bad case of rheumatism, a worn out body and obsolete equipment. He has been a detriment to those

in his community engaged in the same vocation, to his family and to himself.
Mr. Royer went on to depict the essential features of the British marketing act and concluded by asking the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to recommend to the Canadian government the taking of necessary steps to pass legislation similar to that which was passed and approved of and is now in operation in the United Kingdom. I have quoted lengthy extracts from this speech of Mr. Royer of Quebec to prove to the Minister of Agriculture that the best men engaged in the wholesale trade in fruit, vegetables and all other agricultural products agree with the farmers in recommending to the government and requesting it to enact immediately, practical and definite legislation which alone can cure the present sad situation in which the farmers of Canada find themselves.
May I, in the few minutes that remain at my disposal continue my humble remarks in my native tongue?
(Translation): Let us examine, sir, what stand the Quebec government took in connection with the legislation intituled:	The
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934? When this bill was introduced by the dominion government the legislative assembly in Quebec, was in full session. When requested by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to cooperate with the dominion government, Mr. Taschereau, on April 11, introduced a bill purporting to put into practice in Quebec the dominion marketing act. The measure received the unanimous approval of both chambers of the Quebec legislature. Now that the provincial session has been prorogued, Mr. Taschereau solely to create doubt in the minds of the people and prevent the Quebec farmers settling down to work and reaping the fruits of this legislation, gives an interview to the Liberal press in which he contends that the dominion act is an encroachment on the rights of the provinces and a confiscation of the natural resources of Quebec. This statement of Mr. Taschereau is most regrettable. If Mr. Taschereau is sincere, why did he not then refuse to permit the dominion government to apply this act in the province of Quebec? If our measure, instead of being eminently favourable to farmers and producers of all kinds, is really a destructive and unconstitutional measure, as stated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and liable to ruin the farmers as contended by the Liberal members of this house, why did Mr. Taschereau not wait before enacting his bill? Should he reply that he had not

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
the necessary information, my reply then is that he is not a statesman; a wise and cautious legislator does not introduce a bill without being thoroughly enlightened on its merits andi consequences. Moreover, the provincial assembly will meet again in June, as Mr. Taschereau promised to Mayor Camil-lien Houde; I challenge him here. Either this federal act is detrimental or beneficial. If detrimental, his duty at the special session in June next will be to cancel Act No. 243 by which he pledges himself to apply the Natural Products Marketing Act in the province of Quebec. If, on the other hand, our measure will be beneficial, the hon. Mr. Taschereau will nevertheless not repeal the act. All may wager, sir, but I warn you that never will Mr. Taschereau-in spite of the hue and cry raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe)-prevent openly the application of the Dominion Marketing Act in Quebec.
However, if our act is an excellent one it is not sufficient to allow its application in our province. One may oppose an act in two ways. One may carry on an active or passive resistance. I surmise that Mr. Taschereau will not dare repeal his act No. 243, but will oppose to the Dominion Marketing Act a passive resistance by quietly advising the Minister of Agriculture of Quebec, the agriculturists and all his agents, in Quebec, not to encourage the farmers, the fishermen, lumber dealers, breeders, fruit and vegetable growers to organize themselves so as to help in creating new markets, or reorganizing their production, or improving the quality of their products or taking the necessary steps to enhance the prices of their farming and industrial products.
Note what is taking place in the province of Ontario. The bill has not yet been enacted by parliament and already farmers are organizing throughout the province. Look at this newspaper, The Ontario .Grower, of April 10. On the second page you will find the following heading in large letters: "Interpreting the Natural Products Marketing Act." I shall read word for word this advertisement:
Local associations or groups of growers desiring information as to the legislation now being brought down in the House of Commons, can secure competent speakers for their meetings by communicating with the Ontario Growers' Markets Council.
This vital piece of legislation, affecting the distribution of Canadian fruit and vegetables, deserves the support of every agriculturist.
At the bottom there appears:
For full information write C. W. Bauer, Secretary, Ontario Growers' Markets Council.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Gobeil) (Translation):: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Onésime Gagnon: With the
consent of the house, may I be permitted to finish my remarks.
The situation of farmers, sir, is too sad to make political capital at his expense. He is burdened and overwhelmed with debts. He cannot meet the interest on his mortgages. The price of his products is ridiculously low, yet, in the midst of all his troubles, his countenance is serene, he always courageously raises a large family and should you happen in the evening to pass his home where a good Canadian soup is still on the fire, you may hear him singing the chorus of our old songs of the past. I now appeal to Mr. Taschereau, Prime Minister of Quebec and beg earnestly of him to cease launching forth in petty politics, at least from now until the dominion election. On behalf of honour and justice, I request him to state publicly whether he will take or not effective measures to allow the farmers to enjoy the beneficial legislation which we are preparing, if so, I request him to state how he will cooperate.
Mr. Taschereau, sir, has the floor. As to us, humble servants of the people, we shall carry on here the work begun.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a degree of reluctance, a reluctance due in part only to some physical disability, that I rise at this stage of the proceedings to take part in the discussion upon the measure now before the house. I am impelled to do so by two main considerations: the importance of the measure itself as it may and as it undoubtedly will affect the great body of producers in Canada and the great percentage of the people of my riding and my province, and the fact that I have been among those who have consistently urged the introduction of legislation of this kind. My first words, therefore, must be of congratulation to the government and more particularly to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) upon the courage and initiative shown in bringing forward a measure of this type; to use the words of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), the courage to take new paths, to open up new roads and to move forward in a new direction when times demand and when circumstances make it essential; and also upon their appreciation not only of the conditions which exist but of the responsibility of the state in respect of those problems.

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
It is not my purpose, nor does it conform, as I understand the matter, with the position which I occupy in the house, that I should snter into a detailed defence of this measure; that is the duty of the government which gave this legislation birth and of the party under whose auspices it was brought forth. Nor is it my place to enter upon a lengthy counter attack upon those who do not view this matter as I do. I was not elected to this house as a political partisan, and during the thirteen years I have sat in this chamber it has been my effort to cooperate with either or both parties in regard to any meritorious legislation which might be introduced. That stand I propose to maintain at this time. I shall therefore confine myself in the main to stating my views upon this proposed legislation and its possible effects, and to indicate why I welcome and shall support this measure on second reading. In doing so I shall endeavour to discuss the matter very briefly under three main heads: the conditions in this country and the world which make such legislation necessary and essential; the objectives which should be achieved if we are to meet and remedy those conditions, and the extent to which, in my opinion, this bill will meet these essentials and will accomplish these objectives.
As to the conditions themselves, Mr. Speaker, they are matters quite understood and appreciated by every hon. member of this house whose occupation, location or duties bring him into contact with the main bodies of our producers of natural products, and particularly our farmers. The conditions are obvious; that cannot be gainsaid: The condition under which we have violent fluctuations in the prices of farm products, fluctuations either arbitrary or fortuitous but equally calamitous in their effects; the conditions under which we have spreads which we believe to be unnecessary and far too great between the price received by the producer and the price paid by the consumer and the condition, above all, under which year after year the farmers of this country-certainly I can speak for western Canada, and I think for all Canada in that respect-receive less for their products than will enable them to maintain a decent standard of living and meet their obligations. Nor are the effects of those conditions confined to the producers themselves. We have had discussed in this house time and again the condition of the provinces, and particularly of the western provinces, and criticism has been made because loans and

guarantees have been given in order to assist their finances. Why are the western provinces in that situation? Speaking now particularly for the three prairie provinces, where the great majority of the population are farmers, I can say that the financial situation of these provinces is not due to inherent defects in government or to extravagance in expenditure. I know that in my own province, and I believe in the other provinces, expenditures have been cut to the bone. No, the trouble goes deeper; the roots are in the ground, and the fact is that the majority of the taxpayers of these provinces are farmers. When the majority of the taxpayers are not receiving sufficient income to enable them to buy the necessities of life, let alone pay their taxes, government finances must suffer. There are only two sources open to any provincial government from which they may obtain revenue, namely taxation or borrowing; when the taxpayer fails borrowing is the last resort. But borrowing brings with it its own punishment and its own destruction in the accumulation of interest charges which result. There, Mr. Speaker, is a phase which vitally affects every taxpayer and every citizen in Canada. I think this should be taken into full consideration when the bill is being discussed, for only by an appreciation of these facts can we understand the measure now before us.
Then, leaving the domestic situation, we look to the world about us and what do we find? The situation has wholly changed within the last two decades. The time was, and not so very long ago, when apart from tariff restrictions in the various importing countries, the goods of all countries could be sold on a competitive basis; to the best man or the lowest price went the market. That was the day of freedom of sale, so called; that was the day of individual competition. But, Mr. Speaker, that day has gone and in its place we have not only tariff restriction but the exclusion of certain commodities; we have commodities admitted only under quota restriction as to quantity, as to quality, as to the percentage of goods from our country which may be used in proportion to similar goods of domestic origin. We may regret this situation; we may look upon it as detrimental, but facts are stubborn things. With other members of the house I have indulged in certain theories, but I have found that when a theory comes in conflict with an established fact it is usually the theory that is shattered and the fact that remains. This is something that must be taken into consider-

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
ation, and in view of these facts legislation of some form to meet the existing conditions becomes not only necessary but essential.
Now I should like to say a word as to the definite objects which must be accomplished if these conditions are to be met. I am firmly convinced of the merits of cooperation in meeting problems of this kind. By that I mean cooperation among the producers themselves and the elimination, by mutual consent, of the self destructive and mutually destructive competition which prevails as between individuals. I believe that only by the encouragement, the assistance and the development of true cooperation, with all that it implies such as the increased intelligence of the producer, the increased self help of the producer and the working together of the producers, can the matter be solved. But we find another condition. I am not speaking now of wheat, which is a problem by itself; I am speaking of almost every other product of the farm from fruit to eggs. You will find that from ninety-five to ninety-eight per cent of the total production of each of those products is consumed within this country and that we export five per cent or less of each. Yet it has been borne out not only by our experience but by the statements of those in the trade that this small, insignificant export has shattered and brought to chaos the domestic price year after year, season after season. And again, any proposed measure which does not contain within itself the power to deal with such a situation must fail, for the domestic cooperation between producers cannot take care of the situation.
These are the main points which I believe must be covered, and I would emphasize particularly the necessity of securing to the producer a greater proportion of the price paid by the consumer. More than that, we must try to secure to the producer a return which will enable him to continue his operations, meet his liabilities and pay his taxes, and will restore to him that buying power the lack of which has been one of the chief causes of the depression which has fallen so heavily upon us and upon other countries as well. These are some of the things which must be accomplished, Mr. Speaker, and now I turn to this bill to see to what degree and in what measure the objectives desired may be achieved by it.
Before I do that, however, may I offer this suggestion: I have said that I am a believer in cooperation, and that argument has been advanced by many of those who oppose this bill. To my mind the present measure is rooted and founded in cooperation, for how 74726-164
otherwise can it succeed? It demands, and to a large degree has already received through enabling legislation, the cooperation of the provinces. It demands for its success, and indeed for its very life, the cooperation of the producers themselves. May I say again- because this is essentially important-that the very genius of this bill, the very basis and spirit of this legislation, is the cooperation which will be received by this federal body from those who will be more directly interested, and from the provinces who are in close touch with the problems of their own citizens.
I come now to the bill, and what do we find there? The bill proposes to set up a federal board which, acting as the general director of the bill and of the marketing plans, shall work in cooperation with and in conjunction with boards appointed by the provinces, each in their own sphere, and each to deal with matters which come under their jurisdiction. Further, the board is to work in cooperation with the local boards, which, as I understand it, will be appointed largely by the producers who will be beneficially affected. That is the scope of the bill. To that board and to the boards which will cooperate with it are given ample, wide powers -possibly too wide, but I do not think so. For we are meeting a condition the ramifications of which are as yet barely understood, and to my mind nothing could be more fatal than to hamper and restrict the board in respect of its statutory powers before it commenced operations, so that when it did meet with preblems it would not be able to deal with them promptly.
It has been suggested that parliament itself should deal with them. To my mind parliament is the last body in the world which could deal with the emergent situations as they arise. All parliament can do and all parliament should do is to pass such legislation and to delegate such powers, so that under the authority of those powers the executive may deal with each situation day by day, taking into consideration the individual merits of each case as occasion may arise. The powers, then, are wide.
Then, among the powers what do we find? We find the power to register, if necessary, the names and the addresses of the producers. And what of it? The very members in this house who criticize on that ground were most urgent that a given or stipulated percentage of the producers in each branch or of each product should indicate their approval, or by petition indicate their desire, that some scheme or plan should be put into force.

25S8

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
How could that be accomplished? How could parliament or the governor in council or the board have the slightest idea what percentage of voices had spoken or how many of the people were interested unless beforehand they knew how many had a right to speak? And how can that be done, save by registering the names and addresses? To my mind, when we consider other curtailments upon our individual liberty, curtailments under which we already suffer, the additional curtailment of being obliged to write down our names and addresses and our branch of production is but a very minor detail, and one which so far as I can conceive, will meet with no antagonism.
Then, the bill speaks of licensing. I doubt whether the government knows, and I am quite certain the house does not know, to what extent this licensing may have to be applied. However, the fact is that the power is given to license-and to license what? The clause which applies to licensing includes producers and dealers in the products. It is quite conceivable to me that anybody dealing in those products should be licensed. The power is there. Further, it gives to the board the power of restriction and control of exports. And, Mr. Speaker, how could that situation which I have described and which is familiar to all of us be met in any other way?-that situation under which a comparatively small export, an infinitesimal percentage of the production, is allowed to destroy and crush the price of the entire domestic product. How else could it be done? We have had some experience along those lines. Within the last three years a cooperative organization in Canada entered into a mutually satisfactory and mutually profitable arrangement with the great consumers' cooperative of Great Britain. On the one hand we had the Canadian cooperative live stock shippers and on the other the British consumers. It was an ideal arrangement-the hungry mouths at one end and the eager sellers at the other. On what rock did they split? They split upon the rock which has destroyed and made impossible the profitable shipment of live stock, hog products and various other products during the past number of years. Because of the fact that during certain seasons of the year the price offered for cattle and other products in Great Britain is higher than the price in Canada, exporters rushed to export their products, thereby creating a surplus upon the market. Then comes the season when perhaps Irish cattle may come on the market-this may not happen to-day but did at one time-and as a result the price falls

below the level of that obtaining in Canada with the result that export ceases. The stipulation made by the British authority was this: "We are willing to receive your live stock, but we insist upon having continuity of supply week by week, month by month, season by season throughout the twelve months of the year." That was the condition. Now, hon. members cannot expect any single exporter to export at a loss, nor should we be right in expecting any such thing. Under this bill power is given not only to hold back and restrict during a time when an over supply might destroy the market abroad and break the price, but also to send forward during the slack months, at times when goods may be sold at a loss, the necessary quantity to relieve the domestic market, thereby destroying the surplus, and to reimburse the exporters or producers who under such conditions and circumstances send forth that surplus. Thus will assistance be given to all producers in Canada. That is only right and wise.
In what other way could we meet a situation such as I have described, such as other hon. members have described and which hon. members know exists, under which importers in the country purchasing our goods are restricted by quotas, and restricted as to quality, quantity, time and kind? Only by some central guiding body with power to act can that situation and can the conditions imposed upon us, conditions for which no government in Canada has been responsible, over which we have no control and with which we must comply, be met.
Then, too there is the control of imports. I shall not refer, save in passing, to the exaggerated arguments advanced in this respect by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). References have been made to the incongruity of the arguments of the right hon. gentleman. The bill provides that natural products of other countries which may come into competition with regulated natural products of Canada, may be kept out or restricted as to quantity. Under that provision it is suggested that oranges and coffee may be kept out of the country. It is news to me, Mr. Speaker, to learn that either oranges or coffee are natural products of Canada, or come into direct competition with regulated products grown in Canada. These are bugbears, and to my mind the very extravagance of the argument is one of the arguments in favour of the bill, because it shows how far afield people may sometimes go to find substantial arguments to justify their position.

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
Those are the main essentials of the bill, as I see them. I have read it from beginning to end, clause after clause, and nowhere do I find a power given to the board or to subsidiary boards to control, to check or to limit production. But I do find ample power given to control the methods of marketing. And, Mr. Speaker, that is one thing our farmers from one end of Canada to the other are demanding, namely that this lack of control which has brought them into the chaotic situation in which they now find themselves, with resulting loss to Canada, the closing down of our factories, and unemployment among our labouring classes, due to the lack of purchasing power of the farmer, shall cease. They demand that this uncontrolled situation shall be taken in hand, and shall be taken in hand by the one body in Canada competent to deal with it, namely the federal government. True, as the bill provides and as has been stated, this must be done in wholehearted cooperation with the provinces, each acting within its own jurisdiction; but no province alone could deal with the situation. They have tried and they have failed. The federal government, the federal parliament, some federal body alone can do that work and it alone must take the responsibility.
May I say further that the pictures that have been drawn of what might come to pass under this board apparently presuppose and are based upon one idea, namely that any board appointed would deem it to be its duty, its main objective, its ideal, to hamper and restrict and destroy the very producers for whose benefit the board is being brought into existence. I am taking it for granted that this government, and a Liberal government if again it should get into power, would have enough common sense, enough regard for their own political safety and appreciation of their own responsibility, at least to see that the best possible results be achieved. I am taking it for granted that any board which is appointed would accept it as its chief duty and main responsibility to do what is represented in the preamble of the bill, to carry into effect the purport and spirit of the act, and that is so to administer the act that it will enure to the benefit of those for whom it is being passed. I am taking for granted, and I am confident, that if by some strange chance or by some diabolical interposition a board should come into existence that had for its objective the destruction of the interests it is intended to serve, the tearing down instead of building up, the provincial boards 74726-164^
would refuse to cooperate; the board appointed under the act would cease to function, and the act would be null and void.
For these reasons I shall not only support the bill on its second reading but, as I have said, I welcome its introduction. My criticism, if criticism I should offer at this time and which should more appropriately come during the committee stage, would be not that the powers given to the board are not limited, but that the bill itself embraces too much.
To my mind the problem of marketing the farm products of this country apart from wheat, because of the importance of the great diversity of products embraced in the general term "mixed farming" would provide a problem sufficient to engage the attention and occupy the time and utilize all the genius of any board which could possibly be appointed.
Personally I should not like to see wheat included in this bill, for the very simple reason that the problem of the disposition of our wheat is one wholly different and apart from the problem confronting our mixed farmers. What is the problem of the wheat farmer? It is the problem of the disposal of a great export crop, a worldwide product, graded, standardized. It is a problem of selling the great bulk of that product in export markets. The domestic market for wheat, while important, is relatively insignificant. The problem lies in the export market, in meeting the agreements which have been entered into and the quotas which have been put into effect. But apart from that the business itself is sufficiently great, of sufficient importance and sufficiently onerous, to occupy the full time and attention of a properly constituted wheat board, and I hope that at some time in the not too distant future this bill will be supplemented by another creating a federal wheat board to do for wheat what I hope this bill will do for mixed farming products.
I cannot speak of the products of the forest, for frankly, I cannot understand that reference in the bill. The products of the forest in their natural condition, as I understand it, are logs. When are logs manufactured? Is lumber a manufactured article? If it is, then it does not come within the scope of this bill, because it is certainly neither food nor drink. It would be classed perhaps with furniture and boots and shoes.
Speaking of boots and shoes, if I may digress for a moment, when the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) was making his eloquent and occasionally humourous address, he placed a certain interpretation

Marketing Act-Mr. Speakman
on the reference made to boots and shoes by the leader of the opposition. I have in mind another interpretation, another idea concerning the matter. I wonder if boots and shoes come in from the fact that on this bill, at least, occasionally when he opened his mouth he put his foot in it. But is lumber a manufactured article? Paper certainly is; articles of pulp certainly must be, and to what extent would this bill apply? I do not know and frankly am not keenly interested or well informed on the subject; there are those who know much more about it than I do. But while I may deprecate the inclusion within the scope of the bill of certain matters which I believe are extraneous and should be kept out, I am certainly not going to cut off my own nose to spite my face or vote against a bill which I believe will benefit the farmers simply because it may benefit others also. To my mind that would be a rather narrow view to take of my duties in this house.
In conclusion may I make one reference to a remark that was made by a speaker this afternoon. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), in the very fine address which he gave to the house, spoke of the world marching on and of the necessity of the country and parliament marching on with it or being left behind in a hopeless bog. The thought came into my mind that if we are going to march on we have two alternatives: we may march on with the world in its progress as a disorderly, unorganized mob of selfdestructive individuals, and if so we march to certain defeat and individual extinction; or we may march on with the world as a disciplined mutually supporting body of troops to take part in that glorious world victory over penury and want which I hope will be achieved ere long. My convictions lie with the self disciplined army, not with the disorganized mob of individuals. This is a measure through which a number at least of our people may organize and discipline themselves and take a world part in that forward march.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and others which may be developed during the committee stage when the details of the bill may properly be discussed, I welcome and support this legislation.
Mr. JOSEPH THAUYETTE (Vaudreuil-
Soulanges) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house very long in debating the bill under consideration. I followed closely and with much interest the various speeches delivered by hon. members this afternoon and this evening; I was very much impressed with the various views set forth.

One speech especially interested me. Each time the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) speaks in the house, I listen with interest because I look upon him as a brilliant orator, a legal light. I have noticed that each time he takes part in a debate, or at least often, he specially criticizes the government of his province. He quite strongly attacked, this evening, the Quebec premier, the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, and gave proof that he had special aptitudes as an official critic. I think, sir, that the hon. member as well as his friends must greatly regret that he was not chosen as leader of the opposition for Quebec, at the convention held in Sherbrooke last year. He would have been more at home and the charges he has made against the Quebec government would have produced more effect, had he made them as the official leader of the opposition, face to face with the Quebec premier. I trust that the people of his party will recognize this fact at the next election.
After closely reading Bill No. 51, now under consideration by the house, I deem it my duty, as representative of a county where farming is the main industry, if not the only one, to express my humble views on the timeliness of such an act. At this stage of the discussion one must consider the principle on which the government based itself to bring down such a measure. To what authority does the government intend to entrust the enforcement of this act? What powers will be granted to this authority to administer this act throughout the country? How will the regulations, orders and decisions issued by the central board at Ottawa, be promulgated throughout the various provinces? How will these orders be transmitted? There are many questions which it would be rational to inquire into before adopting the bill and enforcing it.
Will the benefits, which it is hoped to obtain for the producers in the application of this act, be in proportion to the losses which might be incurred through the working of this so intricate mechanism of associations, councils or boards transmitting their decisions from place to place so as to finally reach the central board or vice versa, in connection with the marketing or exportation of the products regulated by this organization?
Throughout the whole range of this hierarchy of officials, will there not be discrimination as against a certain class of citizen who will be cared for only after these large associations have taken the best of the market? Will intelligent men, experts in their trade or profession, with a long experience, comply with the regulations of these local or provin-

Marketing Act-Mr. Thauvette
cial boards which, from their viewpoint at least, have never been associated with the profession or trade to which they belong?
I intend, sir, to reply to these questions by the various sections embodied in this bill.
First, if I restrict myself to the reading of the preamble of this bill, I find nothing which would warrant us to have any fear:
An act to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products in Canada and in export trade, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
No danger lies behind this title. It reminds one of the chocolate coating under which the druggist conceals his drugs to render them tasteless. If we had only to deal with the preamble, truly I would have no objection to approve of this bill. Seeing that for the last four years I have requested the government on various occasions, to help the farmer by finding him markets and obtaining better prices for the sale of his products; I regret to note, however, that ever since this government is at the helm of affairs in this country, it has done nothing to help the most numerous and important class of our population, the farming class.
In examining this bill, we find, under interpretation, the word "minister" and the definition for the requirements of this act:
"Minister means the minister designated by the governor in council to administer this act."
This, sir, is another snag added to our constitution.
By this act it is intended to suppress parliamentary rights, withdraw from the representatives of the people the right of legislating on the various questions which concern citizens, their financial, professional or trade interests, so as to confer upon a board or boards whose members are unknown and have not yet been chosen, the power of making regulations.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Do you
contend that it is legal?


Mr. THAUVETTE (Translation):: The minister is granted-is it the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce? The act makes no mention'-the power to legislate. At all events, the whole mechanism of this bureaucratic machinery will be put into motion by the promulgation of an order in council. The government's policy of governing by orders in council still continues. Governing behind closed doors. The government has made it a principle to disregard the people's wishes and assumes the rights and privileges which parliament possesses of legislating in the interest of the nation on such
vital questions as those at present involved. After the renewal of the signature in blank, the government intends to regulate the natural resources which belong to the provinces, such as forests, mines, fisheries, etc. That is the attitude which the government has taken ever since I have the honour of being a member of this house. We have had these last years a dictatorship which resembles that of Mussolini. We were heading for Moscow; now we have been switched on the road to Berlin.
May I, sir, discuss a few points of this bill. In examining the various sections which will determine the enforcement and working of the act submitted to us, we find at section 3, paragraph 6:
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.
I am amazed at the powers conferred on this board-which will legally be constituted by the governor in council-to hold, acquire and dispose of real and personal property, not under the authority of parliament but by order in council. Such properties are to be acquired, not under the authority of parliament but by order in council, they are to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund. If I understand the wording of the act, they will belong to the board which acquired them and may be disposed of as they think fit and for its own use.
Section 3, paragraph 9 reads as follows:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize payment to the board, out of the consolidated revenue fund, of such sums of money as may be necessary for the purpose of this act.
Always by order in council, the minister may draw from the treasury the sums of money it pleases, turn them over to the board which will pay the amounts deemed necessary for the purposes of this act. Certainly this provision will provide for the expenditure of sums of money drawn from the treasury, without parliament being given an opportunity to discuss whether they are necessary or even being given the opportunity of investigating matters.
However, sir, what seems to me most arbitrary and at the same time most annoying to the farmers of this country who will have to carry on their marketing every day by virtue of the act, are the powers defined in section 4 of the bill, subsection 1, paragraph (a):
(a) to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product, and to determine the manner of distribution and the quantity and quality or grade of the regulated

Marketing Act-Mr. Thauvette
product that shall be marketed by any person at any time, and to prohibit the marketing of any of the regulated product of any grade or quality;
Can. one realize what confusion will be created among producers by putting into force this provision of the act! Can one imagine the recriminations and protests which will be forthcoming from all sides when all and each of these small producers will have to sell or ship all or part of their products to the market! I do not intend to question all the farmers of my constituency so as .to find out their views; however, a large number have already protested. This section to my mind nationalizes the commerce of our natural products. It is state monopoly of personal liberty. It paralyzes all private enteprises. It smothers all personal ambition since the output of each and every producer can be restricted.
Are we assured that the preference shown by some farmers to produce certain products instead of others will be respected. Is the board going to meddle with the affairs of every one, annoy these good farmers so as to verify their licences or compel them to join associations which they will very little appreciate? This is one of the provisions to which I have strong objections. The people of this country are not prepared for socialism, they will not easily sacrifice their commercial liberties. Why this state management or rather this nationalization of the commerce of natural products, and why not act likewise with manufactured products?
Is it thought that the government's high tariff have sufficiently protected the manufacturers? Yet reports come in every day from the tariff board informing us that a large number of manufacturers of various goods protest against the high tariffs. They request lower tariffs so as to increase their trade.
I contend, sir, that the same thing will happen with natural products if the government enforces this regulated production and marketing of natural products by order in council.
This will have the effect of creating an atmosphere of uncertainty on the markets where it is hoped to sell the products, an uncertainty as to prices and quantity. The reaction might well prove to be a decrease in the sales. Does any one think that the farmer can keep in storage for an indefinite time perishable goods? All are aware that those who take up breeding for market purposes cannot keep these young herds, which are ready for the market, for an indefinite time. And how many such instances are there! I can well imagine the reception awaiting these

gentlemen of the board when they appear on the market to prohibit the sale of the farmer's herds. The government will be apprised sooner than it expects of the protests coming from the four corners of this country.
This legislation is the result of the high tariff policy advocated by this government and clearly intended to win over the support of those who sit on the extreme left. We have witnessed these last days our friends on the extreme left embrace in a fatherly way this new bom Tory infant as if it were their legitimate child. We have again noted that extremes meet and often have some affinity; however, I wish to point out that the truth is to be found in the golden mean.
Therefore, I would approve a bill introduced by this government purporting to help the farmers in improving the quality of their products. I would gladly support a bill which would be a scheme to help the farmers in their present organizations, farmers' unions, cooperative societies, etc., so as to make these associations more efficient and powerful, in order that their members could obtain a more abundant return and make larger profits on their production.
I cannot be convinced, sir, that producers would be benefited by restricting production. Moreover, would it be human, in these times, to restrict the production of the prime necessities of life, when we are aware that there are so many people that suffer for the lack of the necessary things of life while others have none!
If the government wants to show its good intentions towards the Canadian producers, especially the farmers, let it put at their disposal all the means capable of benefiting them by legislating in a constitutional way, by introducing a bill which would benefit those interested inasmuch as it would be applicable through conviction rather than through constraint.
In closing my remarks, sir, I wish to express my views on section 14 of this bill.
Offences
14. 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 and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
I loathe to think that this section will render a great service to Canadian producers. Will parliament be held responsible for the

C.N.R.-Finance
enforcement of this section in connection with offences against any order or determination of the board or governor in council? Does the government always intend to carry on by blasting? This policy has already failed. I do not think it will be a success this time. That is why I cannot approve of this bill.
On motion of Mr. Spencer the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.47 pun.
Friday, April 27, 1934