1935-06-04

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons ©ebates
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 4, 1935

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Stinson.

Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved:: That there be printed 400 copies in English and 200 in French of the report of the Hyndman commission on unemployment conditions among ex-service men.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester) moved:: That the petition of The Community General Hospital, Alms House and Seminary of Learning of the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa, presented on June 3, praying for the passing of an act of reincorporation under the name of The Community General Hospital, Alms House and Seminary of Learning of the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa, Canada, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, 'be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 93 (3)	(a) and (c) and 95 in relation
thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the international convention for the regulation of whaling signed at Geneva on the twenty-fourth day of September, 1931, reading as follows:
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
Geneva, September 24, 1931.
His Majesty the King of the Albanians; the President of the German Reich; the President of the United States of America; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; Hie Majeety the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British 92582-207
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; the President of Republic of Colombia; His Majeety the King of Denmark and Iceland; the President of the Government of the Spanish Republic; the President of the Republic of Finland; the President of the French Republic; the President of the Hellenic Republic; His Majesty the King of Italy; the President of the United States of Mexico; His Majesty the King of Norway; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Polish Republic; His Majesty the King of Roumania; the Swiss Federal Council; the President of the Czechoslovak Republic; the President of the Turkish Republic; His Majesty the King of Yugoslavia have appointed as their plenipotentiaries the following:
His Majesty the King of the Albanians:
M. Lee Ku-rti, Resident Minister, Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations. The President of the German Reich:
M. Hans Hermann Volckers, Consul-General at Geneva.
The President of the United States of America: Mr. Hugh R. Wilson, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Swiss Federal Council.
His Majesty the King of the Belgians:
M. P. Hymans, Minister for Foreign Affairs. His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
For Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations: The Right Honourable Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, K.iC.
For the Dominion of Canada:
The Honourable Hugh Guthrie, P.C., K.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. For the Commonwealth of Australia:
Mr. James R. Collins, CJVLG., C.B.E., Official Secretary and Financial Adviser in the Office of the High Commissioner in London.
For the Dominion of New Zealand:
Sir Thomas Mason Wilford, K.C.M.G., K.C., High Commissioner in London.
For the Union of South Africa:
Mr. C. T. te Water, High Commissioner in London.
For India:
-Sir Brojendra L. Mitter, Kt., Law Member of the Viceroy's Executive Council.
The President of the Republic of Colombia: Dr. A. J. Restrepo, Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
His Majesty the King of Denmark -and Iceland: M. William Borbe-rg, Permanent Delegate accredited to the League of Nations.
The President of the Government of the 'Spanish Republic:
M. Alejandro Lerroux Garcia, Minister of State.

Regulation of Whaling

Regulation oj Whaling
territories named in such declaration six months after its receipt by the secretary-general of the League of Nations.
4.	The secretary-general of the League of Nations shall communicate to all the members of the League of Nations and the non-member states all declarations and notices received in virtue of this Article and the dates of their receipt.
Article 21
The present convention shall be registered by the secretary-general of the League of Nations as soon as it has entered into force.
In faith whereof the above-mentioned plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention.
Done at Geneva, on the twenty-fourth day of September one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, in a single copy which shall be kept in the archives of the secretariat of the League of Nations and of which certified true copies shall be delivered to all the members of the League of Nations and to the nonmember states.
Albania Lee ICurti Germany
Dr. Hans Hermann Volckers United States of America Hugh R. Wilson Belgium Hymans
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all
parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League of the Nations Cecil Canada H. Guthrie
Commonwealth of Australia James R. Collins New Zealand Thomas M. Wilford Union of South Africa C. T. te Water India
B. L. Mitter Columbia A. J. Restrepo Denmark William Borberg
With reservation, until further notice, as regards Greenland Spain A. Lerroux Finland
Evald Gyllenbogel France Louis Rollin Greece R. Raphael Italy
Augusto Rosso Mexico
S.	Martinez de Alva Norway
Birger Braadland The Netherlands
For the kingdom in Europe and the Netherlands Indies Beelaerts van Blockland

Poland
Auguste Zaleski Roumania C. Antoniade Switzerland Motta
Czechoslovakia Zd. Fierlinger Turkey Cemal Husnu Yugoslavia Dr. V. Marinkovitch
And that this house do approve of the same.
He said: The international convention with respect to whaling is the natural result of the adoption of means in connection with the destruction of the whale which would lead to their extinction. It is known to all hon. members that ini various provinces of confederation we have had to adopt means to prevent certain methods being used in the destruction of game and fish. Whales, which are of course in the high seas, have been destroyed in the north Atlantic ocean to a point where there are only few remaining. In the Antarctic, where they are numerous, it was found necessary to take restrictive and prohibitory measures to ensure the continuance of the whale. It may sound very strange, but the fact is that in the year 1930 the whaling fleets of the world destroyed 40,201 whales in. the Antarctic ocean. When I say to this house that not half of that number were killed in the entire ten-year period between 1920 and 1930 hon. members will have some appreciation of the extent of the slaughter. In this process of destruction 232 whale-catching boats were engaged with 6 shore stations and 41 floating factories.
These floating factories follow the ships that destroy the whales. They are largely destroyed, as is known, with harpoons and bombs, and the fat is rendered in these floating refineries with the result that very great havoc has been made through the destruction of the whales. Great Britain and Norway largely control the whaling industry but it was realized, of course, that action merely by one national could not accomplish any good purpose for the simple and obvious reason that the whales are found on the high seas and if other nations were not prohibited from carrying on operations the ships of other nationals would take advantage of the fact and the destruction would continue. Therefore an effort has been made to bring about an international understanding or convention, and after an inquiry had been made by a committee of the League of Nations this convention which is now before the house was adopted.
I may say that the convention, which was opened for signature on the twenty-fourth day

Regulation oj Whaling
of February, 1931, has been signed by Albania, Germany, the United States, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Colombia, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Norway, The Netherlands, Poland, Roumania, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Turkey and Yugoslavia, and ratification has been completed by the United Kingdom, South Africa, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States, and Yugoslavia. Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, Monaco, Sudan and Ecuador, which were not signatories to the original convention have acceded to its provisions. The convention came into force on the sixteenth day of January of this year.
The only other point I assume upon which the members of this house would like to be advised is what the provisions are with respect to enforcement, restrictions and the prohibitions. The convention contemplates that each national will take adequate steps to see that the convention to which it has become a party is duly and properly enforced. So far as we in Canada are concerned, in 1933, I think we had four whaling vessels on our registry engaged in the destruction of whales, and they operated entirely on the west coast of Canada, the headquarters being in the Queen Charlotte islands. The total number of whales that were taken during that period amounted to 209 in the last season for which we have a record in the north Pacific waters, and 509,000 gallons of whale oil were secured. So far as we are concerned the regulations and prohibitions with respect to some species of whales are not difficult of enforcement. The provisions of our Fisheries Act, the Department of Justice advises, by sections 7, 8, 9, 34 and 52, confer sufficient authority upon the government to carry into effect the obligations and responsibilities that rest upon this country by reason of the convention.
I do not think that any good purpose would be served by a more lengthy statement of what the objects of the convention are. I trust that they are such as will appeal to the members of this house as eminently proper in the premises and that there will be no difficulty in adopting the resolution which aims at the preservation of the whales not only for industrial purposes, because whale oil is a very valuable product, but also to prevent a surplus of the oil being placed upon the markets of the world with a corresponding destruction of prices. I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, the adoption of the resolution.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, here we are legislating
about whales. This is the new social order. In the time of the prophet whales belonged to the old order, but the old order has gone and whales went with them. Evidently the Prime Minister wants the old order restored, so now he proposes legislation with regard to whales. Most ridiculous, Mr. Speaker! Have we not other things to discuss in the House of Commons that we must be considering whales for human food? Our farmers complain that they cannot sell their potatoes, their cattle and other produce that they grow on their farms, and now we are to use whales for human food, and that is proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada. Enough of that, Mr. Speaker. It is most foolish and most ridiculous.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member should not refer to remarks made by the Prime Minister on a motion for the ratification of a convention agreed upon by various nations of the world as most foolish, and I would ask him not to do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw what has been said if it is not within the rules of the house. As I was saying, in these times of distress our farmers complain that they cannot sell their products, and here we are to raise whales on a very large scale, because whales are large fish. I wonder if the dredging around the island of the Postmaster General was done to prepare for whales coming there. It is most extraordinary. We have had legislation about migratory birds, and now we are to have legislation about whales. Who could believe it if it were not printed on the records of this house? But this convention about whales is printed on the official records of parliament and it is proposed by the Prime Minister unless my eyes and ears have deceived me. I cannot conceive but that it will be received with a general roar of laughter throughout the country. Let us have a piece of whale steak for a sandwich, and whale hot dogs. It is most extraordinary. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I am within the rules of the house in stating that it is extraordinary. I shall not use any other expression though I find many on my lips to describe this legislation, but I want to keep within the rules of the house. I wonder if the Prime Minister will not give us recipes for the eating of whale. Should we take H.P. sauce with it or ketchup or salt and pepper or mustard, English or French? I should like the Prime Minister, who is the chef of this party, to give us some recipes for eating whale. One
Regulation of Whaling

cannot imagine any Canadian citizen, man or woman, not having a roar of laughter when he thinks of it.
But not only that. I hesitate to read some of the articles of this convention. The wording is unusual. I would draw the attention of every member of the house who has the order paper before him to some sections of the convention. It would be improper to use such language, so I shall not recite the articles but I would refer hon. gentlemen, for instance, to article No. 6, paragraph one. It is most disgusting; also article 10; it would take a doctor to make such an inquiry. But these are the things that are proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister, who is a gentleman. I cannot conceive how it could happen. Now when we go to the people the government will say, "We are giving you something new. In the future you will eat whales." It is most incredible and stupid. And the farmers who cannot sell their products I suppose will go to. the Antarctic and harpoon whales to cater to us. I shall not insist upon it too much but I did want to show how ridiculous such legislation is even though it is covered by a convention.


Mr. JACOBS:: What nations are not signatories to this convention?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I recall, Japan is the only one.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the
objects of this convention are wholly commendable. It is desirable that the great natural wealth of the world should be preserved, particularly where it ministers to the needs of the peoples of all countries, and it is obvious that this end cannot be obtained except by the combined efforts of the different nations. I imagine that combined effort can be most effectively made through the League of Nations and it is to be hoped that any country which has not thus far become a party to this convention may be mduced to see the wisdom of joining with the other nations in preserving a part of the common inheritance of mankind. I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) how it happens that we are only now being asked to approve a convention which was signed in 1931. Is there any reason for the long delay?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The convention did not come into force until January 16 of this year as it was waiting for the signatures of other nations.


Mr. NEILL:: Does the definition contained in article four apply to the whales usually taken on the Pacific coast?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told that the convention will apply to all whales except those known as the toothed whale.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Last night I inquired of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) in connection with any proposed amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act. The minister stated he could not give me an answer at that time and I should now like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if it is the intention of the administration to introduce legislation during the present session to amend the Old Age Pensions Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a matter under consideration which affects the relationship of the provinces and the dominion but I am not in a position to give a more definite answer to the question.
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session along the lines with the recommendation of the price spreads commission in connection with the incorporation of cooperative consumers' societies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question will be considered as a notice of question.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MANION CONTRADICTION OF STATEMENTS APPEARING IN . THE HYNDMAN COMMISSION REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, something which I have done only once before in about twenty sessions. A report was tabled yesterday by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) in connection with an investigation into the existing facilities with regard to employment of ex-service men. After referring to a charge which had been made that an insufficient number of returned

Privilege-Mr. Manion
men were employed by the Montreal harbour commission, the following statement is made on page 10 of the report:
Similar complaints were made with regard to the meagre employment of veterans on jobs outside the control of the civil service commission on canals, especially in the vicinity of Montreal. This also might well be inquired into by the Department of Railways and Canals.
This statement is absolutely undeserving.
I asked my chief engineer, who by the way is a returned man, to give me a statement of the number of returned men employed by the department on the canals. He gave me the following figures in connection with the Lachine and Welland ship canals, which make up about 60 per cent of the canals of Canada. Out of a total number of 439 employed on the Lachine canal, 184 or 42 per cent are returned men. 'Out of a total of 510 employed on the Welland ship canal, 330 or 65 per cent are returned men. Out of a total of 949 employed on the two canals, 514 or 54 per cent are returned men. I make this statement as I think it is most unfair that any committee or commission should listen to only one side when making an investigation and make a report without calling upon the other side to give an explanation. This commission did not do this and they made a report by implication condemning the department. I hope this correction will receive the same publicity as the statement which was made in the report and I trust the rest of the report is more dependable than this particular statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the
minister referring to the Hyndman report which was tabled yesterday?


Robert James Manion: Yes.



GRADE CROSSINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J- MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Some time ago a question was asked by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) in connection with grade crossings which had been eliminated under the provisions of the public works acts. I am informed by the board of railway commissioners that of the crossings protected since the fund came into existence, 30 per cent were rural and 70 per cent were urban crossings. I have not been able to get the information for the last two years.
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Could the minister advise when we might
expect the information in connection with the crossings protected during the last two years?


Robert James Manion: The board of railway commissioners have been working on this matter and I shall get this information as soon as possible.



DOMINION NOTES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if a date has been set for the repeal of the Dominion NotesAct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows that
he should give notice of a question like that as obviously I could not carry matters of that sort in my head. This matter concerns the Department of Finance and I shall make an inquiry, in the meantime treating this question as a notice.



HYNDMAN COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I inquired yesterday of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) with respect to the report of the Hyndman commission which was tabled yesterday afternoon. At that time the minister stated that he would probably disclose today what disposition the government intended to make of this report.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This matter
will have to be thought over very carefully. Members of the government have not had an opportunity to go into this report very thoroughly and will not have until the report is printed. So far there have been only a very limited number of copies available.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question to ask the Minister of Railways, and as a preliminary basis for that question I should like to read the following telegram, dated Loon Lake, via Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, May 31, 1935:
C. R. McIntosh, M.P.,
Parliament Bldg., Ottawa.
Settlers over entire area again request a favourable reply to their petition asking for completion of grade and steel from St.
C.	N. R.-Branch Line
[Stage Direction]
Walburg to Loon Lake this summer. We feel the time is ripe to help the thousands who moved here from the south on the understanding that this line would be completed. Your cooperation is requested.
Northern Railways Development Association,
C.	F. Marshall, President,
Fred Mitchell, Secretary-Treasurer.
I understand that in regard to this railway the minister has a petition dated April 4. Moreover, the matter has been brought up in the house by myself time and again during the last five years.	*
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I am just coming to the question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has laid a sufficient foundation for the question if he will now kindly ask it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The question, based on the submission made to the special committee on railways and shipping by the member for Athabaska and myself on April 10, and also on the questions, to which I have referred, brought up in the house during the last five years, is this: Can the minister add anything further to his previous statements in regard to the extension of this branch line, thus more fully informing parliament and the country on the question.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman appeared before the railway committee and, assisted by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies), submitted the case. They both went into the matter carefully with the management. I have nothing new from the management with regard to the question but they are no doubt giving it consideration and I shall be glad to bring to their attention the remarks which the hon. gentleman has just made.



GRANTING OF INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I move that the committee rise and report progress.\nProgress reported.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that yesterday, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was asking for interim supply, he intimated that he thought an arrangement had been made with the opposition as to the granting of this supply. As a matter of fact,
I do not think that any such arrangement was made with anyone on this side of the house. Had I been here, I would not have objected to the granting of a month's interim 
supply; I would, however, have pointed out that it is now over five years since the last parliament went out of existence, and that the time has come when the members on this side, or indeed in any other part of the house, should not be asked to take steps calculated to assist in further prolonging the demise of the present parliament and government.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 48, to amend and consolidate the acts relating to patents of invention-Mr. Cahan-Mr. Morand in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Section 65 is under
consideration.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: During the debate on the various sections of this bill, from 1 to 64, the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, called the attention of the house to a letter which he had written, addressed to me, dated July 30, 1934. I remembered, of course, receiving that letter and making certain inquiries in regard to it, and then seeking an interview with the hon. gentleman, who was then my colleague in the government, and finding that he had left for the west, the time of his return being uncertain. I have no doubt there is a proper explanation why a letter dated July 30, 1934, was not delivered to me until several days later. I presume the explanation is that prior to leaving for the west he signed a number of letters, one dated July 30, and that that letter was held by his secretary for the compilation of the documents which were to be attached to it and which might require some further time. But this fact remains, as I have stated, that I did make some inquiries in regard to the matter during his absence; and without going into a full dis-tussion

I do not think this is necessary

I wish to say simply that I did find that, with regard to the complaint of George A. Broder of the North Shore Radio and Electric Company of Vancouver, on the same day as the date of the letter in question, July 30, a judgment against him had been entered in the Exchequer Court of Canada for infringement of patent rights; and that judgment having been entered, and the case closed by a judgment from which no appeal had been taken, there was no possibility of the Secretary of State or of the commissioner of patents intervening. With regard to the case of Morris Feldberg, on looking into it I found that among the documents submitted to me was

Patents of Invention
one from an official of the hon. gentleman's own department, throwing considerable discredit upon the statements alleged to have been made by Feldberg to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I found that an injunction had been obtained against Feldberg for infringement in the exchequer court on April 18, 1934. Subsequent evidence submitted showed that Feldberg, despite this injunction and in contempt of court, was proceeding still with the infringement of this patent by the sale in considerable quantities of articles which were an infringement of the patent. Feldberg was brought before Mr. Justice Maclean of the exchequer court on July 17, 1934, for contempt. Mr. Justice Maclean entered very carefully into the matter and gave a full explanation to Feldberg with regard to his wrongdoing and with respect to the order of the court issued against him; and then, taking a personal promise from Feldberg that he would no longer attempt these illicit sales, he postponed the commitment of Feldberg, on his solemn promise that he would cease from these infringements; and it appeared to me that in these cases, which had been closed in the court by judgments of the court, no good purpose would be served by my entering into this private dispute.
With regard to the matters which are under discussion at the present time, I would seek the earnest attention of the house to one or two considerations which I feel it my duty to submit. The real issue is whether we are to adopt an amendment proposed by the hon. member for East Kootenay which, in its terms, if carried into effect, is a complete violation of an international convention to which we are a party. The government, in giving consideration to this issue, decided that, although the previous government ratified that convention, it was the bounden duty of a succeeding government, so long as that convention remained in force, to maintain legislation consistent with its terms, because the violation of that convention by a succeeding government would cast grave reflection upon this house and the government.
In order that the matter may be more completely understood, allow me to say that the first international convention for the protection of industrial property, which includes patents and patent rights, was signed in Paris on March 23, 1883. Canada did not become a party to that convention. The second one was signed at Brussels on December 14, 1900. Canada did not become a party to that convention because the laws relating to patents in force in this country at that time were not consistent nor in conformity with the obligations which a nation ratifying the convention would be in honour bound to undertake. The third convention was signed at Washington on June 2, 1911. That convention was not ratified by Canada until September 1, 1923. I find that there was considerable correspondence between the late government and especially the government of the United Kingdom with regard to the ratification of that convention The officers of the government of the United Kingdom pointed out to the Canadian government that while our patent law remained as it then was, it would be improper for Canada to become a party to that convention. But in 1923 the government of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) ratified the convention on September 1, and in that year brought into effect certain amendments to the patent law which were in conformity with the terms of the convention as they then existed.
The fourth convention was signed at the Hague on (November 1, 1925. That convention wras signed by a representative of Canada, but the ratification of it was not deposited by this country until May 1, 1928. That Hague convention of 1925 introduced into the existing convention certain new provisions which were to the effect that before a patent could be revoked in accordance with the terms of the convention, there must first be an order for the granting of licences to others to manufacture the patented articles within Canada and a reasonable time must be given to ascertain whether the granting of licences, and thus bringing about within this country competition in the manufacture, sale and use of the patented article, would serve to remedy the abuses then complained of. but if those abuses then complained of were not remedied by the grant of licences to competitors, then the commissioner of patents or any other executive authority would have, within the terms of the convention, the right and power of abrogating the patent and wiping it out of existence, so that thereafter there would be no continuing monopoly in being in this country and every person desiring to manufacture, sell and use, would be quite free from any restrictions imposed by the grant of the patent.
The amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for East Kootenay is, in terms, section 40 of the existing act, and he proposes to amend section 65 of the bill by the addition of that clause in the present act which was first enacted in Canada on June 13, 1923. before the date of the Hague convention in 1925 and before the ratification of that convention in 1928 by the government then led by the present leader of the opposition In
Patents of Invention

1923 this provision, which is now proposed, differed from the English act that was then in force and that it purported in some of its terms to follow, but providing in addition that in the case of any abuse of the exclusive rights of the patentee, the commissioner of patents could order the patentee "to supply the patented article within reasonable limits at such price as may be fixed by him and in accordance with the custom of the trade to which the invention relates as to the payment and delivery, or to grant licences for the use of the patented invention as may be fixed by him, in either case within and after such time as may be fixed by him and on pain of forfeiture of the patent."
That section, which purported to authorize the commissioner of patents to fix the prices at which patented articles might- be sold in this country, has been considered on many occasions by the leading legal -counsel of the country, and there has been at -least a grave apprehension that the parliament of Canada has not legislative competence to fix and determine the price of articles which are sold .generally throughout this country. That grave apprehension as to the validity of any such fixing of prices has I think been the chief deterrent against the attempt to enforce that provision. But, on May 1, 1928, Canada ratified the Hague international convention of November 6, 1925, and that provision in our Patent Act then came into direct conflict with Canada's international obligations under that convention. Section 40 of the existing act, which it is now proposed to revive, purports to authorize the commissioner of patents to order the patentee to supply the patented article within reasonable limits at such prices as may be fixed by him, that is, as may be fixed by the commissioner of patents. It is obvious that the patentee's monopoly right under a patent would be valueless to him if the commissioner were authorized to fix the prices at which the patented article should be sold in this country. It is obvious also, I think, that there is, and there has been grave doubt whether the parliament of Canada under clause 22 of section 91 of the British North America Act of 1867, having authority to make laws in relation- to patents of invention, and discovery, has also, in respect of the laws relating to patents of invention, the legislative competence to fix the prices at which patented articles may be sold to the public in- Canada. But apart from that doubt as to the legislative competence of parliament, after Canada adhered to the Hague convention of May 1, 1928, there -can be no doubt that any attempt on the part of an official of the government of

Canada to fix such prices, under the provisions of any such section of the Patent Act as the old section 40, would be and be deemed to be a violation of the terms of the international convention to which we became parties.
After correspondence between the late government led -by the right h-on. leader of the opposition with the government of the United Kingdom it was arranged that the government of the United Kingdom would deposit the British ratification of this Hague convention on the same date, May 1., 1928. So that the United Kingdom and Canada became parties to that convention, on the same day. The government of th-e United Kingdom then reformed its patent laws so that those laws would entirely conform to and be consistent with the *terms of the international convention to which both governments had become parties.
But two conditions were imposed by the Hague convention, which may be briefly stated as follows:	That each of the contracting countries shall have the right to take the necessary legislative measures to prevent the abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent, for example failure to work or other abuses, but it is also strictly stipulated by the terms of this convention that these measures shall not provide for the revocation of the patent unless the grant of compulsory licenses -that is, to enable others to enter and compete and manufacture and sell and use-is insufficient to prevent such abuses. Therefore the English patent act, in conformity with the Hague convention, was made to provide that in case any person interested made application in the prescribed manner, alleging in case of any patent that there has been an abuse, the first remedy must be sought in the grant to others of a compulsory licence to import, manufacture, sell or use the patented article. And thereafter, if the grant to others of such compulsory licence shall prove insufficient to prevent such abuses, then the comptroller of patents, as he is called in England, or the commissioner of patents, as he is denominated in -Canada, may revoke the patent -and thereby completely destroy the monopoly and all the monopoly rights existing thereunder. In this bill we deemed it advisable to follow in exact terms the English legislation, which is equally applicable to this country and the conditions which prevail in this country.
The patent laws of the United States do not permit of the revocation of a patent under any circumstances, therefore, no matter what abuses may arise during the term of sixteen years for which the patent is in force, there is

Patents oj Invention
no such remedy under United States legislation as the revocation of a patent because of prevailing abuses. To mention briefly just one authority, Walker on Patents, one of the leading United States	authorities,-fifth
edition-the author summarizes the law of the United States as follows at page 185 of that edition:
Patent rights are property, and the very essence of the rights conferred' by the patent is the exclusion of others from its use. The owner of a patent is both legally and equitably entitled to the same protection for that property, that the owner of any other species of property may enjoy; and he cannot be constitutionally deprived of that property without due process of law. Due process of law includes the constitutional judgments and decrees of courts; but it does not include any act of Congress, or of any other legislature. Patent rights, once vested, are therefore incapable of being divested by act of Congress, except of course by the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Nor can Congress do indirectly, that which it is forbidden to do with directness. It cannot destroy _ nor seriously impair the value of the patent right, under the guise of altering or repealing the existing remedies applicable to its enforcement, any more than it can so treat any other kind of property.
That is the law of the neighbouring republic, but that is a law which we have declined to follow. The granting of a patent is a grant of exclusive rights, or monopoly rights if you wish to use that term. But in England there has been throughout its patent legislation a procedure prescribed by law whereby abuses might be remedied. In the present state of the English law those abuses can be remedied either by the grant of compulsory licence to others to compete in the same market, or if the grant of such compulsory licence proves unavailing then the comptroller can act arbitrarily and forthwith repeal and revoke the patent and all rights under it.
We, therefore, have followed the English act. which is entirely consistent with our international obligations. Section 27 of the English act is incorporated verbatim in sections 65. 65, 67 and 68 of this bill. I think perhaps the hon. member for East Kootenay wa's misled somewhat by a note of explanation in connection with this bill. When I prepared section 64 I incorporated in it all the provisions of section 27 of the English act which are now represented by sections 65, 66, 67 and 68 of this bill. But the committee on banking and commerce of the Senate thought it advisable to divide the English section 27 into several sections for purposes of clarity, and therefore they divided the new section which I introduced in one long column into
various sections which now stand as sections 65 , 66, 67 and 68 of this bill. But the law clerk or other clerk of the Senate left opposite section 64 in this bill this statement:
This replaces section 40 of the present act.
What was intended and what did replace or purport to replace section 40 as the bill was first prepared, was a new section incorporating not only section 64 but sections 65, 66. 67 and 68. When the Senate committee divided the lengthy provision into sections, unfortunately they left as a note on the opposite page a statement to the effect that section 64 replaced section 40 of the act, and for that reason the error has proved somewhat misleading.
To all who have studied these matters, I believe it must be obvious that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for East Kootenay is entirely misplaced and would destroy sections 65, 66, 67 and 68 of the bill which, I suggest, are completely sufficient and efficient for the protection of every conceivable interest, public or private, so far as the law of patents may be effective.
Subsection (1) of section 65 is very wide indeed, stating that:
The Attorney General of Canada or any person interested may at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of a patent apply to the commissioner alleging in the ease of that patent that there has been an abuse of the exclusive rights thereunder and asking for relief under this act.
I have already explained that the term of three years is the period prescribed by international convention. It is the express provision of The Hague convention of 1925. Any abuse of the exclusive rights of the patentee may be the subject of petition. Then follow clear definitions in subsection (2) of section 65. Without quoting the whole of the paragraphs I shall endeavour to give their substance.
Paragraph (a) applies when the patent "is not being worked within Canada on a commercial scale;" that is to say, as defined in section 2 of this bill, the manufacturer of the article shall have a definite or substantial establishment or organization and operate on a scale which is adequate and reasonable under the circumstances. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2), section 65, provides that it is an abuse of exclusive rights of the patentee "if the demand for the patented article in Canada is .not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms." Those are the words used in the English statute. This paragraph covers not only the abuse of withholding supplies of the patented article, but also that of charging prices for the patented
Patents of Invention

article, which are not reasonable, when manufactured and sold. Paragraph (d) provides that it is an abuse if the patentee refuses to grant to others in Canada licences upon reasonable terms for the manufacture and sale in Canada of the patented article. That is a cause of complaint in connection with radios and other patented inventions.
Paragraph (e) of the same subsection (2) provides that it is an abuse if any trade or industry in Canada, or any person or class of persons engaged therein, is unfairly prejudiced by the conditions attached by the patentee, either in respect of the "purchase, hire, licence, or use of the patented article, or the using or working of the patented process. Paragraph (f) provides that it is an abuse if it is shown that the existence of the patent unfairly prejudices the manufacture, use or sale of any materials used in the production of the patented process or article.
Section 66 provides that the commissioner, upon being satisfied that a case of abuse of the exclusive rights under a patent has been established may exercise certain powers. Under paragraph (a) the commissioner may grant to others licences to manufacture, sell, or use the patented article. In granting such licences to others the commissioner, among other things, "shall endeavour to secure the widest possible user of the invention in Canada consistent with the patentee deriving a reasonable advantage from his patent rights." Under paragraph (d) of section 66 we find that if the commissioner is satisfied that the granting of such licence to others to manufacture, sell and use the patented article fails to overcome the abuses complained of, then he may order the revocation of the patent, and thereupon the rights of the patentee are completely nullified and wiped out of existence. To this power to make an order for revocation of the patent only one condition is attached, namely, "that the commissioner shall make no order for revocation which is at variance with any treaty, convention, arrangement or engagement with any other country to which Canada is a party." The only condition that now applies is the fifth article of the Hague convention, namely, that the patent may not be revoked unless the grant of compulsory licences proves insufficient to prevent such abuses. .
Section 67 of the bill, which is also held in abeyance, relates to the term of exclusive licence which the commissioner may grant, and section 68 provides that the commissioner shall consider the matters alleged in every application, made respecting abuses, and shall serve notice of such application upon the
[Mr. Cahan.f
patentee or his representatives. Section 69 provides that in certain cases the commissioner with the consent of the minister may refer the whole proceedings to the exchequer court for judicial decision.
The English procedure, which we have adopted in its entirety, paragraph for paragraph and word for word, has proved very efficient in meeting each such abuse as it arises. I am convinced that the English procedure constitutes the most complete, effective and equitable procedure for dealing with alleged abuses of the exclusive rights granted to a patentee, which has yet been developed in any country. Decisions of the comptroller, the English authority who is almost identical with our commissioner of patents, are published the same as court decisions, and, in construing certain sections of this act, they would be available for the guidance of a commissioner in this country. They would not be binding, and the commissioner would not be obliged to follow them. But as existing conditions are such that we cannot adopt the American patent law, which provides that the rights of patentees may not be amended or revoked for a term of sixteen years, we. have followed the constitutional practice of the United Kingdom, after which our own constitutional practice has been developed, and have adopted that procedure which is known to be consistent and in conformity with the provisions of the Hague conference, to which both countries are parties. We have adopted those provisions and now propose to place them upon our statute books.
After these proposals had been heard during nineteen hearings of a Senate committee, at which all parts of the country and all interests were represented, it was agreed by those opposing and as well as by those advocating the introduction of these provisions that they were the most fair, equitable and effective provisions which had yet been suggested.
I wish to add with regard to the customs law that there is nothing in our customs law at present which prevents the importation of articles into this country which would infringe the rights of a Canadian patentee, but, when they have once passed the customs they may not be used or sold in Canada except under licence from the patentee. The revocation of the patent, which is such a complete and summary remedy as now provided, will of course permit of the importation into Canada of the patented article and its sale and use in Canada without any restrictions whatsoever.
The real point at issue, Mr. Chairman, between the suggestion made by the hon. mem-

Patents oj Invention
ber for East Kootenay by his amendment, and the position of this government, I think is clearly understood. This government, after very careful consideration of the facts to which I have called attention, has decided that this patent legislation should be made to conform to the international obligations undertaken by our predecessors in office, and that in introducing this new legislation we will not adopt sections which will conflict with and in terms violate the international convention into which our predecessors entered. If in time another government comes into office that deems it advisable to give one year's notice and revoke the Hague convention or whatever other convention may be in force at that day, then parliament will be free to make changes in the patent law which are inconsistent with and in violation of a convention that has been revoked, but, at the present time, I insist that, until that convention is revoked, in providing new legislation and making amendments to existing legislation we are bound in honour to maintain intact the terms of the Hague convention.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Chairman, the other day when I introduced this subject I opened my remarks with the words, "I do not rise in any spirit of criticism of this bill, but there is a matter which I understand is not dealt with in the bill and I would like to lay before the government and the house one phase in connection with patents which I trust might be considered when this bill is in committee." I further stated in my remarks that I was not criticizing the bill, and that I was not criticizing the present government for its attitude in connection with this bill, and that I was not criticizing the preceding or any previous government in connection with the matter. I pointed out that the matter I wished to bring forward had apparently escaped the attention of those who were dealing with the revision of the Patent Act in the other house, and I trusted that my observations then might have been received in the spirit in which they were offered; that is, a suggestion for meeting a grievance which many people in this country feel exists in connection with the patent law.
The hon. gentleman who has just dealt with the matter (Mr. Cahan)-I think he will accept this statement-has treated the house to an extremely learned and involved legal argument. I am not presuming for a moment to be qualified to dispute his legal arguments at all. I frankly pay tribute to the hon. gentleman and his ability as a
lawyer in arguing a matter of that kind. But I would like to say this to the committee, having listened to the hon. gentleman with care in his somewhat involved and constitutional argument, that in my opinion the whole matter is in fact comparatively simple, so simple, sir, that I think it comes even within the comprehension of a layman.
The hon. gentleman laboured very seriously the suggestion that the amendment is in complete violation of an international convention. He says that an international convention was entered into in 1925 and was ratified by this parliament on May 1, 192S. That is, the convention was entered into ten years ago, and it was ratified seven years ago. Now all I have asked or suggested is that a section, a portion, of the Patent Act which has been on our statutes during all that period and is still in the statute, and will be until this bill passes and repeals it, should be carried into the new statute. If what I suggest to-day is, in the words of the hon. gentleman, a complete violation of the international convention, then the patent law of Canada in so far as this section 40 is concerned has for seven years been in complete violation of a solemn international undertaking. So much for that.
Then the hon. gentleman laboured very earnestly to impress the committee with the seriousness of exercising the power of revocation, of revoking a patent. He read from American legal opinions and others to show that it was an exceedingly serious thing to revoke a patent. Well, I am not arguing for anything to be added to the statute that will revoke a patent. So, as far as that portion of his argument is concerned, I have no need to make any further reply.
But the hon. gentleman in another part of his argument says that revocation offers a complete remedy. In one part of his argument he warns us seriously and earnestly and properly against indulging in revocation; in another part of his argument he answers my very moderate suggestion by saying that it is not necessary because we have the power of revocation, which he himself asserts is a very serious thing and ought not to be invoked, and I agree with him that it ought not to be invoked except upon serious grounds.
The hon. gentleman then proceeds to argue that patents are in the nature of property. I quite agree with him in that; I am not disputing it, nor am I suggesting at any time in any of my remarks that there should be any infringement of the property rights of the patentee in his patent-none whatever. I am a firm believer in protecting particularly the inventor, but I am also a firm believer in
Patents oj Invention

protecting the owner of the patent within reason. But I do say this, that the practice of selling out patents to large corporations which pigeonhole them and do not use them is something that should be examined into, and great care should' be taken that this practice is not abused. 'But that is another question. I am at one with the hon. gentleman and with anyone who desires to protect the property rights of anyone in his patent.
Then my hon. friend referred to my references to certain cases by saying that certain individuals, Mr. Feldberg and a firm on the Pacific coast, had been examined before the Exchequer Court of Canada and convicted, as he says. The suggestion in the argument is that inasmuch as this firm, on the one hand, and this individual, on the other, had been convicted they were out of court. That is exactly the basis of my appeal to parliament at this time. They were convicted of what? They were convicted of bringing articles into Canada, paying a duty upon them to the extent of about forty per cent and offering them for sale when they had paid a royalty in the country of origin.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the hon. member confident that they paid the duty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member rather cross questions me on that point but I would refer him to his colleague beside him who administers the customs laws. I have sufficient respect for him to assume that he is vigorously enforcing the laws and that the duty was paid. I would not like to reflect upon the customs department to the extent of saying anything to the contrary.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend was once minister of customs; perhaps these came in during his period of office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; during that period the customs law's were very vigorously enforced. If my hon. friend was basing his argument upon that period I could answer him with more certainty.
The fact remains that this man imported these goods openly and offered them for sale and no one has challenged the payment of the duty. As a matter of fact I have in my hand a lengthy argument prepared by a prominent firm of lawyers dealing with this particular question. This argument was prepared for certain clients of this firm and bears out my contention. The only point which I have brought before this committee and for which I ask remedial measures is that the Patent &et should not be used to enhance unduly the EMr. Stevena.]
price of articles to the public and be a sort of supertariff imposed upon the regular tariff laws. That is all I ask.
The hon. gentleman argues that inasmuch as the privy council has declared that it is not intra vires for parliament to pass laws fixing prices, as my proposal fixes prices in effect it is a challenge to the constitutionality of the law. The law has been there for ten years, it has contained the provision I am now proposing and that question has never been raised. I ask any impartial legal mind in the committee: When the British North America Act delegated specifically to the dominion parliament the right to legislate with regard to patents, has not this parliament the right under that power to pass laws which will effectively safeguard the interests of the public in connection with matters appertaining to patents? I am not very much impressed with the argument that the fixing of prices would be challenged in this respect.
There is another view of the matter which I submit to the committee. Subsection (c) of section 40 in the old act, which I have asked to be reinstated, does not mention the fixing of prices. On the contrary, it gives powers to the commissioner of patents to impose a penalty and has nothing to do with the fixing of the prices of articles in the ordinary sense of the term. Let me direct the attention of the committee to the proposal I am offering. The hon. member is correct when- he says that sections 64, 65, 66 and 67 of the bill replace section 40 of the act. We do not dispute that at all. Before making my main argument on section 65 of the bill, I would direct the attention of the committee to the fact that the hon. gentleman in making his argument a moment ago quoted a number of subsections of this section but he omitted to quote subsection (b). This subsection reads:
If the working of the invention within Canada on a commercial scale is being prevented or hindered by the importation from abroad of the patented article by the patentee or persons claiming under him. or by persons directly or indirectly purchasing from him, or by other persons against whom the patentee is not taking or has not taken any proceedings for infringement:
That is declared to be an infringement of the exclusive right. I ask the committee to note that if anyone does import, it is an infringement of the right. The hon. gentleman did not argue that point and that is the gravamen of my whole argument. The cases to which I referred were the large electrical manufacturing and radio concerns. A very definite provision has been made to protect these large corporations against importations

Patents oj Invention
and my submission is that having done that we ought to protect the public against exploitation by these people under the protection given by the act as well as the customs duties imposed upon the articles.
I come now to my main argument. I shall not read all of section 40 but it makes certain provisions and imposes certain duties upon the commissioner. Section 40 of the act is being repealed, to be replaced with section 65 of the bill. The operative portion of this section, which is stated to be sufficient protection for the public but which I contend is not sufficient, is as follows:
The Attorney General of Canada or any person interested may at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of a patent apply to the commissioner alleging in the case of that patent that there has been an abuse of the exclusive rights thereunder and asking for relief under this act.
It will be noted that according to subsection (b) the exclusive right is abused by importations from abroad. Having gone that far nothing whatever is said as to what the commissioner shall do when he has heard a complaint. I drew attention to this fact the other day. I suggest that the following words should be added:
The commissioner shall then consider the petition and if the parties do not come to an arrangement between themselves, shall proceed to hear and determine the matter, and if it is proved to his satisfaction that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or that the patentee has failed to adequately manufacture the patented invention in Canada, the patentee may be ordered by him to supply the patented article -within reasonable limits at such price as may be fixed by him and in accordance with the custom of the trade to which the invention relates^ as to the payment and delivery, or to grant licences for the use of the patented invention as may be fixed by him, in either case within and after such time as may be fixed by him and on pain of forfeiture of the patent.
In other words, following the power of investigation, I merely ask that there shall be laid upon the commissioner the duty to consider the petition and, if the parties do not come to an arrangement, to determine the matter.


Mr. FACTOR:: What about section 66 of the new act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit it does not cover this case. I do not wish to go into a lengthy discussion of it but it will be noted that section 66 deals very largely with licences, exclusive compulsory licences, order for licence, revocation of patent, and so on. The
only clause which might be suggested as covering the case is to my mind inadequate, and that is subsection (c) of section 65:
If the demand for the patented article in Canada is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms;
It does not say anything about prices nor does it refer to importations nor cover in my opinion the case I have named. As regards terms, they may be the terms upon which they would allow someone to manufacture the patent; and so I submit that section 65 is incomplete inasmuch as it does not direct the commissioner to make a finding, having had a hearing; nor does it give him power to penalize-not to the extent of revocation, because that is of course his right under the general terms of the act. But it does not say to him that an electric light globe that may be bought in Holland or the United States-and we have cases definitely before us-paying a duty and royalty and selling for 26 cents, shall not be sold in Canada for 60 cents, as it is. In other words, by virtue of this arbitrary power exercised under the patent laws of Canada, a firm may mulct the people of this country to the extent of 125 per cent additional protective duty. That is the effect of it.
Now that is my proposal; that is the suggestion I make. There was another point in my mind which I wished to refer to but for the moment it has slipped my memory. But that is my main argument. The hon. gentleman says that the government does not wish to accept my amendment. I offered the amendment, I think, in the kindliest and most courteous spirit. I had not the faintest intention of embarrassing the government or interfering with the general tenor of the act. I think that on the whole it is an admirable act and one which will be an improvement on the statute as it stood before. But I did mention this matter to a member of the committee in the other house and it had not been brought up; it had not come to their attention.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The matter to which the hon. gentleman refers did come to the attention of the Senate and was discussed there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I accept the word of my hon. senatorial friend who told me it had not. I am not disputing my hon. friend's view of the matter, but that is what I am told; and knowing that it had not been dealt with I sought to bring it to the attention of the committee here. I offered this amendment, not as something final, but, in the absence of
Patents oj Invention

any other suggestion, as one which would meet what I regard as a grievance on the part of the people of this country.
Let me say that I at least know, and I think other members know, that a great many concerns who are manufacturing goods affected by patents in Canada find themselves subjected very frequently to an overbearing attitude on the part of those who control patents, as in the case of electric light bulbs and, I am told, in many of the additions to the radio. By the way, that abuse was very prevalent a few years ago though it was substantially corrected after investigation under the Combines Investigation Act. Though the act was not applied, there was an investigation, and the mere publicity given by that investigation induced those who were manufacturing radios to lower their prices substantially. No law or authority was invoked to compel them to do so, but the publicity forced their hand. Now all I suggest here is that this amendment would be a simple and reasonable way of meeting what many people consider a very serious grievance. If on the other hand the government feel that it is a gross violation of some sacred international undertaking, far be it from me to cause any international complications because of it. I am content to wait and allow the act to go through and be put into operation, and I am satisfied that when this house reassembles there will be an opportunity of dealing with this matter. I am confident of this, that in the interim the force of it, the -fairness of my proposals, and the extent of the injustice which the people are suffering will be brought more vividly to the attention of the house than perhaps I have been able to bring the subject.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I propose to indicate to this committee that the grievance to which the hon. gentleman has directed attention is -covered by the legislation now before the house, and not only covered but covered most adequately and most fully. The provisions that have been inserted in the statute are to meet the very cases to which attention has been drawn, and I trust the committee will pardon me if I direct attention to what the provisions of the sections were intended to meet. Section 65 contemplates that when a patent is granted in Canada operations under that patent shall be carried on in Canada. Now that was much discussed during the war. It will be recalled that Mr. Lloyd George made certain observations with respect to that before the convention met in 1925. If the committee will bear in mind that section 65

is placed in this statute to ensure that Canadian workmen will be employed in the manufacture of patented articles under patents granted by the Dominion of Canada, they will realize what the foundation of the remarks I have to make may be with respect to that section. If hon. gentlemen have before them the section they will Observe that the language used by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat was 'infringement". The language is not infringement but abuse:
The Attorney General of Canada or any person interested may at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of a patent apply to the commissioner, alleging in the case of that patent that there has been an abuse of the exclusive rights thereunder and asking for relief under this act.
Now what constitutes abuse? Abuse is defined by the statute itself-not infringement but abuse:
i 0^ ,The exclusive rights under a patent shall be deemed to have been abused in any of the following circumstances:
That is, there has not been an infringement of it but an abuse. Now what are the fapt ;rs that constitute abuse, if the conip'ih .ner is determining whether or not the-/; been an abuse? The next paragrap' 1	.
(a)	If the patented inventiB. . ,eing one
capable of being worked with:	anada) is
not being worked within (L.uada on a commercial scale____
That constitutes an abuse-tlhere is a proviso. Instead of (b) meaning what is suggested it means nearly the opposite:
(b)	If the working of the invention within Canada on a commercial scale is being prevented or hindered by the importation from abroad of the patented" article by the patentee or persons claiming under him....
That is, if there is not being produced in Canada the patented article as provided for by statute and goods are being imported instead of being made in Canada, that is an abuse-an entirely different thing; not an infringement but an abuse, the language being of course that this constitutes an abuse. In other words, an effort is being made to secure the production in Canada of the patented article, and if instead of its being produced in Canada it is being imported from abroad, then that constitutes an abuse of the patent. Could anything be clearer than that?
-or persons claiming under him, or by persons directly or indirectly purchasing from him, or by other persons against whom the patentee is not taking ot has not taken any proceedings for infringement.
Those are three things, as the committee will observe, without my -going into them at any length, that constitute abuse, the purpose

Patents of Invention
of the section being to ensure within Canada that the patented article is produced in Canada. If, instead of being produced in Canada, it is being imported, that constitutes, except under the circumstances mentioned, not an infringement but an abuse of the patented rights.
(c)	If the demand for the patented article in Canada, is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms.
That is not an infringement but an abuse of the patent. That means just what is said. When they introduced this clause in England, it was difficult .to define what constitutes a reasonable term. Therefore those words, which are almost the words of the English law, are considered now in an endeavour to fix a given percentage of increase or a fixed rate of profit.
(d)	If, by reason of the refusal of the patentee to grant a licence or licences upon reasonable terms

That is, he has acted the dog in the manger and will not give a licence. That constitutes not an infringement, but an abuse having re-ga ' to the customs of trade.
(t	ny trade or industry in Canada, or
any p , * class of persons engaged therein, is uni	irejudiced by the conditions
attached	ae patentee-
That isj 2 re patentee will not do the fair thing in affording an opportunity to Canadian industry to utilize the fruits of his mind, his inventive genius, that constitutes an abuse.
(f) If it is .shown that the existence of the patent, being a patent for an invention relating to a process involving the use of materials not protected by the patent or for an invention relating to a substance produced by such a process, has been utilized by the patentee so as unfairly to prejudice in Canada the manufacture, use or sale of any such materials.
That goes a tremendous distance. That constitutes an abuse by the patentee of the exclusive rights conferred upon him. Then follows subsection 3:
It is declared with relation to every paragraph of the next foregoing subsection that, for the purpose of determining whether there has been any abuse of the exclusive rights under a patent, it shall be taken that patents, for new inventions are granted not only to encourage invention but to secure that new inventions shall so far as possible be worked on a commercial scale in Canada without undue delay.
That is all section 65 means and that has not been read to the committee. It is to ensure not only that the inventive genius of the individual shall be protected, but that so far as possible the invention is worked on a commercial scale in Canada without undue delay. That was before the Hague convention 92582-208
in 1925. This house finally in 1928 ratified the Hague convention, believing that three years constituted what could be called "not undue delay." Therefore it must be taken that a period of three years, which is agreed upon by all the nations as being the proper time for the purpose of determining what is undue delay, is settled by international agreement.
We have section 65 dealing with this phase of a patented article or property, which is taken to be necessary in new countries and for that matter necessary in old countries, namely, the production of the patented article by the country that grants the patent. AH those sections about importation, reasonable terms, prices and licences have reference to one thing and one only, namely, the production of the patented article on a commercial scale in Canada without undue delay.
Then we go to what the remedies are for the abuses, and they follow in the succeeding sections. Section 66 states:
On being satisfied that a case of abuse of the exclusive rights under a patent has been established, the commissioner may exercise any of the following powers as he may deem expedient in the circumstances.
That is, the abuses being what I have indicated, the commissioner of patents, a judge, has conferred upon him the jurisdiction to deal with those abuses, not infringements. Let us see what he may do. The very purpose sought by the amendment suggested is provided for in this measure, only it is provided for in a series of steps which are to be taken to secure the end of the Patent Act itself. The first is compulsory licences; that is^ the commissioner, when he finds these abuses and they are presented to him,, may grant compulsory licences, willy-nilly on the part of the patentee, to persons who desire to carry on the manufacture of those goods in Canada to the end that the public may secure the benefits of the inventive genius of the patentee. I am not going into the details of that. Then we go to subsection (i) of paragraph (a):
He shall, on the one hand, endeavour to secure the widest possible user of the invention in Canada consistent with the patentee deriving a reasonable advantage from his patent rights.
(ii)	He shall, on the other hand, endeavour to secure to the patentee the maximum advantage consistent with the invention being worked' by the licensee at a reasonable profit in Canada.
That is the provision of the law.
(iii)	He shall also endeavour to secure equality of advantage among the several licensees, and for this purpose may, on due cause being shown, reduce the royalties or other payments accruing to the patentee under any licence previously granted



Patents of Invention

That is the English provision. Nothing could go further than that.
-Provided that, in considering the question of equality of advantage, the commissioner shall take into account any work done or outlay incurred by any previous licensee with a view to testing the commercial value of the invention or to securing the working thereof on a commercial scale in Canada.
That is paragraph (a). Could anything be clearer? It meets the very condition that has been suggested to the committee. Then we come to paragraph Ob), and these are the steps:
(b)	If the commissioner is satisfied that the invention is not being worked on a commercial scale within Canada, and is such that it cannot be so worked' without the expenditure of capital for the raising of Which it will be necessary to rely on the exclusive rights under the patent, he may-
Do so and so. That is to provide for a case in which it becomes very difficult to raise the necessary capital to enable the patentee to reap the fruits of his invention.
(c)	If the commissioner is satisfied-
Will the committee please consider this carefully?
-that the exclusive rights have been abused in the circumstances specified in paragraph (f) of subsection 2 of the last foregoing section, he may order the grant of licences to the applicant and to such of his customers, and containing such terms, as the commissioner may think expedient.


Samuel Factor: Would that entitle the
commissioner to fix the price of a patented article?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is to avoid the very constitutional difficulty that is mentioned. It fixes the royalty and provides for a reasonable profit and price.
Mr. STEVENS': Limited to paragraph (f).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then paragraph (d)
states, and this is the gravamen of the whole thing:
If the commissioner is satisfied that the objects of this and the last foregoing sections cannot be attained by the exercise of any of the foregoing powers, he may order the patent to be revoked, either forthwith or after such reasonable interval as may be specified in the order, unless in the meantime such conditions as may be prescribed in the order with a view to attaining the objects of this and the last foregoing sections are fulfilled-
Which of course involves, so far as we may constitutionally exercise the power, the price.
-and the commissioner may, on reasonable cause shown in any case, by subsequent order extend the interval so specified:

Provided that the commissioner shall make no order for revocation which is at variance with any treaty, convention, arrangement, or engagement with any other country to which Canada is a party.
Is there any hon. member who can do less than that or more? There are the steps: first, the abuse; second, the complaint; third, the adjudication; fourth, the direction to do whatever may be necessary to remedy that abuse, and lastly, if there is failure to remedy the abuse in the manner indicated, then there is revocation. As the minister very properly pointed out, revocation is a very serious matter, one to which people do not have recourse except in the very last resort. This legislation, following the English act, provides that if there is a recalcitrant patentee, one who insists on continuing his abuse in utter disregard of the consuming public, he shall suffer the results of his action and have his patent revoked, not willy-nilly in the first instance, but if necessary he is given thirty days or sixty days or six months, with power to the commissioner to extend the time.
Then the commissioner has this power:
(e)	If the commissioner is of opinion that the objects of this and the last foregoing sections will be best attained by making no order under the above provisions of this section, he may make an order refusing the application and dispose of any question as to costs thereon as he thinks just.
That, you will observe, is a complete code to deal with a recalcitrant person, to use the language of the English Act, or a domineering patentee, or am unthinking patentee or an undesirable patentee, one who has no sense of public duty and obligation. You have a code as complete as you can possibly get.
Then section 67:
1. In settling the terms of any such exclusive licence as is provided in paragraph (b) of the last preceding section, due regard shall be had to the risks undertaken by the licencee__
Without going into that, and the contents of the application, and the duty of the commissioners to adjudicate and matters of that sort, I say only this: it will be observed that under the terms of this statute there is a code provided to meet the very grievances to which attention has been directed. That code is the code which was adopted by Great Britain after the convention, and we have adopted it in terms, because we were bound by the convention not to insert in our statute any provisions which were at variance with the treaty we made. It is perfectly true, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, that there has been a period of six or seven years in which there has been complete and utter disregard

Patents oj Invention
of the provisions of the convention. That is the very reason that the Patent Act is before the house at this last session of this parliament, because attention has been drawn to it on many occasions. No one would think of introducing a contentious matter like the Patent Act at this session if it could be avoided, but complaints became so numerous that we should put our house in order, having regard to the convention to which we became a party, approved by parliament in 1928, that the bill was introduced in this house after it had been carefully compared with the provisions of the British statute. And that very language of section 27 of the old act was at variance with the provisions of the Hague convention made in 1925 and approved by this house in 1928. This statute came before the house, and the minister asked that the order be discharged in order that it might be considered by the Senate. There nineteen hearings were had and the fullest opportunity given, for representations, and I very much regret that by any misunderstanding of the real purpose of these sections it should be thought that the grievances to which attention has been called have not been provided for. They are not only provided for; they are most amply provided for, in the very terms in which the mother of parliaments provided for them. They contemplate two things: first,, that those who receive patents from the Dominion of Canada should commence the manufacture of the patented article in Canada, and failure to do so within three years constitutes an abuse and subjects them to the possible loss of their patent unless they make a good case for its defence. And the second principle is that the grievances-and there are more than one, the many grievances-provided for by the statute, that constitute not infringement but abuses, may cause successive steps to be taken by the commissioner, one, two and three, finally terminating in revocation of the patent itself, which is a drastic remedy, to be pursued only when every other fails; and it may only be exercised conditionally in the first instance by giving the party a "locus pcenitentiaa" in which he may redeem his position. That applies equally to -those who may secure the patent from him as to the patentee himself.
Therefore I trust that the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) will observe that the very grievances to which he directs attention have been amply taken care of by the bill before the committee. Section 65, which may easily mislead one not accustomed to the law-and patents are legal matters- has brought about a misunderstanding of the true effect and meaning. These provisions, replacing section 40, have been introduced 02582-2084
into our statute from the English act for the purpose of giving effective control to the commissioner, and protecting the consumer to the maximum against every grievance, including excessive prices, to which attention has been called.
All I can say is that in the light of the facts
mentioned by the -hon. member the Attorney General of Canada will take early opportunity to bring to the attention of the commissioner these abuses of the patent law for the purpose of enabling the very machinery of this bill, if it passes, to become effective.


Mr. CHURCH:: I wish to say a word about these clauses 64 and 65. I am not concerned in any private dispute between the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens), but I am interested in the hydro electric power movement in the province of Ontario, which is saving to the domestic and commercial consumers of power in that province $30,000,000 a year. I want to know if a monopoly, combine or trust exists and how it operates and affects the rates for power and appliances. The rates in Ontario compared with those in the United States are 1-57 cents per kilowatt hour as against 5-6 cents, and a total cost of $11,676,000 in Ontario as against $41,490,000 for the same power at American prices.
I am also interested in this matter as one of the supporters of the nearly seven hundred municipalities using the hydro in Ontario who desire power at cost and equipment at cost. I am interested to see that they shall be protected in this patent act from monopolies, trusts and combines. I well remember the debate nearly ten years ago on this act and the Gatineau power bill which I opposed. At that time I was urging a rebate to the hydro of customs duties in connection with the building of the Chippawa power plant, on account of patent monopolies held by German and American concerns. Do not forget that Ontario could not -have kept its munition plants going during the war but for the cheap power. The Chippawa plant, which was to cost $65,000,000, cost over $100,000,000 because of high building costs during the war, and foreign patents and such combines. This Chippawa plant was built and generates 550,000 horsepower. American, German and other patents from all over the world have been forced on the people of Ontario who have had to pay for it all, as well as high rates for equipment and electrical appliances of all kinds in the pioneer days and even to-day.
I realize that the late government ratified this convention with the League of Nations,
Patents uj Invention

and amendment may not be in order for that reason. But the question in connection with this Patent Act is whether the consumer and labour are protected. I was very mucn struck as hydro electric commissioner and chairman of the board of control of the city of Toronto years ago by the fact, as shown by the similarity of prices in the various tenders, that there was practically an electrical combine and monopoly in this country. It must be remembered that this electrical business includes not only light and power, but telephones and the operation of electric railways. In connection with the taking over of the Toronto street railway I found that a vast amount of money was added to the cost and simply thrown away because of these patents, with the result that the consumer and labour and the people who had to pay the power bills had to pay it all in the rates. There was an investigation into this matter in England, and it was revealed how these monopolies extended all over the world, and that they parcelled out and farmed out the territory.
'Great improvement has been made by this government in this new patent law. I have pointed out on previous occasions that the United States patent law required an invention to be manufactured in the United States within three years after the date of the patent. The protection which I believe in as a Conservative is protection for all the people, not some of the people. I believe in protection for the consumer, for labour, for the people who use light and power in their houses. Sir James Whitney did not intend the cheap light and power for aristocrats but for all the people, the farmers and the small householders and the toilers in the industrial centres. For years these monopolies fought in Ontario to prevent the hydro from selling appliances and equipment to the public, and in the end failed. Thus their rates were brought down by hydro competition notwithstanding their patent monopoly. We must decide whether or not there is to be a monopoly. Of course we know that a monopoly has existed. I have dealt with these people, and I know that one has no recourse and must pay the price. I am not here to criticize the large electrical supply companies, such as the Canadian General Electric, Westinghouse and others, because I do know of late years they lowered their rates and brought about better working conditions. In that respect I should like to pay tribute to them, and I believe any person who has acted as a commissioner must compliment them upon the great amount of good they have done in Canada generally.

The question is however as to what by this Patent Act we can do towards protecting the consumer. Is Canada forever to be the happy hunting ground of the foreign patent capitalists, or in our transactions through the Patent Act with them are we to insert provisions for the protection of our consumers? As the Secretary of State has said, it may be true that the amendments proposed by the hon. member for East Kootenay are not in order on account of the convention made by the late government through the League of Nations. We must remember however that in the next five years the greatest problem in Canada will be that of constitutional and parliamentary reform. In England that is the greatest issue to-day.
A year ago our king spoke calm words over the radio. Those who heard him must have been impressed with them. We should be up to date, keep pace with the times, declare for parliamentary and constitutional reform and, as he said, bring into public affairs those qualities of unshakable sanity, invincible patience and tireless good will which His Majesty so fittingly commended. During the past ten or fifteen years I have been deeply interested in Canadian patent law, and while I must give the government credit for the commendable action it has taken in drafting the bill now before the house I regret that we are depending still on the league for a lot of action. I am reminded of what Burke said over a hundred years ago, "What shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue." As we sit here I have before me a copy of the English Review for May in which appears an article. Letting in the Socialists. As a footnote I find this paragraph:
The British Electric Grid system, which has been attributed to Mr. Samuel Insull's initiative, inflicts injustice on private enterprise. Furthermore, it is technically and economically unsound and strategically dangerous.
I would say that the new electric law in England advanced by the MacDonald government is a sample of sovietism, coercing consumer and producer alike. The consumer in England, whether in domestic or in commercial life, may buy from only one agency. Not only coercing importer and consumer, they coerce all concerned.
I do not believe we have gone far enough in this legislation. The investigations held by the price spreads commission have shown that which we knew ten years ago, namely what takes place in connection with patent laws when devices are farmed out and the consumer can buy from only one agency.

Supply

Agriculture-Marketing Act
Consumer and labourer must be considered, and I know I represent many people who hold a similar view. I believe something ought to be done along the lines I have suggested, and we should proceed to prevent further abuses of the law so that the consumer may rely upon the protection afforded. Our hydro municipalities discussed these patent monopolies in electrical goods at their conventions many years ago, and we could do nothing because of this farming monopoly. Every time one tried to do anything he found himself up against it, 'because the territory was farmed out and made exclusive by virtue of patents. I believe the time is not far distant when we shall have adopted such parliamentary and constitutional principles as will make it unnecessary for us to go to the League of Nations in connection with matters concerning which at the present time we must consult them.


Mr. COOTIE:: In paragraph (c) of section 65 I find the expression "If the demand for the patented article in Canada is not being met to an adequate [DOT]extent and on reasonable terms." Would the minister define the expression "reasonable terms." Does that provision give the commissioner any' jurisdiction in respect of the price at which an article is sold?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It certainly gives the commissioner power to say that the patented article is not being supplied to an adequate extent or on reasonable terms either as to price, rental, conditions of use or on other grounds. The conditions which come within the expression "reasonable terms" are numerous. In England any alleged abuse brought to the notice of the comptroller is considered, and thereafter the comptroller must weigh the facts and decide whether or not they constitute an abuse. The statute states that in Canada it is an abuse if the demand for the patented article is not being made to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms.


George Gibson Coote: I am endeavouring to find out whether or not price comes under the definition of "reasonable terms."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It certainly does.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Does the commissioner have control of royalties, or has he anything to do with them?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In granting exclusive licences as a remedy for abuses the commissioner may prescribe a reasonable royalty for the patentee. One section with which we have considered deals with that point.
Section 65 agreed to.
Sections 66 to 71 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr Morand in the chair.
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934 $545,500.
Mr. VENIOT:: Mr. Chairman, just before the house rose at six o'clock last Friday evening, May 31, I had risen to make some remarks and it was then called six o'clock My intention at that time was to deal first with a statement that had been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) about what is known as the British West Indies-Canada agreement. The Minister of Trade and 'Commerce had taken to task the member for Prince, in the province of Prince Edward Island (Mr. MacLean) for certain inaccuracies, as the minister styled them, in the hon. member's discussion of this matter at a meeting in Charlottetown. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement with reference to the British West Indies-Canada agreement, and as one who was upbraiding another member for inaccuracies the minister himself I think should have paid more attention to the actual facts of the case. As far as he did go he was accurate, but had he gone a step farther and told the whole truth, presented all the facts, showed both sides of the medal, he would have been wholly accurate.
The statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was that in 1926 the then Liberal government had changed the duty in regard to sugar in order to make a treaty or agreement between the British West Indies and Canada, that since that day no increases m duties on sugar had taken place, and that therefore the member for Prince was in error when he stated that under the present government the duty on sugar entering Canada from Cuba had been raised to such an extent that Cuba retaliated and in consequence of that retaliation the maritime provinces have lost their best potato market. Technically speaking the Minister of Trade and Commerce was correct when he said that there was no increase in the duty on sugar, but he should have gone one step further and stated that in 1932 there was a change in the method of dealing with sugar importations from Cuba, and that that change was far worse in its

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
effects in keeping Cuban sugar out of Canada than a direct increase in duty would have been. That change consisted, not in directly increasing the rate of duty, but in giving the Minister of (National Revenue the power to place an arbitrary value for duty purposes on all sugar entering Canada from countries outside of the agreement entered into between Canada and the British West Indies. The effect of that was to place an absolute prohibition on the importation of sugar from Cuba into Canada. Cuba in turn in that very year, as a reprisal no doubt against the action of Canada in fixing an arbitrary valuation for duty purposes on sugar, increased its duty on potatoes, and I think I am right in saying increased it especially against Canadian potatoes because Cuba in increasing the duty on potatoes gave a preference of twenty cents per hundred pounds to the American potato grower.
I know it will be pointed out that under the Cuba-United States treaty of years before Cuba was always supposed to give a preference to American potatoes as against imports from any other country, but I want the committee to understand that notwithstanding the fact that Cuba prior to 1932 had given a preference to Amercian potato growers, we in the maritime provinces had captured the Cuban potato market. But in 1932 Cuba, in retaliation against Canada's action, placed its duty on Canadian potatoes so high that our potatoes were almost entirely excluded from the Cuban market. I should like to place on Hansard some figures in connection with the export of Canadian potatoes to Cuba. In 1922 we exported to Cuba 1,507,620 bushels of potatoes. Our exports kept on increasing, notwithstanding the preference given to the American potato producer, until in 1930 we had reached the figure of 2,003,437 bushels. What do we find after the passing by the present government of an order in council fixing in respect of Cuban sugar, an arbitrary value for duty purposes? We find that year after year our exports of potatoes dwindled until in 1934 we exported only 359,290 bushels. Is any further proof needed to establish the contention made to-day in the maritimes that the order in council passed in 1932 has resulted in the loss of our Cuban market for potatoes? It may be said that this order in council was passed to protect our sugar refineries against the importations of refined Cuban sugar, but we must not lose sight of the fact that in attempting to give this protection we have ruined the market of an industry which gives greater employment than do all the sugar refineries combined.
[Mr. Veniot.J
The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a disciple of accuracy, and I was surprised when he made the statement that Canada did not import any refined sugar from Cuba. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated that this order in council was directed against the importation of refined Cuban sugar; why was it passed if we were not importing sugar? What are the facts? In 1930, Canada imported from Cuba 359,698 hundredweight of refined granulated sugar. In 1931 we imported 310,252 hundredweight. In 1932 the importations had dwindled to 125,995 hundredweight; in 1933 they had dropped down to 400 hundredweight and in 1934 the importations were nil. Since the Minister of Trade and Commerce is quite ready to take hon. members on this side to task for inaccuracy, he cannot object to an hon. member on this side pointing out to him that he should study the statistics of his own department in order to find out wherein he himself is inaccurate.
I should like to take advantage of this occasion to refer to 'the eastern marketing board for potatoes. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has told us on several occasions that this board was accepted ninety-six per cent by the farmers in eastern Canada and the maritimes who had attended the forty-eight meetings.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I should like to correct the hon. member; the ninety-six per cent acceptance to which I referred was the tree fruit board in British Columbia.


Peter John Veniot: 
Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: May I ask the minister for the personnel of the board and their qualifications?


Robert Weir: That is the dominion marketing board?


Mr MOORE (Ontario):: Yes, and their qualifications and incidentally their salaries.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Would the minister also include in that answer the positions they ordinarily hold?


Robert Weir: The present chairman of the board is Mr. A. Leitch, at a salary of $10,000 a year. The other members of the board are: Doctor Booth, head of the branch of agricultural economics, Mr. Davidson from the Department of Trade and Commerce; Mr. Eaton from the Department of Finance, Mr. Gosselin from the Department of Agriculture, and the secretary, Doctor Hopper. All the officials with the exception of Mr. Leitch and Doctor Hopper receive only the salaries they get in their own work in the various departments. Doctor Hopper's salary from the board is $800; that is in addition to his regular salary as an employee in the branch of agricultural economics.


William Henry Moore: May I ask if the chairman devotes his whole time to the service of the board?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Henry Moore: Has the minister any knowledge that the chairman is interested in the marketing of tobacco?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Henry Moore: What is the nature of that occupation or undertaking?


Robert Weir: My understanding is that he was in charge of the Mutual Tobacco Growers' Association in western Ontario, when we endeavoured to get his services at the head of the present dominion marketing board. We thought his services would be very valuable to us not only on account of the training he had before in agricultural economics, but also in a practical way because of his experience in the marketing of a commodity so extensive as that of the tobacco organization of which he was in charge. He was able to obtain release from his duties there, and to give his time as head of the dominion marketing board. We wanted some person with practical experience, with training in agricultural economics and one who had done some definite work along this particular line. He resigned as chairman of the tobacco board and took this position.
Mr. MOOiRE (Ontario): Is the mutual association really a cooperative undertaking of tobacco growers or is it a land holding
syndicate?


Robert Weir: It is an organized company, not a cooperative society.


William Henry Moore: It is a land holding syndicate. Is Mr. Leitch one of the owners of this syndicate?


Robert Weir: I could not say.


William Henry Moore: One would think that would be a natural inquiry. Does the syndicate sell tobacco lands?


Robert Weir: I could not give that information. I shall be glad to get it. There should be no difficulty in getting it.


William Henry Moore: May I ask if under the marketing act as it applies to Ontario, certain licences are issued to growers and what provision has been made for the issue of other licences to growers, we will say, who have not grown tobacco formerly?


Robert Weir: The sellers of tobacco are licensed, but not the growers unless they are also sellers.


William Henry Moore: Do I understand the minister to say that a man may grow tobacco but may not sell it unless he has a licence?


Robert Weir: My information is
to the effect that the licence states that it is for the selling of a certain type of tobacco. What the hon. member has in mind no doubt is this, that of recent years there have been those who entered into the production of tobacco who did not previously produce it,

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
and because of what was felt to be overproduction some two or three years ago, an agreement was entered into that there would be a decrease in the quantity of tobacco produced. One of the new growers met me in my office some time ago and asked that this should be looked into. I gave instructions to have it looked into, but have not yet received the report. It may have come in, but I have not it here.


William Henry Moore: I am very much obliged to the minister for the information and for stating what I have in mind. Probably I could state more specifically what I have in mind. I understand from the minister that the chairman of the board is also the owner or part owner of one of the syndicates that grow tobacco that the people who grew tobacco previously now have licences and that the growing of tobacco has become a privilege, a monopoly if you like* and that one of the syndicate holders has been made chairman of the marketing board. Is that correct or incorrect? That is my understanding of the minister's statement.


Robert Weir: Mr. Leitch is the chairman of the dominion marketing board. I have not the other information at hand with sufficient accuracy to answer, but I shall be glad to look into the matter and get the information.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Does the
.minister state that there are individuals who are desirous of growing tobacco who are prohibited from doing so?


Robert Weir: Not under this
scheme.


William Henry Moore: From selling the
tobacco they grow.


Charles A. Stewart: It is the
same thing. If they cannot sell it, what is the use of growing it? Have we come to the stage in agriculture in Ontario where a man is prohibited from engaging in producing anything out of which he thinks he can make some money?


Robert Weir: No.


Charles A. Stewart: Is he prohibited from selling it, then?


Robert Weir: The selling of
tobacco or the marketing of it is subject to regulation, but the growing is not.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
minister mean to tell the committee that the marketing act is being used for the purpose of prohibiting a man from selling his production?


Robert Weir: That is not what
I said.


Charles A. Stewart: It has the
same effect.


Robert Weir: Not at all.


Charles A. Stewart: He may
sell it in some other way rather than through the agency of the board.


Robert Weir: He can sell it under the board, but I did not state that there was any provision to prevent his selling tobacco. The marketing of tobacco was regulated; it had to be sold in the regular way.


Charles A. Stewart: A man can sell his tobacco only when the board gives him the right to do so.


Robert Weir: All the tobacco
could not be dumped on the market at one time.


Charles A. Stewart: That is another way of putting the matter, but the producer of tobacco is prohibited from selling it until he gets the authority of the board to do so.


Robert Weir: That is the essence of the scheme; it is the essence of all such schemes.


William Henry Moore: Has the minister any knowledge of the increase in prices of the lands held by the licensed growers including the lands held by the syndicate of which the chairman of the marketing board is a member?


Robert Weir: No, I have not that information.


William Henry Moore: Wall the minister make inquiries and give us that information?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. CAMSEBELL:: 'Can any farmer now grow tobacco under the board without a licence?


Robert Weir: Any farmer can grow tobacco if he wishes to do so.


Peter John Veniot: Can he sell it?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Milton Neil Campbell: What does the marketing board do?


Robert Weir: The producers get together and agree that they will regulate the marketing of their product under certain conditions upon which they agree.
3276	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Mr. MelNTOSH: Can they not coerce growers who are not under the board?


Robert Weir: If they are in the area in which the scheme is in effect, in which the majority of the people have agreed to abide by certain regulations.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is within an effective marketing area they use the policy coercion?


Robert Weir: Within the area in which the scheme is in effect.


William Gilbert Weir: This is quite a large item, and perhaps the minister would break it down and explain in a little more detail how it is to be expended. I had hoped that at the beginning the minister would be able to give a complete and comprehensive review of the workings of the act since it was brought into effect, but unfortunately last night we got off on some sidelines. Perhaps we could gather it from the various statements he made, but I would like him to indicate how this money has been spent and to make some comment on the failure of the poultry pool scheme to carry in the three western provinces. He might indicate also what provincial governments have enacted complementary legislation. I took it from the minister's remarks a little while ago that
the majority of the dominion marketing board are members of his own department. How many of them are not members of his department?


Robert Weir: Doctor Booth, Mr. Eaton, and also the secretary Doctor Hopper.


William Gilbert Weir: Is not Doctor Booth a member of the minister's department? How many members of the marketing board are not members of the department?


Robert Weir: There are five members in all. They are all members of the department as far as that goes because the marketing act is under the Department of Agriculture. But I think that what the hon. member means is, what members of the dominion marketing board do not occupy definite positions-


Peter John Veniot: On the regular staff.


Robert Weir: No, do not occupy positions that have been created within the service under the different divisions. Mr. Leibch the chairman, and Mr. Eaton, who is from the Department of Finance and Mr. Davidson of the bureau of statistics.
With reference to the breaking down of the amount for, last year, this will be submitted in a report:
Expenses of the board:
Transportation	
Communications	
Miscellaneous	
Materials and supplies Salaries

Organization of local boards, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta poultry
marketing	
Eastern Canada potato marketing board	
British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board	
Fruit export board	
50.000	00
10.000	00
3.000	00
3.000	00


William Gilbert Weir: How is that money expended by these various boards? Do you make them a grant, or is it expenses of coming here, or of taking a vote, or what?


Robert Weir: It varies with the requests of the different boards. The purpose of the vote of this money was to assist in the organization of these schemes in various ways. Some money was advanced after the expenses 
were incurred, some advanced before the expenses were incurred, under certain conditions.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask if any ,of it was spent in a similar way to the $50,000 grant made to the western poultry pools, for purposes of propaganda to put the scheme over, payment of lecturers and so on?


Robert Weir: That was not for purposes of propaganda to put the scheme over.

Supply-Agriculture-*Marketing Act
It was considered rather in this light, that some steps had to be taken, to put the scheme before the people interested. At first consideration was given as to whether or not the dominion .marketing board themselves should engage speakers to go through the provinces and put the scheme that was under consideration before the people. But it was felt that it was only fair that those who had put so much into the scheme in the way of preparing it, and who had held preliminary meetings, should ibe advanced money to pay for the use of halls and to pay their expenses in holding meetings to forward the scheme, with the distinct understanding that on all occasions every opportunity would be given to people who were opposed to the scheme to present their side of the case.


Peter John Veniot: At their own expense?


Robert Weir: Every advantage was taken of this by those who were opposed to the scheme. At the great majority of these meetings, if not all, questions were asked by people who were there and in many cases questions were submitted by an organized opposition to the scheme. It was our first experience in this connection, and because of the more or less experimental nature of it we feel that the thing was lived up to in a very fair way.


Charles A. Stewart: I have been reading the return furnished by the minister to me in connection with the payments made to lecturers. Some ninety were engaged in Alberta, and a considerable number of them were just about as competent to talk about poultry pools as I am. I can imagine the kind of answer they would give when asked about the operation .of a poultry pool1. If these lecturers had known something about the poultry business perhaps they would have got along better. I am not going to prolong the discussion, but I would ask the minister if he intends to use any part of this money now being voted for a similar purpose. I do not dare what he calls it; I call it propaganda. If it is to -be used in the same way then I want to register, an objection and vote against it. If it is to be used purely for marketing purposes and the assistance that the department can and should render in marketing natural products both abroad and at home, it is all right. But if it is to be expended as the grant to which I have referred was expended in western Canada, it will not meet with my approval.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, $545,500.
Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock some questions remained unanswered. At this time I shall endeavour to answer the hon. members for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) and West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). I realize that the hon. member for Gloucester has a keen interest in the matter, and is specially concerned with the eastern potato marketing board. As he stated at the conclusion of his remarks he is anxious to obtain the facts and is particularly anxious that the information be placed before the producers in advance of the vote to be taken in connection with the scheme on some date before July 10. The exact date has not yet been set.
The reason the scheme was put into effect without a vote was the abnormal conditions existing in connection with the marketing of potatoes grown in the maritimes and the province of Ontario, brought about by the fact that in the past year there was a very heavy potato crop. The year 1932 could be considered as a normal crop year; in 1933 the crop was rather short and in 1934 it was very heavy. No price of any value to the growers of potatoes could be obtained. Finding themselves confronted with this difficulty the growers got together and endeavoured by united effort to ascertain whether or not through the provisions of the marketing act they might overcome the objections of a few members-few certainly in comparison to the number who were willing voluntarily to agree -and arrive at some control of the quantities of potatoes being placed on the market. The result was that a number of meetings were held in the different provinces, and the views expressed at those meetings, in the opinion of the Dominion Marketing Board, represented a fair picture of the views held by the majority of producers. At eight meetings held in the province of Prince Edward Island, with a total attendance estimated at 1,000, only one member voiced opposition. In Nova Scotia, at six meetings with an attendance of 127, there were no voices opposed; in New Brunswick there were eighteen meetings which 386 attended, there being opposition at two meetings. In Ontario there were sixteen meet-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
ings attended by 686 people, and seven persons were opposed. In Quebec 56 meetings with 1,690 signatures in favour. These figures indicate a total of 104 meetings attended by 3,889 people, and practically no opposition to the scheme.
Many people are under the impression that the marketing act sets out specifically what producers must do in connection with any scheme. That is not so, and I believe in the present instance we have a good example. The producers of eastern Canada found themselves up against very difficult conditions indeed, and without as much time as they should have had to bring into operation a scheme involving the wide territory and large number of individuals. They asked that we set up a provisional or temporary board to take action immediately. The only basis upon which we can estimate whether or not this procedure has worked out to the advantage of the producer is that of ascertaining the exact quantities of potatoes which were placed on the market before and after the scheme became effective. We would have to ascertain if there was any slowing up of volume being forwarded to market and the
Province-
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick.. ..
Quebec	
Ontario	
price the producers received. I realize that the potatoes sold on the Montreal market would not show a fair return to the producers. The board was composed of producers and shippers who cooperated to give their best thought towards helping the potato growers out of a difficult position. In making a conservative estimate I believe one would be fair if he were to take as a standard the price received on the Montreal market for potatoes marketed in the normal crop year of 1932. Mark you, in that year there was nothing like the crop gathered last year, but to be fair I am accepting that year as a standard. Records indicate that with a much more difficult position than existed in 1932 the New Brunswick potato growers received in the last year S30,400 more than in the year first named.
With the indulgence of tihe committee I believe I would do well to place on record figures showing comparative crops, because I realize hon. members wish to understand accurately the difficulties with which the farmers have been faced. For this purpose I shall give figures for the years 1932, 1933
and 1934.		
1932	1933	19343.188.000 2d 22,000 3.856.000 11,475.000 9.516.000	3.760.000 1.866.000 5,394,000 13.444.000 10.1.12.000	4.824.000 2.453.000 6.938.000 14.244.000 11.830.000


Peter John Veniot: Those are production
figures?


Robert Weir: Yes. The hon.
member will note that the crop in Prince Edward Island w'as increased by more than 25 per cent and that in New Brunswick it was almost doubled. Although in the working out of the scheme there were difficulties encountered, as were bound to be encountered in setting up in a hurry a scheme that was felt by the producers to be necessary, I do not know but what the potato producers of eastern Canada received more for their potato crop in 1934 than they would have received had they not formed this eastern Canada potato marketing scheme.


Peter John Veniot: Is the minister referring
to the dealers or producers?


Robert Weir: To the producers.


Peter John Veniot: What figure did they receive?


Robert Weir: I have not with me a record of what the producers did receive, but foe that as it may, this is a scheme pro-

duced and carried out by the producers themselves together with the shippers and dealers that was felt by these men who were in the best position to judge, to be in their own interests. I can assure the hon. member for Gloucester that before the vote is taken every effort possible will be made to put the picture of this whole scheme and its results as clearly as possible before the producers.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister permit a suggestion?


Robert Weir: I was going to follow that up, Mr. Chairman, by saying that if the hon. member for Gloucester has any suggestions to make in this connection because of his close touch with the situation we would appreciate it if he would make those suggestions known to us. I can assure him that they will certainly be given every consideration, because our whole endeavour is to put the picture as clearly as possible before the producers.
With reference to the point raised that truckers were able to sell under the pegged

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
price I have no doubt that in many cases that was so, due to the difficulty in controlling the truckers delivering their potatoes.
There has been no change in the system of grading the potatoes. For a number of years grading of potatoes has been required for interprovincial trade, but not for trade within the province. That practice was continued this year, but with the setting up of this marketing scheme the potato growers themselves felt that it would be to their advantage under the scheme to carry out a grading system within the provinces. Before Quebec entered the scheme the farmers in that province were free to sell their potatoes in their own province without enforcing the grading regulations.
With reference to the questions which the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) has asked about the tobacco marketing scheme and the conditions under which tobacco is marketed, I have made inquiries since the house rose at six o'clock from the chairman of the dominion marketing board, who himself is engaged in the business of raising tobacco, and he informs me as president and chairman of two tobacco associations in the district-


William Henry Moore: Would the minister be kind enough to give the names of the two associations?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to get them; I do not remember them offhand. I am informed by him that the buyers of tobacco are licensed. The sellers are also licensed, but in the first year of operation of this scheme of local marketing under the tobacco board a blanket licence was issued to all farmers producing tobacco, and that gave permission to each farmer to sell all his tobacco. There is no limiting feature so far as this scheme is concerned as to the amount of tobacco produced by any tobacco producer in the province of Ontario, either within this area or outside the area.


William Henry Moore: Am I to understand that licences were issued to all growers at the time and to no one else?


Robert Weir: My information is
this, that individual licences to individual growers were not issued as such, but that through the press and otherwise a blanket licence was issued to every producer giving him authority to sell all the tobacco that he produced. That was the 1934 crop.


William Henry Moore: What is the
acreage that was licensed, and what was the acreage contained in the two syndicates in which the chairman is interested1?


Robert Weir: I have not that
information. I am informed that within the area there are one thousand producers. But the point the hon. member is asking about has no bearing on the question, because every farmer who produced tobacco received a licence to sell all the tobacco that he produced.


William Henry Moore: I am afraid that the minister has misunderstood my question. He says that there are one thousand producers. How many of those producers were working for or under the two associations in which the chairman is interested? I will put it in another way. The minister says that there are one thousand producers. Does he mean that there were 998 in addition to the two associations in which the chairman was interested, or is the chairman interested in a number of lands on which there are a number of producers?


Robert Weir: The information that I received from the chairman is this, that he is president and chairman of two companies-


William Henry Moore: Controlling how
many producers?


Robert Weir: I do not know how many producers. When I gave the number of producers as one thousand I did not intend to give the impression that that was the exact number but rather that the number was in that neighbourhood. I was trusting my memory on that point, but I can get the exact number of producers within the area.


William Henry Moore: Am I to understand that the minister will give me the information required as to the acreage of the two associations in which the chairman is interested as compared with the total acreage?


Robert Weir: I see no objection
to giving that.


William Henry Moore: And the number of producers represented by the two associations as compared with the total number of producers?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Henry Moore: It seems to me
that the matter is exceedingly important. The minister and every member of this house will recognize that a precedent has been created when a gentleman engaged in an industry has a privilege as part of a monopoly and then is made chairman of the board controlling those privileges. It seems to me that the thing is entirely without precedent.
3280	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
I should be very much surprised! if the minister could point to a parallel in any other country.


Robert Weir: I do not see that my hon. friend's statement has any bearing on the question. The chairman of the board is a tobacco producer, just as the members of the tree fruit board in British Columbia are also producers of the commodity which is regulated. We were pleased indeed to get the services of Mr. Leitch because of the experience he had had in a practical way in the marketing of this product, and' I believe the results to the farmers themselves in the marketing of their tobacco have been eminently satisfactory. They are all on exactly the same basis, the smallest producer on the same basis as the largest producer.


William Henry Moore: I am quite sure that the minister has not understood what I have been trying to say, because very obviously from the statement he made this afternoon the chairman of the board is a holder in two syndicates that have certain privileges under the marketing act, privileges which are not enjoyed by people holding lands suitable for growing tobacco but which have not hitherto been devoted to that purpose. The chairman is a holder and owner of a portion of that property, and he has been made by the minister chairman of the marketing board for Canada. I do not want to press the matter. I have nothing against the chairman; I do not know him, but it seems to me this is a terrible condition. I asked this afternoon for the qualifications of the other members of the board, particularly their experience in marketing.


Robert Weir: I do not see what bearing the holdings of the Chairman of the board would have upon the question unless he was receiving preferences.


William Henry Moore: He has the giving of preferences.


Robert Weir: Not at all.


William Henry Moore: The supervision of the giving of preferences.


Robert Weir: The local board is responsible for and has the control of the regulating of the marketing of tobacco in exactly the same way as any other local board set up.


Mr. BROWN:: I have a simple question to ask and I want an answer in simple language. Is it possible under this tobacco arrangement which has been set up in the tobacco growing country for a man who has not been hitherto a grower of tobacco to grow and sell tobacco?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Albert Joseph Brown: Could he sell it apart from the board?


Robert Weir: Not within the area.


Albert Joseph Brown: If a man cannot do that it condemns the whole scheme.


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member know how this tobacco is marketed?


Albert Joseph Brown: That is what I want the minister to tell me.


Robert Weir: I do not see how the hon. member can condemn a scheme unless he knows how it operates.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is it possible for a man who was not hitherto growing tobacco to grow and sell tobacco within that area?


Robert Weir: I think I can clear up the hon. member's difficulty. In the marketing of the crap in 1934 a number of producers, a number of shippers and a number of buyers were on the board. The buyers set up an appraisal committee which went around the district- to appraise the crop of each producer. The producers also set up a committee which also appraised the crops. The men representing the producers and the men representing the buyers met with this information in front of them and after discussion and bargaining it was agreed that a certain average price should be paid for all the tobacco. Every producer, whether he had or had not previously produced, could sell' his tobacco to any buyer and any buyer could purchase from any individual as cheaply as he could, but it was understood that the whole crop was to bring in a. certain amount of money. For instance, buyer A might buy tobacco from a number of farmers at different prices and find that the total price paid was $100,000 less than the appraised value. In such a case that $100,000 would be divided on a poundage basis among the farmers who had sold their tobacco to that buyer and -this might work out at ten per cent for each farmer. Farmer A might have sold his tobacco at 23 cents per pound while farmer B had received 30 cents per pound; they each would receive an additional ten per cent. The result was that instead of large quantities -of tobacco being left and the market being in a chaotic state, ninety per cent of the crop was disposed of within three weeks of the time this arrangement had been made and for prices considerably higher that those received last year. Each man was permitted to sell his own tobacco but all the producers were protected by the collective bargaining power which they had.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Albert Joseph Brown: The minister has used a lot of words but he has not answered my question. I want to know if it would be possible for a man who had not been hitherto growing tobacco in that area to go into the area, buy a farm, produce tobacco and sell it. That is a simple question and it does not require a lot of words to answer.
Mr. WiEIR (Melfort):	I think we can
consider from whom these remarks have come. The 'hon. member asked the question and I answered it with a straight "yes". I repeat the answer, yes. The hon. member evidently was not satisfied with that; he wanted to learn how these people marketed their tobacco. I endeavoured to the best of my ability to give him that information.


Mr. YOUNG:: The minister has said that he gave a straight "yes" as an answer but I think he also said, "not in that area." I should like him to explain that.


William Gilbert Weir: (Melfort): If a man comes into the area in which this scheme is operating he must conform to the scheme as agreed to by the majority of the producers.


William Henry Moore: Must a man who owns land in the area and has not hitherto been producing tobacco comply with the scheme?


Robert Weir: I would say, yes.


William Henry Moore: He could not sell without the permission of the board?


Robert Weir: Without the permission of the board, yes.


William Henry Moore: If this thing was decided1 by a vote, how was the vote taken? Was it a secret ballot, was it an open convention or what was it?


Robert Weir: Meetings were held and there was a personal sign-up afterwards. The report received by the dominion marketing board was that the scheme had been endorsed by seventy-one per cent of the growers, representing approximately eighty per cent of the land devoted to the production of tobacco, and by the majority of the responsible manufacturers and packers of flue cured tobacco.


William Henry Moore: Has the minister taken the trouble to find out how many growers were renting land from the syndicate represented by the chairman of the board and what proportion of the growers were independent owners? I Should like to know also how many syndicates there are similar to the one in which the chairman is interested and what proportion of the total acreage is controlled by the syndicate.


Robert Weir: The information I have, which I should like to verify, is that only owners voted.


William Henry Moore: My information is that more than fifty per cent of the land in this area is controlled by the several syndicates.


Edward James Young: A moment ago the minister referred to blanket licences having been published in the newspapers to give the growers of tobacco the licence to sell their product t'iiat year. This is a new form of licence; can the minister furnish us with a copy of it?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to do that.
Mr. YOUNlG: Has the minister a copy with him to-night?


Robert Weir: No.


Mr. DUFF:: Apparently the minister has taken credit to himself and to the marketing board for having solved the potato problem. Speaking biblically, may I say that "I have not found so great a faith, not even in Israel," as the minister's.


Robert Weir: Would) the hon. member have any objection to my correcting that statement?


William Duff: Wait until I am through; don't get excited.


Robert Weir: I supposed the hon. member would want to be correct as he went ahead.


William Duff: You can correct me if you can after I have finished, not while I am making my remarks.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You are correcting him.


William Duff: Yes, at the moment. If I
understood him correctly, the minister took the credit for having solved the potato situation in the maritime provinces. Will the minister tell me why the former chairman of the marketing board resigned? Can the minister say to me as a humble citizen of Canada who buys and sells potatoes that the scheme evolved by the marketing 'board or by the minister or by anybody else as far as the potatoes are concerned was successful in Nova Scotia, or even successful in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island? It is all camouflage; this thing is all a mistake and the sooner the minister wakes up to that fact the better. Because the government interfered with the ordinary marketing of potatoes last fall, potatoes were sold in Prince Edward Island at 8 cents a bushel.

Sup-ply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
As a shipper of potatoes to the West Indies, I bought them at 25 cents a bag, or a bushel and a half of potatoes packed in the bag by the farmer after he had garnered them. Placed on the cars, they were sold at 25 cents a bag, and this was the result of action by the Minister of Agriculture and the government in establishing this foolish and stupid marketing board.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the bag
worth?


William Duff: About 7 cents, and the man's labour about 10 cents, and the farmer got 8 cents.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is 8 cents more than they got in Ontario.


William Duff: So much the worse for Ontario. When I came in at five past eight the minister was boasting about what a great thing the marketing board had proved to be. Let me tell you how stupid this whole marketing situation has turned out to be so far as potatoes are concerned. The former chairman of the marketing board, Doctor Barton, had sense enough to resign; he would not stand for it and he got out. What happened? When the marketing board or the minister or someone else discovered that the poor farmer in Prince Edward Island was receiving only 8 cents per bushel they started to create an organization as a camouflage to fool the public among the buyers of potatoes, and they said, "You must sell potatoes at a certain price and not lower," and they fixed the price in Halifax, for instance-that is the place I am interested in-at 58 cents a bag, and they appointed a man there to walk around every morning, calling on wholesale potato dealers and instructing them not to sell the potatoes unless they got 58 cents a bag. The result was they could not sell very many. Time went on, spring came and the potatoes began to sprout, and those who were dealing in potatoes said, "Here, we have five or ten or fifteen thousand bags of potatoes and because of this act we cannot get clear of them. We are willing to lose money on them so as to clean up the whole thing." But this man -if I remember rightly his name was Grant- walked around every morning, drawing his five or ten dollars a day, and insisting upon it that the dealers should get 58 cents a bag or let the potatoes sprout. But that was not good enough. One day my partner sold fifteen hundred bags of these potatoes in different islands of the West Indies. He did not sell them f.o.b. Halifax because the West Indies would not buy them that way; they wanted them e.ii. West Indies. We got all the papers ready, invoices and everything else,
fMr. Duff.]
and instead of 58 cents we sold them at 98 cents; and this official of my hon. friend went around to the offices of the different shippers and demanded to see their invoices, which of counse showed 98 cents and not 58 cents. This man then told them they could not ship their potatoes at the 98 cent price, but the shippers informed him that the potatoes had already been shipped. They said, "The potatoes have gone; these are only the invoices; the potatoes left by the Lady Nelson, which sailed this morning at twelve o'clock when you were in bed drawing your five or ten dollars per day from the board." He said they must change their invoices or he would get into trouble if they shipped the potatoes at 98 instead of 58 cents. The shippers told 'him that the potatoes were sold c.i.f. Trinidad or Barbados or Santiago or Cuba or whatever it was. He said, "I don't know about that; I got instructions that it must be 58 cents a bag." Whether they communicated with the minister I do not know-I am not sure whether the minister knows what c.i.f. or f.o.b. means. At any Tate the whole thing is a tragedy. Imagine the minister sending this man around in this way to men who have been in business forty years. The farmers of Prince Edward Island and the farmers of Carleton county, New Brunswick, would have sold twice as many potatoes as they did if the minister and the Tory government and the board had not interfered. The fact is, however, that owing to this organization which the minister created to save his face and the face of the government, there are millions of bushels of potatoes in the cellars of the farmers of Prince Edward Island and Carleton county, New Brunswick, though they might have been able to sell those potatoes long ago. You remember what Barnum said- you can fool the people some of the time- and the joke is that the potato growers fooled the minister, because those who had potatoes to sell, realizing that they had to get clear of them in spite of the pegged price which the minister and his board fixed, got ahead of him.	.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did they bootleg them?


William Duff: Yes, exactly. After all, the people who grew the potatoes should have had the first chance to sell them and should have been allowed to sell them at their own price even if they lost money, and as a matter of fact they were too cute for the minister and the board-I will not tell the minister how; he does not know and I will not tell him. But let me assure him that hundreds of thousand of bushels were sold in spite of the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
58 cent pegged price, and I do not blame the farmers and the dealers. Had the minister kept his hands off it and attended to his business in the Confederation building; had he allowed the business people of the country to run their own business, whether in potatoes or anything else; had he looked after the ordinary affairs of his department, this country would have got clear of hundreds of thousands of bushels of potatoes which, owing to the ridiculous stupidity of the act, the farmers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have been unable to dispose of-potatoes that are now sprouting and cannot even be fed to the pigs because in a few weeks they will be rotten.


Robert Weir: In the first place I did not take credit for having solved the problem in the maritimes. I only wish that some solution were possible for the difficulties in which the potato producers have found themselves. Nor did I peg the price, nor did I pay any official to go around checking up whether potatoes were sold or not, nor did-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who did, then?


Robert Weir: One at a time, please; nor did the former chairman of the dominion marketing board, Doctor Barton, resign for any of the reasons which the hon. member has stated.


William Duff: Why did he resign?


Robert Weir: I think that covers practically all the statements the hon. member has made, all of which are incorrect.


William Duff: I rise to a point of order. The minister says that my statements were incorrect. I said that Doctor Barton had resigned. That is a fact, is it not? That statement is not incorrect.


Robert Weir: Not the reason the hon. member gave for his resignation.


William Duff: I said that the chairman of the marketing board resigned because he did not agree with the policies of the minister, and that is correct.


Robert Weir: No, it is not.


William Duff: Will the minister tell us why he did resign?


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: He got a better job.


Robert Weir: Neither of the hon. members knows very much about the matter. Doctor Barton, the former chairman of the 92582-209
dominion marketing board, was and still is Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Because of the work that he had done in plotting out this legislation, we asked him, in addition to his duties as deputy minister, for a period to be chairman of the marketing board. That was strictly understood at the time he accepted the position, because it was felt that it was too heavy a load to be chairman of the marketing board and Deputy Minister of Agriculture for any considerable length of time. What the hon. member is criticizing is this: It is not the interference of me or of anyone else with the operation of the potato growers of Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island. The board that did everything that was supposed to have been done, although the hon. member feels it was not done altogether as they had hoped, was a board named by the potato growers themselves and the shippers independently of any suggestion or guidance on the part of the dominion marketing board, the idea being that they themselves on the ground were in the best position-and this is the basis of the marketing act-to decide the most efficient way of marketing their potatoes, especially under the abnormal conditions such as existed. Therefore all the criticism that has been levelled at me has really been levelled at the fellow citizens of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough as well as other maritimers who were responsible for formulating this scheme, naming their board and endeavouring to carry out, in what they thought was the best possible way, the regulating of the marketing of their products.
I do not think there is any other question I have omitted. I made a note of the points raised by the hon. member as he proceeded with his remarks. The whole basis is this: it gives to the producers themselves power to handle their own products in the way of regulating the marketing of them, and the men who put the scheme into force were men appointed by the producers themselves, their own local marketing board.


William Duff: I admit with the minister that the people of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick -had great hopes that when this marketing board legislation was put through, there would be a new heaven and a new earth. They were desperate on account of the policies of this government, due to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture in 1930 promised the farmers of Canada seventy cents a pound for butter.


Robert Weir: I must object very strenuously to that statement. The hon.



Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
member is not stating the fact, 'because what he is saying is that I as an individual promised the farmers.


William Duff: I did not say "as an individual."


Robert Weir: The hon. member said: "The Minister of Agriculture."


William Duff: The Minister of Agriculture as the representative of the Conservative party and the Conservative candidates in
1930.	He took the position of Minister of Agriculture after this government was elected on a butter policy of seventy cents a pound, and he is still holding that position. I say that the minister and his friends in 1930 promised the farmers of this country seventy cents a pound for butter.


Robert Weir: I must object to that statement. The hon. member makes a specific charge that I promised the farmers seventy cents a pound for butter. I was not a minister at that time, and' as an individual I never promised the farmers any price for any commodity.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: Yes, the hon. member was the only one who did it.


William Duff: I am not speaking of the minister as an individual; I am referring to him as Minister of Agriculture, as the one who benefited by the fact that the Conservative party was elected because the Prime Minister and practically every other stump speaker for that party went on the platform and said to the farmers: Under the Grit government you are getting only thirty-five cents a pound for butter; if we are elected, you will get seventy cents. The minister has benefited by that; he came into office in that way as a new man; he never sat in parliament before. Surely he should stand by his friends. They put him where he is; they gave him his exalted position as privy councillor and Minister of Agriculture. Why should he pass the buck and because I am criticizing him as representing this Tory government, now go back on all his friends who put him in his present position? That is the situation the minister is in; does he not see it?
The Minister of Agriculture tries to say that the government is not responsible for the marketing act. There is no question that when the government introduced this marketing act, they did it for a political purpose; they did it to fool the people, just as they did in 1930. They promised them something which they knew they could not fulfil, and as luck had it, instead of going to the country last year when the marketing act was new and when the Minister of Agriculture might

have got away with it, the fact is that due to conditions the government did not go to the country with the result that, whether it is potatoes or hogs or beef or anything else, the Minister of Agriculture is in the slough of despond.


An hon. MEMBER:: The valley of humiliation.


William Duff: Yes. The Tory government is now in the valley of humiliation. We had an exhibition this afternoon of the Tory government and the valley of humiliation. We had the same story as we had in 1894;-the nest of traitors. We have in the Tory government to-day a situation where ministers of the crown do not stand by their leader, sick as he is and with his heart trouble.


Mir. BEAUBIEN:: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


William Duff: Yes; my hon. friends opposite should not talk about the valley of humiliation. History has a way of repeating itself, and I have never seen it fail to do so. Everybody should be careful of the remarks he makes because to-morrow they will come back and hit him on the rebound. The hon. member must realize that to-day the Tory party is in the valley of humiliation, in the valley of treason. They are scared to go to the country; they are afraid to submit to the electorate the Minister of Agriculture's hog policy; they are afraid to submit his marketing board. Why? Because they know that his marketing board has been a mistake and a stupid one at that. They realize that the Canadian people will not stand for any interference with business.


Mr. ROSS:: The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) agreed to the idea of the marketing board.


William Duff: That does not make it right any more than in the case of the hon. member for Kingston when he disagreed with his own party about the penitentiaries. I admire my hon. friend for being independent just as I admire the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell); but the fact remains that the government introduced this marketing board legislation to fool the people and the Minister of Agriculture has to be the goat because the government, to fool the people, introduced a bill that interferes with the right of the public to market their products in their own way and at their own prices. The minister knows this scheme is a failure; he knows the potato board is a mistake; that the apple board was a mistake; that every board was a mistake. Even in his own province the hens wouldn't

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
lay eggs for him. In order to get the hens to lay eggs in the proper way the minister spent $50,000-of whose money? Not his money, oh, no.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The taxpayers' money.


William Duff: Yes, the taxpayers' money.
I say to the minister, what right had he to spend $50,000 of the taxpayers' money in order to get this poultry board established? Why did he not allow the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta to decide for themselves? iBut no; the minister, trying to support this moribund government whicn has been hanging on by its eyelids in the last five years, deliberately and I believe without proper authority spent $50,000 of the people's money in order to influence the poultry producers of the three provinces to give a verdict in favour of his own marketing bill, or that of the government. And what happened? The minister's own constituents turned him down, every constituency in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba turned him down, and the only result we have is that the hens are still laying eggs and the minister is still sitting on the roost of the marketing act.


Robert Weir: The best test or
proof as to whether the marketing act is accepted as sound legislation is the attitude of the producers themselves. Not only are we receiving more and more applications from representative bodies of producers to have made available for them the provisions of the marketing act for the more efficient marketing of their products-


William Alexander Fraser: Will
the minister permit a question?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Let the minister
answer.


Robert Weir: -but applications have been made by the local boards where schemes have been set up to extend- further the scope of these marketing schemes. As far as my own constituency goes, I should be very well pleased indeed, and I am sure every hon. member would be pleased, if in the next election he should receive as big a percentage of the votes polled as that in favour of the poultry scheme in the province of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


William Alexander Fraser: Perhaps they would if they spent as much money to get it.


Robert Weir: My own constituency voted over seventy per cent in favour, and some others over eighty per cent. This 92582-209i
money was voted by the House of Commons, and spoken in favour of by members of the different parties represented in the house, to be applied to assist in the organization and development of schemes such as this.


William Henry Moore: May I ask the
minister the number of those who voted in Alberta and in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: It is already on
Hansard but I shall read it again. In Alberta the total votes in favour were 12,635, being 62-5 per cent, and the number against 7,587. being 37-5 per cent. In Saskatchewan the number in favour was 27,749, being 63-4 per cent, and the number against, 16,012, being 36-6 per cent. In Manitoba the votes in favour were 6,070, and against, 18,931.


William Henry Moore: Surely the minister will admit that that was a very small fraction of the possible voters, showing a very slight interest in the movement.


Robert Weir: And a slighter
opposition to it.


William Henry Moore: Was I correct in understanding the minister to- say he had answered all the questions put to him this afternoon and evening?


Robert Weir: I think the hon.
member will be fair enough to admit that when hon. gentlemen ask five or six or seven or more questions in succession it is difficult to remember them all. But as far as I can remember I have answered all questions asked.


Albert Joseph Brown: There is one matter I would like to bring to the attention of the minister now that we have come back to the poultry scheme. Some $50,000 was spent by the government in promoting the scheme-


William Duff: Wasted, not spent.


Albert Joseph Brown: Well, it may have been wasted, but it was spent. The minister said this afternoon that opponents of the scheme had opportunity to present their case at the meetings. I would call his attention to the fact that at some of the meetings opposition speakers were not allowed to speak. I can prove that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Serve them right.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is a curious statement. I have no objection to the minister taking the position that they could not directly finance the opposition; I think his argument on that point is reasonable. But I contend that when public money is spent to promote a scheme

Sup-ply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
of this kind, neighbouring farmers who attend the meeting should not be denied the privilege of expressing their opposition to the scheme. Now, that was done.


Robert Weir: No doubt about that.


Albert Joseph Brown: The minister agrees with what I said?


Robert Weir: Absolutely.


Albert Joseph Brown: I think the minister will agree that that was an entirely wrong policy to pursue.


Robert Weir: When the money was advanced it was set out very definitely as one of the conditions that every opportunity should be given to opponents of the scheme to express their view.


Albert Joseph Brown: Well, it was not done.


Robert Weir: The first condition that was attached to the advance of this money was that:
Every effort should be made to familiarize all poultry producers with the purpose and proposed operation of the scheme in order to ensure as complete registration and poll as possible and opportunity shall be given at every meeting to all who desire to discuss the scheme.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who
.signed that letter?


Robert Weir: The dominion marketing board.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who
overruled it?


Robert Weir: It must have been the individuals sent out who did not live up to it. The information no doubt is correct, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give me the name of the individual in charge of the meeting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By whom were those people appointed1-the dominion marketing board?


Robert Weir: No, they were appointed by the proponents of the scheme in each province.


William Henry Moore: Would the minister give me the marketing qualifications of the members of the marketing board?


Robert Weir: At the present time the chairman of the dominion marketing board is a man with excellent training in agricultural economics before he went into business on his own account.


William Duff: Who is he?
fMr. Brown.]


Robert Weir: Mr. Leitch. He made an outstanding success, I believe, of this business he entered into. He was to a considerable extent responsible for formulating the scheme in connection with regulating the marketing of tobacco, and before coming to the dominion marketing board was responsible to a great extent for the success of that scheme.


William Henry Moore: May I interrupt? I understood the minister to say that we had to have the marketing board in connection witlh tobacco because the marketing of tobacco had not been a success. Now he states that the chairman has made a distinct success of the marketing of tobacco.


Robert Weir: I said the chairman of the board had made a distinct success in this business that he had undertaken. The hon. member knows, as I had occasion to know through numbers of delegations who came to interview me in 1932, I think, and in 1933, of the unsatisfactory conditions that existed in connection with the marketing of tobacco.


William Henry Moore: Unsuccessful.


Robert Weir: Unsuccessful, especially the smaller producers. They felt that they were being discriminated against. I believe it is the almost unanimous opinion that there has been a great improvement, outside of a party of two who came to see me two weeks ago, and I think they laboured under a misapprehension which I hope has been cleared up. Doctor Booth is head of the Department of agricultural economics, and we felt he was qualified to make a contribution to this work.


William Henry Moore: Has he ever had any selling experience?


Robert Weir: I do not think he
has ever had any experience in merchandising. The work of the marketing board is not to buy and sell.


William Duff: It is to prevent it.


Robert Weir: Mr. Eaton, from the Department of Finance'-


William Duff: It is like the whaling convention mentioned this afternoon.


Robert Weir: -has had a very
distinguished career in connection with the study of finance. Mr. Davidson was one of the outstanding men on the bureau of statistics, and we felt his records would be of great value. Mr. Gosselin has been enthusiastic in agricultural work, and has been an outstand-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
ing student. We selected him because we wanted a bilingual representative on the board.


William Henry Moore: I presume the
minister is answering me. I asked him about the marketing experience of these men, and he has not mentioned any marketing experience, with the exception of that of the chairman. I know the minister wishes to answer the question, and that is why I am attempting to make it clear.


Jean-François Pouliot: The chairman .is a responsible man on an irresponsible board.


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member feel his question has not been answered?


William Henry Moore: I am asking the
minister to state the marketing experience of the members of the marketing board. I was quite satisfied with the answer given in regard to the chairman. He then proceeded to outline other qualifications of the remaining members of the board, but he has failed to mention their marketing experience.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
asked about the marketing experience of the gentlemen on the board?


William Henry Moore: Yes.


Robert Weir: In my answer I stated the marketing experience of Mr. Leitch, and I stated further that so far as I knew Doctor Booth had no merchandising experience. However I indicated that he was a student of marketing, as were the other members of the board. I think the hon. member will agree in this, that although from some quarters there has been criticism because men more actively engaged in marketing were not placed on the board, for every comment of oriticism there have been nine others of commendation. [DOT]


William Alexander Fraser: People who did not know.


Robert Weir: The hon. member interjects that these were people who did not know. I state that there were many people who thought exactly as the hon. member who has interrupted, who are now among the loudest in their commendation of the board.


William Alexander Fraser: No.


Robert Weir: The hon. member cannot answer because he does not know about whom I am speaking.


William Alexander Fraser: No.


Robert Weir: The hon. member is suggesting that people have not come to me
and made the statement I have indicated, despite the fact that he does not know about whom I am speaking. That is typical of the attitude taken by the hon. member in matters such as these.


William Alexander Fraser: I will tell you in a minute what my attitude is.


Robert Weir: These people who have come, with one exception, have gone out of their way to pay tribute to the calibre of the men on the board. These men are unbiased, unprejudiced and all have had more or less experience in the study of agricultural marketing.


William Alexander Fraser: But not in the practical application of it.


Robert Weir: They act as men interested in agriculture, with a knowledge of agriculture and the conditions under which the farmer is labouring. They endeavour to get the farmers' viewpoint and to endeavour to give what assistance they can by way of advice in the forming of schemes.


William Alexander Fraser: In order that I may be clear in the matter I should like first to ask if we are discussing item 263 of the estimates, a vote of $545,500 for the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934?


Robert Weir: I believe that is correct.


William Alexander Fraser: By what stretch of the imagination does the Minister of Agriculture believe that the money paid by the taxpayers of Canada should be used to educate-and I am using a very moderate term-or to coerce the producers of different commodities to adopt the ideas or policies tabulated or formulated in the minds of so-called supermen who have been chosen by the Minister of Agriculture to tell Canadian producers things that those producers know much better than the technical experts the qualifications of whom, in reply to a question of the hon. member for Ontario, the minister has just described?


Robert Weir: May I correct that? These schemes are not prepared by members of the dominion marketing board; they are submitted by the producers themselves.


William Alexander Fraser: I thank the minister for his explanation, because it affords me the opportunity to place before the committee certain facts in connection with the modus operandi of paid government propagandists in connection with certain schemes which have been presented to producers. The Minister of Agriculture has said quite truly

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
that these schemes did not originate in the minds or offices of the dominion marketing board, but I should like to place on record a method which to my intimate knowledge was used in an endeavour to bring the tomato producers of a certain part of Ontario under a marketing scheme. I would add that this method has been followed not only in the instance which I will relate but in other parts of Canada in endeavours to persuade, induce or coerce other producers to adopt schemes.
The meeting to which I refer was called in a tomato producing part of Ontario in order that two gentlemen, whose names I shall mention if the minister so desires, might address the meeting, and make an effort to organize the tomato growers of that district. As closely as I can ascertain-


Robert Weir: I do not wish to interrupt, but I should like to have the names, because no officials of the Department of Agriculture are supposed to take any part in putting forward these schemes.


William Alexander Fraser: I did not say that they were officials of the Department of Agriculture.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander Fraser: No, I did not say that they were officials of the department, but if the minister wishes I shall name them. Some hon. members will know them. They were Mr. Craise of St. Catherines and Mr. Robinson. Now, you have them both.


Robert Weir: I understood the hon. member to say that they were officials of the department.


William Alexander Fraser: No, I did not say that. These gentleman called a meeting of tomato growers in tihe district. Out of 1,200 tomato growers less than 100 attended the meeting, of which number less than sixty per cent voted. I am not for one moment suggesting that that meeting was held to adopt a scheme under the marketing board, but I do say that is the method which has been adopted not only in connection with tomatoes but also in connection with the growing of apples. All you have to do is,to say, "Hurrah boys; we will have a meeting in Brighton, Cobourg or somewhere else to-night. Let us all go, because we are going to discuss a marketing scheme." Those who can conveniently attend do attend, and some glib propagandist who has never been successful in operating a business of his own gets up and eulogizes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander Fraser: Have a good laugh; it will do you good. This man gets up and eulogizes and attempts to show the farmer or producer how to produce and market his crop. That is what happens; laugh that off.
Let me go one step farther. I have before me an itemized return of the individual payments out of a sum of 850,000 appropriated in order that government paid propagandists, men paid by money supplied by the taxpayers of Canada, might spend 850,000 of the taxpayers' money in the three western provinces in an attempt to sell the egg producers a scheme indicating how they could best market their product. What superman or supermind or minds was behind this scheme? Who thought it out? Who thought out this bedtime story? I noticed in checking over a list the other day of civil servants who receive over $8,000 a year-it was in a newspaper I read it-that the chairman of the marketing board was fortunate enough to be included in the list. I may be wrong in that, and if so, will the minister please correct me?


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member refer to the 850,000 that was sent out?


William Alexander Fraser: No. I am asking who thought out this scheme; what superman developed this expenditure of 850.000 for radio addresses and the payment of stump speakers, salaries for stenographers, newspaper advertising, hole in the corner meetings, meetings of school boys and school girls, and practically every other type of propaganda that you can think of. They spent $50,000 of the taxpayers' money to advance an uneconomic scheme, to convince the poultry producers and egg producers of the three western provinces or convert them to the idea that some technical * expert knew more about raising chickens and eggs than the poultry raisers themselves. I said that the gentleman under whose jurisdiction this expenditure came, and who in turn is under the Minister of Agriculture, is a civil servant who, according to the list I saw in a newspaper which I believe was taken from a return brought down in this house, is one of the newly appointed civil servants who are being paid over $8,000 a year. Is not that correct?


Robert Weir: That is not a correct statement. The marketing board in the first place is not under the Civil Service Act, and the chairman of the board receives a salary of 810,000.
32S9

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Alexander Fraser: Thanks very much, Mr. Minister. I was $2,000 out. I did not estimate his worth as highly as the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He is a civil servant.


Robert Weir: Not under the Civil Service Act.


William Alexander Fraser: Who
pays him?


Robert Weir: The government.


William Alexander Fraser: Then
my statement is correct when I say that the taxpayers of Canada are paying these supermen big salaries, $10,000 a year to the chairman of the board. While I do not wish to do anybody an injustice, I doubt whether in any one year that gentleman ever received such handsome remuneration prior to his engagement by the government to direct the practical operations of those who know more about their business than he does.
Let me go one step further. I happen to be a fruit grower, an apple grower. Under the Natural Products Marketing Act there was set up what was known as the apple export board. Once again these gentlemen weighed the reasons pro and con and decided that a certain practice should be followed in connection with the exportation of apples. I am referring to the year 1934-35. We have heard on numerous occasions from the hustings, and in this House of Commons from certain hon. members to the right of the Speaker, of the tremendous export of apples from Canada in the 1933-34 season, and that was absolutely correct; there was a bumper crop of apples in that year, and we had very large exports. But will hon. members on the other side of the house look at the export figures for 1934-35? They will find that the figures are probably the lowest export figures of any year in the last ten years. And now we are asked to vote $545,000 to administer the Natural Products Marketing Act under which these supermen set up an apple export board and put an embargo on the export of low grade apples and certain varieties from the province of Nova Scotia. The result of this interference with the natural trend of trade and business was that in 1934-35 the Annapolis fruit growers shipped into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec approximately 400.000 barrels of low grade apples, and these apples from the maritime provinces came here to the detriment of the Ontario fruit growers, who had a minimum crop of approximately 250.000 barrels in 1934. My contention on that point, Mr. Chairman, is this, that we should not be asked at this time to vote money to maintain a marketing board or an export board that does not know as much about the practical operations of the producer's business as he knows himself.
Reference has been made here to-night to the potato board. The hon. member for Antigonish-'Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has spoken of the conditions that prevail in the potato industry in the maritime provinces. Let me say for the information of the minister, in order that it may get on the record and he will know it, that after the potato board was set up under the Natural Products Marketing Act, -after they had1 called in the assistance of the provincial police to endeavour to control the bootlegging of potatoes in Ontario, after they had the provincial police speeding over the highways of Ontario in order to arrest if necessary the producers and distributors of our natural products, the price of potatoes in Ontario dropped, not to eight cents a bag, but to nil, and I was under the painful necessity last *week of dumping 462 crates of No. 1 graded Ontario potatoes because even a certain hotel proprietor would not relieve me of them for nothing. That is the result of the marketing board. That shows what the marketing board failed to accomplish, and what no board can ever accomplish. That is the condition that prevail* after the expenditure of all this money, the payment of salaries to supermen, to the chairman and to superassociates to instruct him in order that he may be able to tell us poor farmers what we are to do with our potatoes. I say without fear of contradiction, after spending thirty years of my life in the production, distribution and sale of fruit and farm products, that the attempts being made by the marketing board are economically unsound and will produce nothing but chaos and disastrous results. The tobacco marketing board originated in the minds of a couple of super real estate salesmen, who forced the production of tobacco on the sand dunes of Norfolk and Oxford counties. I can give the names of these two gentlemen if they are wanted. They knew nothing whatever -about the production, sale and distribution of tobacco. One of them was a real estate broker in the city of Toronto who had been engaged in the sale of musical instruments but failed in that business. He had not got more than a rain check in the real estate business until he decided that there was an opportunity in Oxford and Norfolk counties for the -people to buy these sand dunes to produce tobacco.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Through high pressure salesmanship and by painting a glowing picture of the profits that were to be made from the production: of tobacco, through unsound methods, they forced the production of tobacco to the point mentioned by the .hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) a moment ago, and then they put their hands up and yelled, "Kamerad, Mr. Minister. For God's sake help us; we are broke." And that is the way the tobacco scheme originated in the two counties.
Speaking not only as a member of this House of Commons but as a Canadian citizen who cherishes his liberties and rights under the constitution of this dominion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander Fraser: I quite realize, Mr. Chairman, why some hon. members on the other side laugh; under the cloak of Toryism they have never known what rights and liberties are. It comes to my mind to quote the old phrase, "the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind." As a member of this house and as a 'Canadian citizen, as a farmer and a producer having some stake in this dominion, I say to the Minister of Agriculture that this Natural Products Marketing Act is the most vicious piece of legislation that was ever put on the statute books of this country. This act is the stepping Stone to fascism in Canada. As a Canadian citizen, a member of this House of Commons and a candidate in the next election, I am ready and willing to take this act and make it the spearhead of my campaign in defence of Canadian liberty and Canadian citizenship.
We are being asked at this time to vote 8545,000, which is to be spent without discretion, without direction or control, just as the $50,000 was spent in the western provinces in an endeavour to coerce, to persuade and to force the poultry and egg producers to enter a scheme. The tobacco producers, the hog producers and other producers of natural products are being forced to enter wildeyed economically unsound schemes. Before this is done this House of Commons should consider carefully where the money comes from, how it is to be spent and what the ultimate result will be for the taxpayers, the producers and the consumers of .this country. I repeat to the minister that these schemes will not work. The men who devised these schemes were men who were already in trouble through inability to handle their own affairs. The men who are at present promoting the Natural Products Marketing Act and the marketing boards to the best of their ability would be better employed trying to figure out their own personal destinies.

A few minutes ago the minister stated that the department had been approached by numerous producers and groups who wished to adopt these schemes. I should like to know just what these groups are and what incentive is behind their request. I think this information would be very interesting to the committee.


Robert Weir: Mr. Chairman, at
the commencement of his remarks the hon. member stated that in 1933 there had been a large export of apples but in 1934 this export had fallen abnormally low. I am sure the hon. member would not want to give the impression that the drop in exports was due to anything but the deplorable frost which destroyed many of the finest orchards in Ontario. I 'believe the hon. member himself suffered considerably in this connection. There was a very light crop of apples in 1934 and I believe that was largely responsible for the decrease in exports.


William Alexander Fraser: The
natural conditions are the same for a large or a small crop.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
has referred in very eloquent and vigorous terms to the Toryism at its worst in the Natural Products Marketing Act.


William Alexander Fraser: Excuse
me, I must correct the minister.


Robert Weir: Perhaps it was at
its best.


William Alexander Fraser: I did
not use the word "Toryism" in that connection.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
referred to Toryism in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Act.


William Alexander Fraser: I referred to Toryism when replying to some hon. members opposite in connection with fruit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Robert Weir: I should like to
quote from the speech from the throne delivered in 1935 in the legislature of British Columbia, the government of which is a long way from being Tory. It reads:
Agriculture generally in British Columbia has improved and an upward trend' is noticeable both in the matter of markets and price structure. As a result of the natural products marketing legislation passed last session several producers' schemes have been proclaimed, which, with a further broadening of the federal act, will, it is believed, result in establishing agriculture on a sounder basis in this province.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
The hem. member asked for particulars of the applications which had been received from producers' organizations to come under the provisions of the Natural Products Marketing Act. We have received the following applications:
Manitoba, live stock marketing scheme.
Saskatchewan, live stock marketing scheme.
Alberta, live stock marketing scheme.
British Columbia, halibut marketing scheme (recommended).
Ontario, fruit and vegetable marketing scheme.
Dairy marketing scheme for Canada.
The Grand Manan smoked herring products scheme.
British Columbia, red cedar shingle marketing scheme.
The Ontario cattle export scheme.
The Ontario cheese patrons' scheme.
British Columbia, hothouse tomatoes and cucumbers scheme (provincial, recommended).
British Columbia, small fruits and rhubarb scheme (recommended).
Nova Scotia, apples.
South Essex, fruit and vegetables.
Ontario, honey.
Ontario, grapes.
Saskatchewan, poultry.
British Columbia, sheep and sheep products scheme.
I cannot place too much emphasis upon the statement that neither the dominion marketing board nor the dominion government have made any efforts to institute any scheme under this act. This act has been made available to the producers and we feel that the decision should be left to them.
Mr.	FRASER	(Northumberland):	How
many of the applications just mentioned by the minister have been turned down?


Robert Weir: None of those have been turned down; they are all under consideration.
Mr.	FRASER	(Northumberland):	How
long has it been since those schemes were referred to the board?


Robert Weir: The time varies
from one month to six months.
Mr.	FRASER	(Northumberland):	Why
has not the board acted?


Robert Weir: In some cases it
has been impossible to obtain the necessary information, and in other cases readjustments have been necessary after the scheme has been submitted.


William Alexander Fraser: That is the answer I wanted. After schemes	have
been submitted readjustments have taken place in the proposals. In other words, as I understand it, the marketing board is endeavouring to exercise the cooperative principle in connection with these schemes.


Robert Weir: To bring the
schemes within the provisions of the act. Many of the schemes submitted were not in conformity with the act.


William Alexander Fraser: Is it the intention of the marketing board or the department to use the full powers contained in the act to enforce a scheme once it is adopted? Suppose I am refused a licence as a bean or tomato grower; would the penalties provided in the act be applied if I did not belong to the scheme and continued to sell my product?


Robert Weir: If that were a provision of the scheme, yes. It would depend entirely upon the provisions of the scheme submitted to the producers.


William Alexander Fraser: Under
the act itself the board has the power to impose fines, taxation and imprisonment upon anyone who infringes upon the principles of the act or violates any of the sections of the marketing scheme which has been set up by vote or otherwise. I understand that no votes have been taken as yet in Ontario. Is it the intention of the board to apply the penalties granted by Bill No. 51 to a producer of natural products who violates the provisions of the scheme or who has been refused a licence?


Robert Weir: Each instance will be dealt with in accordance with the facts of the case.


William Alexander Fraser: For years we had in Ontario what was known as the Ontario Temperance Act, and we could not stop bootlegging in liquor. It is difficult to stop bootlegging in narcotics. Now the point I want to call attention to is that you cannot stop bootlegging in potatoes. If we could not stop it in liquor, when there was not only a fine but a gaol sentence, how in the world are you going to stop it in natural products? How is the local board under the act going to refuse me as a Canadian fruit producer, owning my own farm and paying everything, from dog licence to sugar tax, the right to dispose of my products? How will you prevent me from selling my products? It seems to me that you are trying to push water uphill. May I have an answer to that question?


Robert Weir: The answer is this. Any scheme that is submitted is submitted by the producers themselves. They are the ones who set out what the powers shall be within the act, and if a sufficient majority vote in favour of the scheme, with the powers set out therein, that scheme will go into effect and
3292	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
those within the area will be brought into line with the others. That is the principle of the act.


William Alexander Fraser: How will you bring them into line? How do you intend to bring the minority into line?


Robert Weir: It is being done now. It might be on the basis of licensing the buyers.


William Alexander Fraser: Suppose that as a producer I am refused a licence; where do we go from there?


Robert Weir: You are guilty of a violation of the regulations under the scheme and will be subject-


William Alexander Fraser: To fine?


Robert Weir: If you have acted without a licence when one is required.


William Alexander Fraser: I have to sell apples; I am desperately interested in that, and still I want to keep out of gaol. Please answer this question so that I shall know. In the first place, if I am refused a licence, what happens then? I am a fruit producer, or I am producing tomatoes under a scheme, and11 will not sell my tomatoes or my apples at the price set by the local board1, or I refuse to [DOT]comply with some regulation: what happens to me then?


Robert Weir: That depends on the conditions set out in the scheme. What happens to the hon. member then, in this hypothetical case, depends entirely on what action it is felt necessary to take to make him come into line with the scheme.


William Alexander Fraser: Let me put the question in another way. As a Canadian fruit producer, owning my farm, paying my taxes, meeting my obligations, cutting my grass and painting my house, I want to know what you will do with me if I refuse to sell my apples or my tomatoes in compliance with the terms laid down by the local board under the Natural Products Marketing Act. What happens to me?


Robert Weir: It depends on the terms of the scheme, and then, if complaint had been made that the hon. member had not been living up to the conditions of the scheme, action would be taken by the court and a fine if necessary would be imposed.


William Alexander Fraser: I take it from what the minister says that if I break the regulations laid down by the local marketing board under the Natural Products Marketing Act I am subject to fine.


Robert Weir: It depends entirely on the conditions set out in the scheme. We cannot decide hypothetical cases.


William Alexander Fraser: If the conditions set out in the scheme are consistent with Bill 51, am I subject to a fine? What method will you adopt to get me into line?


Robert Weir: That depends entirely on the local board.


William Alexander Fraser: Let us see if we cannot get it focused for a minute. As a fruit producer I refuse to be dictated to by a majority of the local board or I refuse to comply with the regulations set out by the supermen you have hired. Let us get it on the table so that we have all the cards face up. I will grow my apples and sell them when and where I like, at what price I like, at such times as I choose and to whom I choose, and I will transport them as I like, all consistently with the laws of the dominion. Someone will say, not consistently with this law. But the point I wish to bring out is this. The minister said a minute ago that if the terms of the local scheme were such and such under the Natural Products Marketing Act I would be fined if I broke one of the regulations. Am I correct in that?


Robert Weir: It depends on what is set out in the scheme.


William Alexander Fraser: If the scheme as set out embodies the powers of Bill 51, unquestionably I can be fined.


Robert Weir: It depends on the conditions; each case is decided on its own merits.


William Alexander Fraser: Permit me to get back to the point once again. The Natural Products Marketing Act provides for fine and imprisonment for infringement or non-compliance with the terms laid down by the local board or the scheme set up. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Alexander Fraser: Then we set up a local board in the apple growing district in central Ontario or a board to control tomato production, and seventy-five per cent of the growers that happen to come to the meeting vote for it and the board passes it.


Robert Weir: The hon. member says a scheme will be set up in connection with tomatoes, to control production.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Alexander Fraser: I did not say that. What I am trying to bring out is this. The minister admitted that under Bill 51 I as a producer am subject to fine-


Robert Weir: Stated rather than admitted.


William Alexander Fraser: He stated then that under Bill 51 if I did not comply with the regulations embodied in a local scheme under the Natural Products Marketing Act the board would have the right of fine and imprisonment. Is that correct?


Robert Weir: That is my interpretation of it, yes.


William Alexander Fraser: They
have not only the right of fine and imprisonment; the board has the right of taxation. I was taxed in 1935-


Robert Weir: The board has not the right of fine and imprisonment, and only if that were included in the conditions under the scheme would it be applicable. The board has not the right of fine and imprisonment; the court has.


William Alexander Fraser: Under Bill 51 the courts have the right of fine and imprisonment, but the board has the right *of taxation and it exercises that right. I was taxed without having a voice in the matter. I paid a fax though I had no say as to whether or not I should be charged. The tax was levied on my exports. My contention is this. In the first place the act is ultra vires; in the second place, neither the minister nor any court can send me to gaol for selling an honestly grown Canadian product to a Canadian consumer; and in the third place, the right of taxation is-


Mr. HACKETT:: There are a lot of fellows in gaol now under that misapprehension.


William Alexander Fraser: The right of taxation is vested in this House of Commons, in the parliament of Canada, and not in the board, to decide whether I am to be taxed or not to be taxed. But the board in this case decides; let us not forget that. The power is conveyed in the act. The act does not say how much the tax shall be. The local board sets the levy per acre and per bushel; the export board sets the levy per barrel of the export shipment. But the act transfers the right- of taxation as well as the expenditure of taxes from the jurisdiction of the Canadian House of Commons to the board set up under the act. That is the iniquitous part of the whole matter, plus this fact-and let me
repeat it and get it once again on the record- we could not stop bootlegging in liquor; how can we stop it in apples and potatoes? I repeat that as a Canadian fruit grower I defy the right of this or any other board to fine or imprison me for selling an honestly grown Canadian product. Is the Department of Agriculture in alliance with the Department of Justice? Is there a conspiracy with the Department of Public Works to build more gaols in this country? Is there by any possibility a set-up between Agriculture, Justice and Public Works and contractors and suppliers of materials behind this iniquitous piece of legislation? Let us get the situation cleared up and let us see where we stand.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) in connection with this legislation. I have given some thought to the drift of public opinion, legislative opinion I might say, not only in this country but in some others. I am discussing this question impartially; I am not interested in this side or that side of the bouse. What we must remember is that the only places in which we have been able to carry out a planning scheme are the gaols, the army and the navy, where every man wears the same kind of clothes, eats as the government says he shall eat and sleeps as the government says he shall sleep.
I have had some practical experience in Ontario and in the city of Hamilton. I am speaking as a sailor, not as a soldieT, and I know whereof I speak. I want to be very frank about this because I think the consumer has some rights; let us not forget that. While producers and distributors sit down and say: This is the price that shall be charged, let them not forget that my people have some rights as to the price that shall be charged. The labouring man who is working for $12 or $14 a week has some rights in this matter. After all is said and done, we all speak from the viewpoint of our experience. Some speak from the viewpoint of what they have read, but I speak from the viewpoint of my practical experience. I remember when the big chain dairies, representatives of the Borden interests in the United States, came into this dominion and began to buy up the dairies of Ontario. They took within their orbit, in the boards of directors, members who were prominent in the public life of this country. I have no objection to that. In Hamilton, whence I come, the working men are practical. A man can be well educated and be a damn fool at the same time; let us not forget that. They said: These chaps are buying up these dairies, and naturally in order to meet the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
dividends on inflated capital they are going to ask for lower wages and lower prices to the farmers. This was quite a human viewpoint to take. They came to me and said: 'Give us a hand to help negotiate a wage agreement with these enormous chain dairies. So we went down to some of the smaller dairies and endeavoured to solicit their sympathy in connection with men's wages and working conditions. I gave a left-handhd hint to them tiiat if they would play the game in regard to men's wages and prices to the farmers, we would swing the labour support their way. What did one of their managers say to me? He said: "If I had the influence you think you have, I would start a dairy of my own," and they almost threw us out on the sidewalk. When we got to the sidewalk I said to the men around me, ordinary working men like myself: "By jingo, that is what we will do; we will start a dairy." So we started a cooperative dairy in Ontario. We went out among the farmers, and the funny thing about them was that we had to convince them that we were not selling them a goldbrick. They thought this was some smart slicker from the city coming out and trying to sell them something that was worth nothing. Eventually we raised enough money to start this dairy on the basis that the men get a fair wage, that the farmers get a fair return for their labour, and that what is left over is shared among the farmers and the people who buy the milk. That is the proper basis of production, because lot us not forget that the fundamental basis of production is consumption, not profit. If the people in this corner who talk about the cooperative commonwealth did something more practical in that direction, they wouid be further ahead than they will get by just talking about it. That is the way to prove the thing is sound; the basis of life itself is voluntary cooperation, whei-e the farmer gets his and the consumer or the man employed in the industry gets his. The fellows in this corner want a policeman all the time. I disagree with them of course on that point.
We proved my theory in a practical way; we started in with our cooperative dairy. I want to be quite frank about that; speaking as a sailor again I say that there is more profit in milk than there is in beer, and that is saying a good deal. We went along in a quite normal way and we built up a tremendous business. Within two years we had the third largest business in the city of Hamilton, based on this perfectly simple approach to the problem. This has the price spreads commission knocked off the map, to use the 
language of the man in the street. If after you meet your capital obligations you distribute the surplus among the people who produce the product and the people who consume it, and you pay the best wages and the top prices to the farmer, there is no argument against the proposition1.
The first year we were in business we did not make any money, but that is quite a sound proposition in business. The second year we made sufficient profit to meet the arrears of dividends to the farmers, I mean to those who invested their money in the business. As a matter of fact we made fourteen per cent on the capital structure after paying top prices to the farmers and the highest wages to dairy employees within the confines of the city. Then we got the milk control board of Ontario, under a Liberal government, by the way; and I could never understand how a Liberal government should be opposed to voluntary cooperation. We might as well be frank. There is a complete answer to the price spreads commission and the lofty speeches made by the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens). How shall we pay the best wages possible to the employees, how shall we pay top prices to the farmers, meet our capital obligations and distribute the balance between those who produce the milk and those who consume it? If these overnight revolutionaries in the corner, these revolutionaries in the abstract, would go out to the people and preach the soundness of the real cooperative principle, we should get somewhere. I am one who believes in things that work; I am not greatly interested in things on paper. After all, the capitalist system works on paper; so does socialism. But I think these working men and farmers of Hamilton-I say this to the farmers on both sides of the house-have given an object lesson to the farmers and consumers of Canada which indicates that they do not need any price spreads commission; all that is necessary is the principle of voluntary cooperation. I state with all the responsibility of a member of the House of Commons that at the moment we are making so much money that we do not know what to do with it.


William Alexander Fraser: How
about lending us some?


Humphrey Mitchell: And this good Liberal government of Ontario say we cannot pay more than eight per cent on our capital. What are we going to do with the balance? Up to the last month our profits on distributing milk have been 38J per cent on our capital after meeting all obligations-wages, depreciation, and interest on capital.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Mr. FRASER. (Northumberland): Surely a case for the Combines Investigation Act.


Humphrey Mitchell: We welcome that; the hon. member need not hold that up as a threat.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did you do with the money?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have still got it. The government of Ontario, my good friend Mitchell Hepburn, said that we could not pay this out to the producers. We are willing to do it to-morrow morning, but if we did it we would be breaking the law and would find our charter taken away from us. Being a good Englishman, I believe in democratic institutions and in obeying the law.
When I spoke on the marketing measure last year I said I thought it had the germ of an idea in it, based on the voluntary cooperation of producers and consumers of this dominion. I am absolutely opposed to the principle of coercion; I say that in all sincerity. The right to express an opinion, the right to disagree, is in my judgment the basis of human freedom. If there were not differences of opinion this House of Commons would not exist. Someone behind me asks if I believe in the open shop. I shall answer that question too. If you start off with proper wages and working conditions for the primary producers and the men and women engaged in industry and forget about the chaps who are out to make fortunes and who have fleeced you in the past, it would be very fair premises to start from. But out of practical experience -because after all our attitude towards life arises very largely from our practical experience-we have proved in a small way that cooperation between the producer, especially the farmers, and the men and women engaged in industry, and the consumers, who are the basis of production, is practical; it has been a practical thing in the milk industry of Hamilton. I would leave this thought with the government, that in the working out of these schemes they must take into consideration three primary factors. First, the consumers must have a fair deal; then you must consider the producer, and you must consider also the capital which is necessary to launch the enterprise.
I shall have more to say on this matter before the session is concluded. In this marketing legislation you must have due regard for the consumer. I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland, and I think his is a sad conclusion to arrive at, if you are to
maintain Canadian institutions as we understand them, having due regard to the three factors in industry.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if he contemplates bringing down at the present session any amendments to the Natural Products Marketing Act? At the beginning of the session it was currently reported around the buildings and in the press that there would be some amendments to this bill. I was in hopes that there would be, but at this stage, after we have already had a surfeit of legislation, I scarcely dare suggest that amendments be brought down.


Robert Weir: It is contemplated that amendments will be introduced. These amendments were withheld until the report of the price spreads commission was received.


William Richard Motherwell: I am sure that after the discussion to-night the minister must be convinced that we are not entirely unanimous about this marketing act. I voted for it myself; I was in hopes that after a year's experience the minister would be prepared to profit by the weaknesses that were bound to develop in its tryout and its administration and to make certain amendments. Possibly some of the vexatious provisions of the bill could be eliminated without impairing its general utility.
The sentiment of the house was indicated last year by the leaders of all parties; they were in favour of a marketing bill as a general principle, but a great many did not agree with this particular kind of bill. My hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) was in favour of a voluntary system. That sounds attractive, but many in the western provinces have advanced a little beyond that, especially in British Columbia where this bill really originated. To the horror of those who always favoured a voluntary system our friends in British Columbia are largely for the kind we have now. Their argument is that this is not a compulsory system in the usual sense, but that the government is merely affording them facilities to impose compulsion upon themselves, so to speak. In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba they were asked if they wanted to impose compulsory marketing upon themselves by a two to one favourable vote, and they said no. Then where is the compulsion? It did not come into force.
For many years I had to wrestle with this problem, and for long years I was just as violently opposed even to seeming compulsion as anyone could be, to anything but an entirely voluntary system. There are two sides to the question, and I will not enter into the merits thereof at this time; but if it is wrong
3206	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
for a majority to say to a minority, say ten per cent: We will determine how you shall market your stuff, surely it is a greater wrong for the ten per cent to determine how the ninety per cent shall market their goods. I had to go through all that, and I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are going through the earlier stages of the same development, because voluntary action would seem a sound thing to preach and the denunciation of coercion would seem to be equally sound. But if we apply that all through life I do not know where we would finish or where majority rule would get off at.
I believe it will be recalled that when I voted for the second and third reading of the marketing bill I registered my vote after making very considerable reservations, and registering the hope that before there could be much harm done by it to the cause of cooperative marketing some amendments would be made to it. I am pleased to note that the minister has that point in mind. I have no doubt that if a reasonable number of good amendments were made, sufficient to remove the more vexatious features, such as the licencing and controlling of production, and the regulating of exports and imports, the act would be more satisfactory. Those factors are distressing and objectionable to many people. And then only enthusiasts like some of the rest of us on behalf of cooperating marketing, who have spent the better portions of their lives trying to do something on its behalf, could swallow those features temporarily in the hope that they may be speedily removed by amendment.
Before I take my seat may I mention another matter. I am afraid the government have not been very fortunate in the administration of the act. This was a new piece of legislation for this house, government and country. The way in which the vote has been administered leaves much to be desired, and the hesitancy demonstrated by my good friend the minister in giving information to the house would seem to indicate that he thought there was something wrong in distributing these moneys among the various schemes being launched. The money was specifically voted for the purpose of organization and he was perfectly within his right in distributing it. I do not know whether or not it was spent properly, but that is another question. The fact is, however, that the House of Commons voted the money for organization purposes, just the same as other governments have done on many similar occasions, and particularly those provincial governments in the western provinces.
I understand another vote in connection with a live stock marketing scheme is to be 
taken in the prairie provinces. There will be another great big voting contest coming off some time this summer, and I think it would be unfortunate to mix the two of them together. Speaking for my own province I would say that in the interests of the cause and Obtaining a direct record and decision on one question at a time, it would be better to have only one voting contest in progress at one time. That is to say, if the elections are to be held in September or October I would suggest that any voting on marketing schemes be held as quickly as possible so that the two would not become intermixed, to the disadvantage possibly of both.


Mr. HOWE:: After one has listened to the words of the ex-Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), on the eve of an election one can see why we hear opposition to the marketing legislation. I am sure hon. members will agree with me when I state that the one most qualified to speak, the member of the opposition who has had the most experience in agricultural administration, and the one who has had a lifetime of experience in the industry itself, is the hon. member who has just spoken and who is still in agreement with-


William Richard Motherwell: I have no doubt the hon. member is lauding me with the best of intentions, but it would suit me much better just now if he would cut it out.


Mr. ROWE:: I fully appreciate that the exMinister of Agriculture does not often agree with me, and as this is probably the first time he has heard commendation from this side of the house I can well appreciate his astonishment. While he may hesitate to accept my commendation, I must say in all fairness that I believe time has mellowed his political inclination as it dioes practically every hon. member of this house; and the hon. member for Melville has therefore given expression now to his most careful consideration of the marketing act. I clearly recall that he supported the bill and I am pleased to note to-night that he still supports the act which was the result of that bill. I am glad to note, further, that he holds a view contrary to other western members when he states that this is the type of legislation which for years western provinces have put into effect, and that it contains nothing of a coercive nature. He suggests further that the vicious principles of the act might well be removed. With that view I am somewhat in agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Earl Rowe: I see the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) applauding, and I can well appreciate that no matter what legislation is brought before parliament we will have to listen to the legal technicalities pointed out by hon. members of the bar; no matter what bill is introduced having to do with the restraint or regulation of business, the principle of liberty in business will be placed before us. But surely no hon. member will for a moment suggest that we have not regulations along every other line. Many of us have been driving on the highways and upon occasions when we have driven faster than the speed limit we have been fined. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) has spoken about the Ontario Temperance Act. Many people were fined under that act.


William Alexander Fraser: I did
not say I had been.


William Earl Rowe: I do not think the hon. member for Northumberland was fined under that act, because I do not believe he would be guilty of an offence under it. I was going on to say, however, that we have regulations and control all the way along, just as the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) has said. I was amused by his observations about the voluntary principle of cooperation. We might as well apply the voluntary principle of cooperation in our labour unions; we might as well apply the voluntary principle of cooperation in every business organization throughout the dominion. Unfortunately, however, agriculture by its very nature does not permit of voluntary cooperation. From coast to coast we have over 728,000 farmers, and everyone realizes that complete cooperation would be impossible. The ex-Minister of Agriculture has made that point very clear. I submit again that there is no one to your left, Mr. Chairman, who could speak with more authority or after greater experience than the hon. member for Melville, and in spite of his nine years of failure as Minister of Agriculture, I agree with him.


William Duff: That is a lefthanded compliment.


William Earl Rowe: I shall come to that in a few moments. I would suggest the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) assisted the ex-minister in his failure in the administration of his department.


William Duff: Well, you did not heLp him.


William Earl Rowe: I did not make the statement personally, when I referred to the hon. member
for Melville. I say in all fairness and in all sincerity that the hon. member for Melville in the administration of his department was recognized by every farmer as being conscientious in his efforts. I can recall, further, that he brought about a system of egg grading and I have had to apologize in my own riding for criticism of it. It was also through the efforts of the hon. member for Melville that a system of hog grading was brought about, and I think he will agree with me and other hog producers in Canada that it was not a perfect system. Undoubtedly it could be criticized, and possibly was criticized by many hon. members opposing him. It was criticized at its inception and, as the ex-minister knows, the administration of it was criticized. However the fact is that at that time it was the best he knew and in fact it was a progressive step. I believe he could have gone much farther. I believe he could have gone much farther in his [DOT] hog grading; instead of grading on the hoof, grading could have been done on the rail not only in connection with hogs but in connection with beef, mutton and all other meats. However, so far as coercion is concerned I must observe that the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough did not oppose the ex-minister in his coercion, if you might term these matters coercion. They were criticized by hon. members on the other side who probably did not realize their importance, but I submit that the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. Every hon. member of this house knows that unless you make agriculture prosperous we shall never return to national prosperity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: We are all agreed on that. The members to your left, Mr. Chairman, realize full well that unless the primary industries of this country are made prosperous there is no hope for the future. It is all very well to make political campaign speeches out of an issue of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What about
butter?


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has said that we all promised seventy-cent butter.


William Duff: You did when you went to Nova Scotia in 1930.


William Earl Rowe: I challenge the hon. member to show one report of any meeting in Nova Scotia where I offered that.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Duff: You went to the back concessions where there were no newspapers. You were scared to say it elsewhere.


William Earl Rowe: That may be a reflection on the province of Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, because I spoke in some rather prominent places in that province. But I am not speaking in any back concessions to-night and I am not afraid to talk to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. I declare that his statement is an absolute falsehood; he cannot produce a paper in Canada or a clipping that will show I offered seventy-cent butter anywhere.


William Duff: In the back concessions in Nova Scotia in 1930 you said that if the Conservative party were returned the farmers would get seventy cents a pound for their butter.


William Earl Rowe: I will revamp what I have said, Mr. Chairman, with reference to an absolute falsehood because I think that is probably not parliamentary. I will say this, that anyone who told such a story to the hon. member was certainly appealing to his political sympathies. I do not believe that any hon. member on this side of the house made any such statement in the last campaign. I never made any such statement anywhere in Canada, and I will venture to say that the hon. member, after more careful consideration, will admit that he cannot produce a clipping from any newspaper in Canada showing that any Conservative candidate in the last dominion election made any such statement.


Albert Joseph Brown: What about fifty cent
butter?


William Earl Rowe: I challenge the hon. member or any hon. member to produce a clipping.


William Duff: You are trying to hide behind a subterfuge. You and the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) went over Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and made the statement that if the Conservative party were returned the farmers would get seventy cents a pound for their butter. You cannot deny it.


William Earl Rowe: I again deny that statement. It is absolutely untrue. It never was made by me or by any other speaker in my presence at any meeting in Canada, and I challenge the other hon. member from Nova Scotia who is getting so warm about this to produce a clipping from any newspaper showing that any hon. member from this side of the house made any such wild statement. It 
is all very well for the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough or any other hon. gentleman opposite to go out on the hustings and tell the people of this country that this government through the marketing act, through trade restrictions and high tariffs has closed the markets of the world to our agricultural products-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Is the ex-Minister of the Interior going to campaign along that line?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: He is the man who said he would sound the death knell of protection when the Liberals got into power, and no man knows better than he does that practically every agricultural market in the world was closed to our products before this party came into power. I challenge any hon. member to your left, Mr. Chairman, to rise and tell me of one market that they opened to our agricultural products and that remained open in 1930.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: The hon. member has thrown out a challenge. May I suggest-


William Earl Rowe: You do not need to suggest. You can make your suggestions when I am through.
Mr. MERCflER (St. Henri): During the last election I was at a meeting in the eastern townships where one of your speakers promised eighty-five cent butter, and I told him:	You want to put gold bricks on the
market.


William Earl Rowe: No one knows better than
the former Minister of Agriculture and the former Minister of the Interior that our markets had been lost to us before hon. gentlemen opposite went out of power, yet we do not blame the former Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the former Minister of Agriculture because we know that other countries were raising their tariffs against us. I have never blamed them, and that is why I resent hon. gentlemen opposite blaming the present Prime Minister and this government for closing, as they say, markets that as a matter of fact were absolutely closed to us before 1930. Every hon. member of this house knows that the great market to the south of us was absolutely closed to our agricultural products before 1930. They remember the Fordney-MoCum-ber tariff of 1922 and the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930. When the Liberal party came into power we were selling to the United States almost $200,000,000 of our agricultural

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
products, and when they went out of power in 1930 that had dropped to about 830,000.000. What was the reason for that decline? Because hon. gentlemen opposite for nine years had a policy of "hush, hush

there must be no provocation given to the United States." That was your policy for nine years. But now you are saying that if you are elected you will have a round table conference to negotiate a new reciprocity treaty with the United States. But for nine years the Liberal party sat idly by and would do nothing to provoke the United States even when it raised the tariff on meats from nothing to three cents a pound, on copper from nothing to four cents a pound, on lumber from nothing to four dollars a thousand. Hon. members opposite shake their heads. They know very well that we were selling wheat free of duty to Czechoslovakia, Germany and Italy and under a twelve cent duty to France when they came into power, but before they went out of office three of those countries had imposed a tariff of approximately one dollar a bushel against our wheat and the other a duty of 73 cents a bushel.
I have listened to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough saying that these markets have been closed to us due to the tariff policy of this government, but the former Minister of Agriculture admits that after years of waiting for a voluntary cooperative movement to standardize the quality of our export products and regulate their movement to the markets of the world, the Natural Products Marketing Act is the nearest thing to that objective that has been suggested at the present time.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not say that. I wanted amendments to the act.


William Earl Rowe: I know that there are many
things in the act that can be criticized by our learned friends of the legal profession. I know there are those who would say that it goes beyond the British North America Act as it affects chartered companies that are under provincial jurisdiction. I know that those who are in the business of trading in the farmer's products and taking more out of the product than we ever get for raising it will find objections to the act and can easily be appealed to by the glad hand of Liberalism. Our Liberal friends will say to them:	If you want liberty, if you want to
sell and buy as you please, vote for the Liberal party and liberty. This is the laissez-faire attitude which has been taken in respect to practically every policy. It is the attitude that prompts hon. members opposite 925S2-210
to hesitate and admit reluctantly that if the government is sincere, the legislation is not too bad. They are afraid to say yes and they hesitate and are reluctant politically to say no. Progress knows no retreat. Every other industry in this country has been ably organized and hon. members opposite are afraid to oppose this class of legislation. The eight hour day and the minimum wage were in the Liberal platform of 1919. I know hon. members opposite approve of these things and I challenge any hon. member to say that he does not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We passed it long before you dreamt of it.


William Earl Rowe: You dreamt of it long before
we passed it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We passed it.


William Earl Rowe: Your leader put it in his book eighteen years ago; you put it in your platform in 1919, but you never put it into effect, and you are reluctant to admit the advisability of our putting it on the statute book. I say as a farmer, and I believe I can speak on behalf of the farmers of this dominion-


William Duff: Do you work eight hours a day on the farm?


William Earl Rowe: I have worked sixteen hours a day on the farm. If we as farmers work eight hours in the morning and eight hours in the afternoon in order to provide the labour unions with an eight hour day and help to solve the major problem facing this country, unemployment, I think we should be given some consideration. I have no objection to an eight hour day if it will solve unemployment; in fact I am ready to subscribe to a six-hour day, if it will solve that problem, but if we are going to buy the products of their toil, if they are going to work only eight hours a day and receive twice as much as we 1 are able to pay our labour on the farm, then I say on behalf of the boys who are working for the farmers and on behalf of the farmers themselves: it is high time some consideration was given to the farmers. This government is making the first effort which has been made since confederation to give the farmer a square deal and to give the producer of high grade goods a reasonable remuneration for his efforts. Our ambassadors, and especially the ambassador who was in the old country when hon. members opposite were in power, have told us what has happened in other countries. Our farmers have been forced to produce at less than cost. No matter how fine a product is produced, some other fellow may put out a

3300	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
scrubby article which brings down the price of the better grade. Such action might affect the price received for apples by the hon. member for Northumberland. A scrubby type of bacon may be sold which spoils the sales of the better types which some of us endeavour to produce. It has been acknowledged by leading agriculturists in all countries that the only way to meet world competition is by a government supported system of marketing. We live in a frigid zone; we are proud of our high standard of living, and under ordinary circumstances we cannot compete with the farmers who live in warmer climates where in some cases the family and the live stock all occupy the same building. We must have a carefully planned and sound system of marketing; the supply must be regulated according to the requirements, and the grades must be standardized according to the demands of the markets. This fact has been recognized throughout the world for fifteen years and yet hon. members opposite are trying to find weaknesses in this marketing act on the eve of an election. They forget that during the nine years of their administration every other successful agricultural country was organizing along the same lines as we are suggesting to-night.
In 1928 or 1929 a former minister of agriculture stated in the city of Toronto that in 1921 Canada sold 255,000,000 pounds of bacon in the British market. Since the empire trade agreements were passed we have increased our exports of bacon to nine times what they were before, and our farmers received double the price received by the American farmer for his bacon for the twelve months following these agreements. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that we are exporting very little more than one-quarter of what we were exporting at the time the former government came into power in 1921. Why was this market lost? In 1921 we were selling more bacon than Denmark in the British market, but what happened? By 1930 we were selling less than two per cent of the bacon consumed.


Albert Joseph Brown: We were eating more at
home.


William Earl Rowe: Danish bacon was being sold in our western stores and our barley was being used to fatten Danish hogs. Denmark studied the market in Great Britain. They found out the requirements. They realized that a fatsided bacon was needed for the workingmen's districts while a lean type of bacon was required by the girl working in the office. Denmark was able to take care of the requirements of this market, and she captured the

markets overseas which we had previously held. During the nine years hon. friends opposite were in power Denmark increased her shipments to the British markets from approximately twelve per cent of the requirements to sixty per cent. Denmark was selling over 600,000,000 pounds of bacon in Great Britain, but what happened to Canada? The twenty-six per cent which Canada previously sold disappeared and our exports were practically nil.
This country has been fifteen years behind the rest of the world in this type of legislation. I realize how involved such legislation may be and how legal hon. members may talk about the constitution. My hon. friend talked for over two hours on the constitutionality of this legislation and his leader referred more to the constitution than to anything else.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he spoke the other day?


William Earl Rowe: That may be, but we have
reached the time when we must have sound, progressive legislation and not an attitude of laissez-faire in connection with everything brought up in the house. This is the attitude adopted by the party which has not enunciated a policy in any way, shape or form. I do not know, even you, Mr. Chairman, do not know, especially since you have been removed from politics-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: Even though you sit so close to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough, who could tell you privately what might be expected, you do not know, Mr. Chairman, nor does anyone in this country know, just what is the Liberal policy on agriculture, on fiscal tariffs, on marketing, on finance or on reform legislation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Reform,


Mr. McPHEE:: When was the Tory party
ever allied with reform?


William Earl Rowe: We have seen more advanced, progressive reform legislation passed since 1930, even before the so-called vicious acts were put into effect, than was passed by all the Liberal administrations from confederation down to the present time. I am amazed that an hon. member opposite should rise and mention reforms. There is not one piece of legislation upon the statute books to which they can point. They might mention the Combines Investigation Act, which was a justifiable and sound piece of legislation, but my hon. friends, in all their nine

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
years in power, never made use of it. They pigeonholed it and it has been there, dusty, ever since. They never drew it out once when five hundred or more large manufacturing concerns were organized into about a hundred and twenty of the largest monopolies and combines which this country has ever seen. .They never reached into the pigeonhole and took it out to administer it. They never sent their legal friends of the party to look into monopolies and combines which were fleecing the people of the country. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that if I had any criticism of the present government-


An hon. MEMBER:: You wouldn't say it.


William Earl Rowe: I was just going to say what the hon. member has said


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I was going to say that if it were very bad, if it were very serious I would not say it at this time because there is no other party offering anything towards a solution of the problems that face this country. I say, however, that the present government has at least endeavoured to solve our problems. I remember that when our friends to your left, Mr. Chairman,-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You
remember.


William Earl Rowe: Yes; you were not here then, but I remember that when hon. gentlemen were here in the hectic days of 1926 their whip went back and forth looking for support. Agrarian movements started away back in 1890, and though I do not remember anything so long ago as that, I remember reading about the patrons of industry, what great fellows they were, and how the Liberal party of those days said that they would help to solve the marketing problems of the country. And we can also remember the agrarian movement in 1919, which had a certain amount of justification, no doubt; and my hon. friends across the way were then trying to get the support of those gentlemen. We recall the platform of 1919; we remember their promise to deal with price spreads and the low standard of living-


George Washington McPhee: May I ask the hon. gentleman


William Earl Rowe: Please do not interrupt; I am developing a point in reference to the agrarian movement.


George Washington McPhee: Is it not a fact


William Earl Rowe: I will answer your question in a moment.


George Washington McPhee: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Sit down.


William Earl Rowe: I know what the hon. gentleman is trying to object to; he no doubt knows what I am going to say. The hon. gentleman is not a farmer, and I am now discussing the interests of farmers. Now we can all remember all the talk about a co-operative system at that time, and I well recall that in my own county some people said I was untrue to the farmers' interests because I did not belong to that group for the reason that they had started to merge into the Liberal party. The hon. members to your left, Mr. Chairman, came here, the Crerars, the Forkes, the Browns, and all the rest, in absolute sincerity, and in the most devout


George Washington McPhee: What about Milton Campbell?
An hon. MEMBEtl: Give him a title.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. gentleman never understood the problem, let alone offered a solution. He will not say in his riding that he is not in favour of the co-operative movement; he will not say he absolutely opposes the marketing act.


Mr. VALLANCE:: You don't call this a cooperative movement, do you?


William Earl Rowe: The hon. gentleman will not lead me away from the point.
Mr.. MACKENZIE (Vancouver): We won four by-elections in Ontario.


William Earl Rowe: That is also beside1 the issue, as the hon. member usually is.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order. I must ask hon. members to keep order. If any hon. member wishes to ask a question, the hon. gentleman who has the floor will sit down if he cares to entertain the question; otherwise he must not be interrupted.


William Earl Rowe: Does the hon. gentleman rise to a point of order?


George Washington McPhee: I wished to ask a question but the hon. member objected before I could get a chance to put it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The hon. member who had the floor had not sat down. If he wishes to answer the question he will sit down.


William Earl Rowe: Now, if I may, I should like to proceed with what I was about to say- something my hon. friends do not care to listen to. I was going to say that hon. gentlemen came here in 1921, in 1925 and again in 1926- and some of them are still here-with the intention of doing something to give the
3302	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
farmers a square deal and to encourage a system of cooperative marketing. But what happened? In 1925 and 1926 the Liberal party were not hanging on by their eyelids, as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough suggests in reference to this party, but-


William Duff: You have been in power now for over five years.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friends at that time did not even have their eyelids in, because they were in the minority in this parliament and they were kept in power by the help of the farmers' party. They did not have their eyelids in, and their eyes were closed, if they do not know they were kept in power by the farmers who sat to their left.


William Duff: Who is keeping you in power to-day?


William Earl Rowe: We were returned to this house with a substantial majority. Let me say to my hon. friends that they can ballyhoo this house sometimes, when there are not many members present, as on Friday nights, but they cannot ballyhoo the Dominion of Canada with respect to a government which has had a record of administration such as this government has had. They will not ballyhoo the people when the facts are shown in their true light. And no one knows this better than my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough. I used to see how he would sit down in the corner and flirt-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) makes the statement that in 1925 and 1926 he saw me flirting with my hon. friends in the southeast corner. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that I never flirted with anybody. I have never agreed with the principles of my hon. friends in the southeast corner because, in my opinion,, w'hether they are Tories or Liberals, or whatever they are, they should align themselves with one of the two great parties and not sit there doing nothing.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman-


William Duff: I am not through yet.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no point of order.


William Duff: I am rising to a point of order.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. member be good enough to state the point of order?


William Duff: My point of order is this: My hon. friend had no right to accuse me of flirting with the members in the far comer.


William Earl Rowe: I certainly withdraw that
statement about flirting. I know that neither the hon. member for Southeast Grey nor other members would flirt with the hon. gentleman, and I realize that he has never flirted with anyone. But I know very well his party were kept in power by hon. members who came to this house hoping to get a solution of their marketing problems, and they had been promised on different occasions they would have assistance in the regulation of their products to overseas markets, and so forth. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) shakes his head. The Liberal party, I remember, kidnapped his first leader, Mr. Crerar, and brought him over to their fold; then his second leadeT, Mr. Forke, and last but not least they kidnapped the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) himself and brought him over with them also.


Albert Joseph Brown: It wasn't the Tory party that kidnapped the hon. member for Lisgar.


William Earl Rowe: I know the hon. member does not want to charge the Liberal party with the terrible crime of kidnapping, and I will recast that statement: he came quietly and slipped into a seat as near the front ranks of the Liberals as possible. He returned to his first love and left those with whom he was closely associated for many years. I repeat: In regard to every agrarian movement we have had in Canada since 1890, we have watched the Liberal party finally make their inroads into it and turn it from an agrarian and a cooperative movement into a Liberal force to help to return them to power. I see the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) smile; he remembers how the different leaders of the Progressive movement came over just as meekly as little children, and the hon. member for Lisgar knows full well that is why many Liberals perhaps in his own riding are a little doubtful of his present candidature in the coming election for fear he will again forsake another love.


William Alexander Fraser: May I ask a question?


William Earl Rowe: No; I would like to ask my hon. friend a question before he asks his. I would like to ask him whether, if the Liberal party is returned to power, he will do all in his power absolutely to abrogate or annul the marketing act.


William Alexander Fraser: Just as soon as the hon. member takes his seat, I will answer that question in detail. Will he permit a question?

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


William Earl Rowe: I might say that just as soon as the hon. member takes his seat, I will proceed.


William Duff: I rise to a point of order.


William Earl Rowe: We have listened to the hon. member already; we have listened to his points of order.


William Duff: We have a clock or, in fact, three clocks in this chamber; we also have a rule that a member can speak for only forty minutes. We have enjoyed immensely the remarks of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, but he has been speaking now for fifty-seven minutes.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member cannot get away with that. I have not spoken fifty-seven minutes.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: On the point of order, he can speak for only forty minutes, but every time he sits down he can speak for forty minutes more.


William Earl Rowe: May I thank the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough for extending my time by forty minutes although I do not propose to take that much time. I feel satisfied I have not taken thirty minutes yet, and the hon. member with interruptions has taken about as much of it as I have.
I know the hon. member for Northumberland, who is one of the ablest fruit producers in Ontario-and I have been amazed at what . he has said with regard to the marketing act -will explain at some time how he can go to the fruit districts, the tobacco districts if you will, the fruit and vegetable producers, the hog producers.


William Duff: Order.


William Earl Rowe: As regards the forty minuite rule, I have not taken forty minutes because I have been watching the clock and the hon. member has been sitting with his back to it.


William Duff: The hon. member has not said anything anyway.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member has himself talked more and said less in the house than has any other hon. member. Surely I should have a chance to talk for a little while even if I do not say very much.


William Duff: 1 want a ruling on the point of order.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, you have ruled on the point of order; you have ruled that I may proceed for forty minutes.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: I want to say further to the hon. member for Northumberland: Let him visit the Niagara peninsula, the Annapolis valley, the fruit and vegetable districts and the poultry districts of British Columbia, the grain districts of western Canada where the wheat pool has been in operation for years; let him look over the situation in Ontario where the marketing act is just beginning to work. He can point if he wishes to the unfortunate situation when the crop of apples is bad; he can blame the poor crop of apples on the present government.


William Alexander Fraser: I object; I did not blame that on the present government.


William Earl Rowe: No; the hon. member knows the present Prime Minister has nothing to do with the blight that spoils the crops. I withdraw the statement that he blames the government for that, but he will certainly say that the exports overseas were not as great as in years when crops were larger. Probably he will visit western Ontario and tell the people of Norfolk and Elgin: I am opposed to the marketing act. He probably has done this, but if he has not, he will say what he said in the house to-day and lead them to believe that if they support the Liberal party, the marketing act will be done away with. He will tell them that it is the beginning of fascism in this country.


William Alexander Fraser: I object to the hon. member putting wrnrds into my mouth.


William Earl Rowe: Did the hon. member not say that this was the beginning of fascism in this country?


William Alexander Fraser: Yes, but the hon. member a minute ago attributed to me words I did not say.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Hansard will prove tomorrow what was said.


William Alexander Fraser: Let the hon. member make his own speech; let him not make up one for me.


William Earl Rowe: Hansard will prove to-morrow what the hon. member has said. I certainly would not want to put words into his mouth. I know he mentioned its relationship to fascism. If he did not mean that it was the beginning of fascism, he meant that it would certainly encourage it. I hope he visits the Norfolk, Elgin and Oxford farmers, the men who have come here from other countries, have established themselves and are being assimilated into excellent citizens, and tells
3304	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
those people that this is the beginning of fascism , and that if the Liberal party is returned to power, this act, will be absolutely wiped out.


William Alexander Fraser: I did not say so.


William Earl Rowe: I imagine in some of the houses I have been in, they will talk to one another and say: What do you think of the Liberal party?


William Alexander Fraser: That
question was answered in four by-elections.


William Earl Rowe: It will be said: We'produced about one-third less crop last year and despite world conditions, we got four or five million dollars more for it due to the marketing act. So they will say to themselves: If it means we have to take forty per cent less-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. As regards the point of order raised by the hon. member for Antigon-ish-Guyshorough, the rule dcelares that even in committee no hon. member may speak for more than forty minutes following the same line of address. If an hon. member has finished his forty minute address and another hon. member interrupts him, he cannot for another forty minutes. The hon. member has now spoken'for over fifty minutes.
'Tlie CHAIRMAN: As regards the point of order, at more than one period in the hon. gentleman's speech there were members who rose and spoke for several minutes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He just gave way in deference to a question.
The1 CHAIRMAN: My ruling was that there were hon. members who rose and spoke for more than,one, two or three minutes; consequently, when the hon. member for Dufferin-gimcoe (Mr. Rowe) resumed, I permitted him to go on. ,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the utmost respect, I say that the hon. gentleman gave way in deference to questions and interruptions1 from this side of the house. If he gives way he still maintains his right to continue: his address. It would be_ ridiculous to say. I pat when an hon. member is speaking he can,, continue for horn's on end. That is not the intention of . the rule.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Again I must say that in1 maintaining the rules the chair does not seek to favour one side any more than the other. I' hope to be fair to both sides. But there were a number of times when not only were points of order raised but arguments were begun and finished on this side. ' Certainly

on those occasions there was interruption of the speech of the hon. member, and from that time his time began over again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An hon. member who is addressing the committee does not have to give way except on a point of order and on the direction of the chair. That is not an interruption of the hon. member's, address; therefore there is continuity as to the forty minutes.. If you persist, sir, in the ruling, I must appeal from it.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I should like to say a few words about this matter.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: With all due deference, there can be no discussion on the ruling.


George Halsey Perley: Am I out of order in saying a few -words regarding the point of order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A ruling has been given, and I have appealed from it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: As leader of the house surely the right hon. gentleman is entitled-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the chairman definitely and finally ruled on the point of order?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And I have appealed, therefore there is no further discussion.


George Halsey Perley: If that is the rule I do not wish to break it. But my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was on the committee with me that made this rule, and I suggest it would be a- pity that there should be an appeal from a ruling of the chair on a matter of this kind. Whether the ruling is or is not in order it is a matter that ought to be gone into. carefully by a proper question to the Speaker regarding what the rule means in this respdet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
appeal goes to the Speaker.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, but I think it is a pity to have it go in this way, in a. haphazard fashion as it were. The ex-Minister of Justice and I were both on the committee that prepared -this, rule, and I am free to admit that I have read it several times and am not sure exactly what the interpretation ought to be with regard to speeches in committee. That was not discussed in the raids committee, although we gave a great deal of attention to this matter. Suppose any hon.

Mounted Police
member or any minister is discussing a matter in committee; he speaks for twenty-five or thirty minutes and then other questions intervene-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is different.


George Halsey Perley: Excuse me. Other matters are discussed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same general discussion would start again.


George Halsey Perley: All I suggest to the ex-Minister of Justice and my hon. friends opposite is that this is a matter which might very well be put to the Speaker in the shape of a question the terms and wording of which would be carefully considered, not submitted in this haphazard fashion. If my hon. friends opposite wish to have the rule definitely clarified, it might be wrnrth while to take a little time to prepare carefully a question to the Speaker as to the meaning of this rule in regard to the proceedings in committee.


William Earl Rowe: I object to this interference, because I had not spoken forty minutes, independently of interruptions.
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Order.


William Earl Rowe: I have not talked forty minutes, Mr. Chairman; you have not ruled yet that I have talked forty minutes.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not the point,


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Even if my hon. friend had not spoken forty minutes, the chairman has given a certain ruling and I have appealed. We cannot consider the duration of my hon. friend's speech until that appeal is disposed of.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will permit, there is an appeal from the ruling, and my hon. friend could not speak until that is disposed of anyway. Personally I am quite willing to agree with my right hon. friend as to the course he suggests, provided that in the meantime my hon. friend yields to ' what is being asked from the chair and that somebody else takes the floor-at eleven o'clock.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Chairman, I call it eleven o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon. member cannot call it eleven o'clock. You must deal, sir, with my appeal.


Robert Weir: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 5, 1935