1947-03-14

PRIVILEGE


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On page 1355 of Hansard of yesterday the following words are credited to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon):
I do know that certain estimable and amiable gentlemen from the city of Winnipeg came to Ottawa-some of them I think are still here and are likely in this building tonight-with the objective of ruining this legislation, of killing this legislation one way or another. There is no doubt in the world that their first objective was to try to injure it and kill it if possible in the agriculture committee of this house. That opportunity was lost when the members on this side of the house, the members of the C.C.F. party and the members of the Social Credit party announced that they were opposed to this legislation, under all the circumstances, going to the committee on agriculture and colonization.
The minister continued:
Now it is my opinion-and possibly I might be blamed for imputing motives - that this attempt-
The amendment I moved.
-that this attempt to send this legislation back to the committee of the whole is merely another attempt, coming from the same quarter,-
The "estimable and amiable gentlemen" to whom he referred.
-to embarrass the government with this legislation.

At that point, Mr. Speaker, I rose and spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is suggesting improper motives.
A moment or two later the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I very carefully stated that I was not imputing any motives to anybody.
I suggest, sir, that the words just quoted from yesterday's Hansard do impute motives, and do impute them to me. In any event the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) raised a point of order, and Your Honour made a ruling. When I refer to that ruling I do so with all respect, Mr. Speaker. I have confidence that the rulings you make are your best judgment in the light of matters as you see them. This is what you said:
I listened very carefully to the minister when he was speaking and I listened to the hon. member who rose on a point of order. I do not believe that the minister imputed to the leader of the official opposition any improper motives. I understood that the motives were attributed to outsiders, not members of the house. Therefore, since he did not impute motives to any member of parliament, I do not think I could ask him to withdraw.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if you had had before you the words of the minister as they appear in Hansard today you would have given a different ruling.
In any event I need no defence in the province of Manitoba against insinuations such as those carried in the words used by the minister. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Bracken: For twenty-five years friends of these so-called "estimable and amiable gentlemen" have done they very best to defeat me in provincial and dominion elections.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Bracken: Sir, I do not propose to sit still in this house and allow these words of the minister to remain on record without protest. I respectfully suggest that if you had had those words before you last night you would have made a different ruling. But I understand the rules of the house are such that when a statement of this kind is not required to be withdrawn at the time it is made it cannot be ordered- to be done later. Under these circumstances my only recourse is to present to the minister the actual words he used and then to ask him, as the honourable gentleman we have known him to be, to withdraw them.


Mr. MacKINNON:: The words I used are on Hansard.

Privilege-Mr. Bracken


John Bracken: The words are:
Now it is my opinion-and possibly I might be blamed for imputing motives-that this attempt-
That is the amendment I moved.
-to send this legislation back to the committee of the whole is merely another attempt, coming from the same quarter

That is, the estimable gentlemen the minister referred to.
-to embarrass the government with this legislation.
Mr. CHEVR1ER: What is the matter with that?


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I present those actual words to the minister and ask him to withdraw them. If he is the honourable gentleman we all know him to be, he will withdraw them now.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: On the question of privilege, may I suggest very briefly this to Your Honour. It is not the interpretation which may have been placed by the leader of the opposition upon the words uttered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that is of significance in this issue. I refer Your Honour now to the actual words uttered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as recorded in Hansard, on two different occasions. He could not possibly have made it more explicit that he was not imputing any motives. At page 1355:
Mr. MacKinnon:	Mr. Speaker, I am a bit
surprised at the interruptions coming from the portion of the house occupied by the official opposition. I made no charges or no representations against any one of them. They do seem to be taking to themselves-
And again on the same page:
Mr. MacKinnon:	Mr. Speaker, I should just
like to set at rest the mind of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). I certainly made no imputation against the leader of the official opposition. . . Neither did I make any imputation against any member of this house.
That was made very clear.


John Bracken: His words do not bear that out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I make the point with you as a point of order, apart altogether from the question of privilege, that you are governed by the words actually uttered by the speaker at the time and not by any interpretation of those words made by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to allow the minister to finish.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: No. That is entirely out of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am rising to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat and wait until the minister has finished his explanation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a point of order.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, you were not. You did not say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is too much of a dullard to understand what I was speaking about.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Withdraw.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If it gives my hon. friend any pleasure, if it is the will of the house that I withdraw, I certainly will.


James Horace King: I would ask all members of the house to be kind enough to assist the Speaker in maintaining discipline and order in the house. I have given all the latitude possible to the leader of the opposition to speak on his question of privilege. At the moment the leader of the government has the floor, and I would ask hon. members to listen to him. Then if any other hon. member wishes to speak on the question of order, he will have the privilege of doing so. I would ask hon. members to maintain discipline and order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just raising a very important point and I am not disturbed in the slightest degree by the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. I think it should have been raised at the moment the words were uttered.


John Bracken: It was.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Later on.


John Bracken: No, immediately.


James Horace King: Order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will quote to you what was said after the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). The speakers noted are:	Mr. MacKinnon, Mr. Cockeram, Mr. MacKinnon, and then Mr. Bracken.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I think this whole discussion
Privilege

is entirely out of order. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) last night had the opportunity of bringing this matter of privilege to the attention of the house, which he did; and there is no rule which permits this kind of discussion now. I would therefore suggest that you rule it out of order, sir, and that we go on with the business of the house.


James Horace King: As hon. members know, when any member is not satisfied with the words or expressions used by other members of the house, if he seeks to have the words withdrawn, he is supposed to make the request immediately after the words have been uttered. The hon. leader of the opposition has said that he asked the minister to withdraw his remarks. I understand the leader of the opposition has raised a question of privilege to explain the situation which arose last night. He had the opportunity to do so and he should be satisfied with that. I would not permit the house to discuss a ruling which was made by the Speaker last night. I suggest to hon. members that we now proceed with the business of the house.



MB. KNOWLES-PRESS REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF MARCH 13

Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In today's Ottawa Citizen under the by-line of Reginald Hardy there is a report of last night's proceedings which contains this sentence:
Particularly singled out for the "oh's" and "ah's" of the Liberal members were Progressive Leader John Bracken, A. L. Smith (PC Calgary West), John Diefenbaker (PC Lake Centre), C.C.F. Leader M. J. Coldwell, Stanley Knowles (CCF Winnipeg North Centre) and J. A. Ross (PC Souris). All had fought bitterly against the government's wheat policy during the debate.
This is entirely erroneous, both as applied to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself. I was at one with my colleagues in support of the measure. I even defended it out on the hustings at Portage la Prairie, and I was one of those who called for a vote last night, so that my vote could be recorded in Hansard and in Votes and Proceedings.



MR. ROSS-PRESS REPORT WITH RESPECT TO REDISTRIBUTION

James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I wish to call attention to an article appearing the Winnipeg Free Press of March 12, on page 1, entitled, "Manitoba M.P.'s Favour Redistribution Plan", and reading as follows:

Manitoba's M.P.'s have agreed on all major boundary changes of constituencies under the new redistribution requiring elimination of one Manitoba seat. This has been done by throwing Lisgar and Macdonald constituencies together and Neepawa and Portage la Prairie together and creating a new rural seat circling the four Winnipeg city seats on the north and taking east half of Portage and the northeast corner of Macdonald.
As a member of this federal parliament from Manitoba, and a member of the redistribution committee, I have not agreed to this proposal; in fact the Manitoba subcommittee has not met as yet as a committee to discuss the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is why it should not be brought up now.



MR. ARCHIBALD-HAINES CUT-OFF-MINISTERIAL REPLY TO QUESTION ON MARCH 13

Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) a question regarding the Haines road. His reply on the floor of this house concluded with this sentence:
My understanding is that the road was never completed, and it is not intended that it should be closed in the ordinary sense.
I wired this statement to the interested parties. Hansard as it appears today contains no record of the latter part of the sentence, which I repeat: "and it is not intended that it should be closed in the ordinary sense." I am at a loss as to what the minister does mean.



CONSUMER ORGANIZATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. PROBE (Regina City):: Has a
request been received by the Minister of Finance from or on behalf of the housewives' consumers league or other interested consumer organizations in western Canada that the minister or the government meet a delegation to receive a brief on the subject of the restoration of subsidies on milk and other necessities of life, and on the restoration of price control?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I have not received such a request, Mr. Speaker, but a copy of a letter from the acting secretary of the housewives' consumers league in Regina, addressed to the Prime Minister, was sent to my office on March 3. In that letter the consumers league asked whether a delegation could wait on the

Inquiries of the Ministry
government, and according to a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister's secretary they were advised to get in touch with the Minister of Finance as the minister directly concerned with the administration of price control, in order to attempt to arrange an interview at a suitable time. I have not yet heard from the league, but when I do I shall deal promptly with their request.


John Oliver Probe: It is not correct to say that they have been refused an opportunity to meet the government?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply with respect to the coal mining dispute in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Has the Minister of Labour any statement to make as to any progress being made in the settlement of that dispute? If not, has the government taken any steps to have representatives of the labour organizations, the operators and the government meet and endeavour to reconcile the differences between the parties? I am sure practically everyone in Nova Scotia wants this strike brought to an end. I know there is hardly a person in my county who does not want to see it concluded.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Just before I came into the house practically this same question was asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. MacLean) and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not raising a question of privilege. If I did that sort of thing I would be on my feet twenty-four hours a day. Don't take yourselves too seriously. This morning I met a delegation of the Canadian congress of labour, -who made the suggestion that I call a conference of the parties concerned. I want to say, with all the emphasis at my command, that the Department of Labour is ready to conciliate this dispute at any time, if given an opportunity to do so. Might I say further that not only the people of the maritimes but I believe the people of the whole dominion wish to see this dispute brought to a successful conclusion.
As hon. members know, I appointed Mr. Justice Carroll as a commissioner, and he made certain recommendations. The position taken by the company was that unless they were guaranteed increased production they were not in a financial position to grant the increases requested by the men. The men took the view that an increase in pay should not be tied to guaranteed production. That is how the matter stands at the moment. Neither side has receded from its position. If at any time there is a spirit of conciliation, of willingness at least to give and take in the dispute, you may rest assured that I and my department will use every effort to bring it to an end. In my judgment, however-and of course this is a matter of judgment-there must be a spirit of compromise on both sides. To ask these people to come up here from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would be a waste of time, unless there were a joint request by both parties to the dispute.


Percy Chapman Black: Does not the minister agree that the initiative should be taken by his department, where there is a general desire on the part of the workmen and the public that this dispute be brought to a conclusion?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know whether my hon. friend suggests compulsory arbitration, but I am not going in where angels fear to tread, in that business. I have had some experience, and I know something about the background of the settlement of industrial disputes. My hon. friend can rest assured that the same sincerity and, may I say, ability, in the settlement of disputes will be exemplified by my department if we are given the opportunity by both sides.


Percy Chapman Black: But, if you will permit me, the initiative must be taken by somebody. I think it should be taken by the minister.


James Horace King: I cannot permit debate between the hon. member and the minister.


Mr. GILLIS:: May I follow that up? Was the minister's department asked recently by either party to the dispute for the holding of a conference? Was such a request made either by the mine workers or by the operators?


Humphrey Mitchell: Just prior to my coming to the house the suggestion was made by a delegation representing the Canadian congress of labour, and it was made on the basis I outlined a moment ago. While I have had no direct request from the mine workers
Inquiries oj the Ministry

organization of Nova Scotia as such, yet on what might be called a confidential level, if I may put it that way, I have had requests from other sources that a conference be held.


Percy Chapman Black: If you will permit me, again, I make this appeal to the minister and I ask him if he will not take the initiative and call these disputing parties together.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES ROUTE BETWEEN WINNIPEG AND EDMONTON VIA SASKATOON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. The press contains reference to the fact that a new Trans-Canada Air Lines short route is being established between Ottawa and Winnipeg. I have a telegram today asking whether the minister is in a position to advise when operations are to begin on T.C.A. route between Winnipeg and Edmonton by way of Saskatoon.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I have stated to the house several times that the operation of the route depends upon the completion of the airport at Saskatoon. I believe the engineers in my department expect to have the airport completed on July 1. If so, the service will begin at that time. The beginning of the service, as my hon. friend knows, will depend upon one or two things; but the answer I have given is approximately correct.



INDIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the hospital at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, is refusing to admit treaty Indians as patients because the federal government will pay only $2 per day per patient? AVill the government consider increasing this amount, in view of the urgent need of many Indians in central Manitoba for hospitalization?


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) yesterday

made representations somewhat along the same line. I told him, and I now tell the hon. member, that the per diem rate is higher than $2 a day in that particular hospital.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the rate?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 



$2.50. ENEMY PROPERTY REQUEST FOR PRINTING OF CUSTODIAN'S REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State, arising out of the report of the custodian of enemy property, which the minister tabled this afternoon. Is it the government's intention to have this report printed, or at least to have copies of it made available to the various parties before the bill dealing with this matter is again discussed in the house?
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: There has not been any arrangement made for printing, but consideration can be given to the printing of the report. As the legislation is of an urgent nature, I do not want to delay proceedings by waiting to have the printing done.


Mr. FLEMING:: Could carbon copies of the report be made available?


Colin William George Gibson: I am not sure if they are immediately available; I shall make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.



PRESS REPORT OF SUBSIDY PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILL1S (Cape Breton South): Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to inquire if the attention of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has been directed to an item in the Halifax Herald on Thursday, March 13, which carries the heading "Reveal coal subsidy plan"? I have been endeavouring to get information on this point for ten days, and I now wish to ask whether either minister is aware of the fact that the mayor of Halifax, according to this report, has announced in that city the government's policy in the matter of subsidies on imported American coal. If this is a correct report, then I say the matter should have been announced in the house rather than by the mayor of Halifax.
I am not going to displease Your Honour by attempting to read the article, but it is

Inquiries of the Ministry
one which is of importance to every member in the house, in that government policy has been announced outside.
James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Gillis: And secondly-


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows that the purpose of a question is that of getting information rather than giving it. The hon. member's question should be direct and to the point.


Clarence Gillis: Well, I could have made a speech on a question of privilege, but I thought you had enough of that for the afternoon. If either minister has not seen this, I shall send it to them, and at the first opportunity I believe some statement should be made in the matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall read in Hansard what the hon. member has said, and try to give an answer early next week.



CANNED AND SALTED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries, arising out of a statement he made in the house yesterday. His statement was:
Similarly, allocation of salted cod and other salted groundfish of 1946 production will come to an end on June 30 of this year, and there will be no allocation of salted fish from 1947 production.
Does that mean all salted fish, of all types, or does it mean only salted groundfish? I wish to know whether the restriction regarding the salting of herring will be removed by this provision.


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and give an answer later.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated earlier in the week that I would be making a statement as to the probable course in iespect of the so-called emergency legislation. I have been waiting to see what the probable progress of the house would be
during the month of March, and I have come to the conclusion that in all probability it will be impossible for us to finish the emergency legislation on the order paper on or before March 28.
The National Emergency Transitional Powers Aet, 1945. as amended, will expire on March 29-not March 31, as is the general impression. It expires sixty days after the opening day of parliament. There is a substantial body of legislation which must be enacted before March 29, unless many important measures are permitted to lapse, thus causing a condition of great confusion, amounting almost to chaos, in the country. Therefore the government has come to the conclusion that it must ask parliament for an extension for a limited period of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, as amended. There is a proviso in the appropriate section of that act which states:
Provided that, if at any time while this aet is in force, addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and House of Commons respectively, praying that this act should be continued in force for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year, from the time at which it would otherwise expire and the governor in council so orders, this act shall continue in force for that further period.
It was decided yesterday that there should be an Easter recess of nearly two weeks. That means that legislation which is uncompleted before the Easter recess will not be reconsidered before the fourteenth or fifteenth day of April. I think it would be unsafe for the government to plan for the completion of that legislation within a period of less than approximately thirty days after we reassemble. Therefore I propose today to give notice that an address will be moved on Tuesday next praying for the extension of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act until the fifteenth day of May. The government will be prepared at the time that address is moved in the house to give appropriate undertakings for the repeal of outstanding orders in council in the event of the new legislation being assented to before the fifteenth day of May. I should hope that this legislation would be passed long before that time, but some is of a serious character and judging by the experience we have had with the legislation before the house-I think the progress has been reasonably satisfactory-it would be unsafe for the address to specify a date earlier than the fifteenth day of May. However, that is a matter that can be dealt with when the address is moved. Addresses will be moved in the House of Commons and in the Senate for this limited extension of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. I am making
Postal Service

a statement now rather than next Tuesday so that the house will understand what the government has in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a suggestion? It is most difficult to know what particular orders in council are in effect under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. Can the minister lay on the table of the house a list of the orders in council now in effect, in addition to those appearing in the appendix to the omnibus bill? The great difficulty is to ferret out which orders in council are in effect and which have been revoked or repealed during the last few months.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That information is all before the house; the orders in council passed under that act have been tabled. I can understand that it is drudgeiy to read all the orders in council that have been tabled, but the information is all before the house. There is just this qualification of the statement I have made: Some of the orders in council are spent, that is, they have ceased to have effect because the circumstances to which they originally applied have ceased to exist. It would take a great deal of work to compile the list that the hon. gentleman wants, but I will see whether it can be done and advise the house later.


John George Diefenbaker: I trust the minister can do that, because if it is difficult for the government to furnish the information, it is just that much more difficult for the people to know what laws are in effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I object to a political speech on an interchange such as this. The hon. gentleman has the same access to the orders in council as the government has. They have all been placed before the house.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General) moved the third reading of Bill No. 17, respecting supplemental payments on mail contracts.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a list of the mail contracts in respect to which bonuses have been paid has just been laid on the table of the house. Through the courtesy of the Postmaster General I have that list before me now. It is manifestly impossible for anyone to discuss the import or the purport of what has been

done in this connection, and I should like to suggest to the minister that this matter be held over until a later date.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am one minister who likes to say yes whenever possible. I can understand that it would be impossible for an hon. member to go through this long list of contracts today. The hon. member is asking for a postponement until Monday?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Ernest Bertrand: I think that is fair. I want the hon. member to have time to convince himself that all the bonuses have been given in good faith. I agree to his request.
Motion stands.
On motion of Mr. Diefenbaker the debate was adjourned.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gardiner for the second reading of Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, last evening the minister spoke briefly after introducing this bill because, as he explained, he had taken the opportunity when the resolution preceding the bill was before the house to speak at some greater length as to the purposes of the measure. However, he did take the opportunity to explain that it was his intention when we reached the committee, stage to move an amendment which, as we understood, would have considerable effect on the measure itself. After asking him a couple of questions, which he answered, I sought and obtained the permission of the house to adjourn the debate a few minutes before eleven o'clock, in order that we might have an opportunity of considering what that amendment amounted to. The minister handed around slips describing it, but I must not discuss the amendment on the second reading. I should like to observe, however, that the effect of it will be to permit the distribution of apples, and apples only, whenever the distribution is undertaken by a board set up under a provincial marketing act. Further discussion of the matter will take place when the bill is in committee and we reach the section indicated.

Agricultural Products Act
The purpose of this bill is to empower the minister to lay his hand on certain agricultural products required for the purposes of international or other agreements which may be made. The methods by which that object may be attained are set forth in the bill, for the bill will empower the minister to establish a board or boards which will have very wide powers. Those boards will act under the direction of the minister and will be able to acquire agricultural products designated by the governor in council, deliver them, store them, and besides that, set the price which the farmer will receive for those products. That method of arriving at the object of the bill carries with it a principle with which we are not in accord. My mind goes back to the discussions which took place in this house in 1934 on the natural products marketing bill, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) fulminated violently against that bill from its first section to its last, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) expressed his strong opposition to its terms despite the fact that the farmers in the Annapolis valley had unanimously indicated their support of the measure. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the situation would have been if that bill had contained these wide powers! Is it surprising that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) yearns for the day when the Liberal party may return to those principles which he alleges they once followed?
I say that we are not in accord with the principle involved in this bill. We do not consider it right that the farmer who produces the product should have no say in its disposition or in the price he shall receive for it, and in that regard we are on all fours with the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture a fortnight ago today. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture met the government in the early hours of the day on which the minister moved the resolution which resulted in the introduction of this bill. The view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is that the proper basis on which to proceed in such a matter as this is a recognition of those boards at present in existence or to come into existence under the marketing acts which have been passed in every province.
I want to point out to hon. members that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture speaks with no sectional voice in Canada. It neither speaks with the voice of one part of Canada nor speaks with the voice of farmers producing any one particular product. It is the collective voice of the farmers. There are branches of the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture in eight of the nine provinces. These branches meet annually and discuss their problems. They arrive at policies. Their delegates assemble here in the city of Ottawa and in open meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture they put forward their views, and the views of the federation are there hammered out, so that it is feasible for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to meet the dominion government and set forth the policies which it advocates.
The main reason why I am so strongly in favour of recognition of the boards at present in existence under the provincial marketing acts is that they are producer boards. The basis of those nine acts is just this, that in any stipulated area, if there be a majority of producers of certain commodities who desire to form themselves into a board, they may receive permission to do so. They elect their board, and that board carries out the control and the regulating of the marketing of those crops in an orderly fashion for the benefit of the producer, the benefit of the consumer and the benefit of the trade, and it is only reasonable to my mind in a matter of this kind that the government should recognize the fact that such boards are in existence and that they are efficient. The minister himself has had opportunities of working with at least some of these boards.
I would draw attention by way of illustration to two things which have happened since the war began. When the war broke out, shipping disappeared so far as commercial produce was concerned. That was an extremely serious matter for the province of Nova Scotia because their habit for generations has been to barrel their apples and to send them across the seas to the United Kingdom, to Scandinavian countries, to Newfoundland, Iceland, and the West Indies. It was not such a serious matter for the apple producers in. British Columbia because for some years past from twenty-five to thirty per cent of their product had been sold in the export market, but it was sufficiently serious to deal a blow to that industry in British Columbia.
The only reason I am using the apple as an illustration is that I come, from the centre of the Okanagan valley and I personally am more conversant with the conditions of the British Columbia fruit trade than I am with those of the other boards which exist in that province. I would not like it to be thought, as has been alleged in times past, that the whole strength of the movement of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is based on the fruit industry, for that is very far from true. The fruit industry is merely one of those bodies which support the Canadian
Agricultural Products Act

Federation of Agriculture both in its provincial branches and in the federation itself.
When that export was entirely cut off, the federal government saw fit to make financial arrangements under which the farmers might be enabled to remain on their farms and to produce this food. That was a very considerable assistance in Nova Scotia. The method adopted was largely that of turning the apples over to the processors. In British Columbia it was necessary to a far lesser degree to make use of that financial assistance because as the war developed and as employment increased consequent on the spread of industry for the war effort, the domestic market reached such proportions that it was possible for the British Columbia fruit board to sell practically all its produce in the domestic market. But in that instance it is interesting to note that when the dominion government, having set up this financial arrangement, required some body of people to deal with it at the other end, it was to these fruit boards that they turned, and they made use of them in applying this financial arrangement.
May I give an illustration. Not long ago when shipping was again possible the United Kingdom indicated that it desired to purchase Canadian apples. The question arose as to where these apples could be obtained, in what quantity and what the price should be. The head of the British mission was directed to the two boards, the one in Nova Scotia and the one in British Columbia. He went to see the Nova Scotia board and the British Columbia board and carried out a dicker by the ordinary methods of trade with the one and the other as to quantity and the price that should be paid. Barrels of apples in Nova Scotia and boxes of apples in British Columbia when converted into barrels, turned out to be at very much the same price, and that price was the one which was adopted in the agreement with the United Kingdom. Therefore in these two matters the minister is not without knowledge and experience of what these boards are capable of doing. I would venture to suggest that he appreciates the assistance which those boards were able to afford in time of need.
We are not in accord with the principle behind this bill, because we believe that there should be recognition by the government of the existing boards, and it should be so stated in the bill. I intend to make that the subject of an amendment which I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton), and which I shall now read. It is as follows:
['Mr. Stirling.]
That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that it be resolved that an Agricultural Products Act should be based on the principle that producer boards, set up under provincial marketing acts, where such boards exist or as they may from time to time come into existence, be used for the purposes of such Agricultural Products Act, instead of commodity boards established by the minister under section four of the said bill.
The phraseology adopted in the amendment is the phraseology set forth in our rules of procedure for an amendment on second reading, but I should be extremely glad if the minister would see the force of the contention and incorporate that principle in the bill.
Under these nine provincial acts as they exist today there are a score or more of these boards dealing with all sorts of different agricultural products. Where there is a board dealing with a commodity which the minister desires to acquire it surely is but reasonable to give the producer of that commodity the opportunity to have a say in the disposition of the product as well as the price it will bring.
Now, an observation or two with regard to what the minister was good enough to divulge last evening in the matter of an amendment which he had in mind. I know that we must not discuss it at this stage, and I do not propose to do so; but I should like to make an observation or two with regard to it to show how it came about. When the minister spoke on the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill it was getting pretty late in the evening and the house was good enough to assist him to the extent of passing rapidly through the resolution stage and reaching the introduction of the bill, because the following week the house would revert to the debate on the address and if we had not succeeded in getting the bill into our hands that night we should probably have had to wait a couple of weeks to see it.
As the minister drew to the end of his remarks I asked him the following questions as reported on page 930 of Hansard:
Did I understand the minister to say that the existing boards will be empowered only to carry out transactions connected with agreements which the government has entered into with other countries, or will this bill enable the boards to carry out other undertakings which they have taken on with regard to shipments out of one province into another province?
Mr. Gardiner:	The bill will cover interprovincial and international shipments.
Mr. Stirling:	Not only connected with the
agreement ?
Mr. Gardiner:	Not only connected with the
agreement. It does provide authority to deal with interprovincial transactions.
When we received the bill and were able to read it we could find nothing whatever in

Agricultural Products Act
it to warrant the minister in giving these answers; and in consequence the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with three of his colleagues, called on the minister and asked him to be good enough to explain what the answers to me meant. On that occasion he told them that he had certain amendments in contemplation which he might move when the bill reached committee stage. He indicated that it would still be possible for the existing boards to carry on under the powers granted by the order in council under the War Measures Act, in the regulatory work which they had been doing outside the provinces in which these boards were set up. Again last night when the minister told us of the amendment that he proposed to move but did not indicate its character, he said that it would be possible for these existing boards to carry out regulatory work both in export and in interprovincial trade.


Mr. GARDINER:: With regard to apples.


Grote Stirling: Yes. The minister has restricted this amendment to apples, and although a small slice of bread is better than a whole loaf if you cannot get the whole loaf, it scarcely comports with what the minister is stated to have said to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when they met the government. I read these few words from the report got out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on what took place during the discussion with the cabinet:
Mr. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, announced that he was introducing into the commons, an act which would carry on the powers and functions of various marketing boards which had been functioning during the war and up to the present. He indicated also that the act would convey powers which would make it possible for the government to meet part of the wishes of the delegation with respect to federal marketing legislation. However, he stated the act would only be in force for one year, to be reenacted again at that time if desired.
When we see the restrictions contained in the amendment, in that they refer to apples only and it is not by any means clear that they cover export trade as well as interprovincial trade, it leaves us with the doubt which we must carry in our minds until we reach the committee stage of the bill and can discuss them at greater length.
I therefore sum up in this way, Mr. Speaker. We quite realize that it is necessary for the government to obtain the commodities required for certain international agreements which they have arrived at, but we contend that before the disposition of the farmers' produce should be made, and particularly before the price is arbitrarily set by the minister, the farmers should have an opportunity of indi-83166-88
eating their wishes with regard to what they have produced and the price at which they are able to sell it.


Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), but I regret that the acoustics of the house are such that I am seldom able to hear all that he says. I regret especially that I was unable to follow his entire argument in support of the amendment that he moved, but I hope that as I proceed I shall be able to gather the ends together where they may be somewhat apart. While he and I may deal with this question from different angles, I am certain we both have the sincere desire of doing something worthwhile for agriculture.
I should like to deal briefly with the general principles of the bill as they are outlined in the preamble. I shall read only that part of it which sets out what is really the main reason why the government considers it necessary to have this piece of legislation. I quote:
And whereas certain orders and regulations were made by the governor in council under the authority of the War Measures Act and the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the purpose of enabling Canada to carry out the said agreements;

*
I might interject there, Mr. Speaker, that previously they were dealing with the agreements which the government had signed.
-And whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on March 31, 1947, and it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that parliament confer authority to enable the government of Canada to fulfil its obligations under the said agreements and to continue to sell and export food supplies to distressed countries for the relief of suffering and the distribution of essential food supplies, in order to maintain economic stability and to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace.
I should just like to emphasize that last part:
-"in order to maintain economic stability and to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace." I ask the government what period of time they would set as the transitional period. I think that is important. While the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) tabled some agreements today, I regret that we did not have them soon enough to get a little insight as to how long some of these agreements are to carry on. As I understand it, they are all for different periods of time, with the result that this act will be applicable for the purposes of one agreement which may be for two years and another which may be for a longer period. I should like to know what the government consider to be a reasonable length of time for the transitional period.

Agricultural Products Act

This bill is not what the organized farmers wanted or asked for. We had handed to us last evening a slip of paper which has quite a bit of typing on it, and which the Minister of Agriculture submitted for our consideration as an amendment to the bill which is before us. I shall not read the entire amendment; all those who are interested have no doubt read it. I consider it an improvement over what the minister had in the bill before, but if already he finds it necessary to submit an amendment to the bill, surely the bill in its original form did not receive all the consideration it should have received.
There is just the one point that I wish to emphasize. In paragraph (b) of subsection 5(1) of the proposed amendment of the Minister of Agriculture there are these words:
For the purpose of regulating the movement of apples from one province to another and requiring that any such movement be made only by or under the authority of a provincial marketing board.
That is all very good; but surely the organized apple growers of British Columbia and Nova Scotia and other parts of the dominion are in a much better position to make their wants known to the government than almost any other branch of agriculture which may be dealt with under this act. Yet apparently this was overlooked until just the last moment.
This bill does not go as far as the organized farmers want it to go. I would remind the house that some time ago we were discussing another related matter to which I hope I may refer without transgressing the rules of the house. While this matter was under discussion we were informed that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was holding a conference in the city of Ottawa, and we were told we should wait with the proposals being advanced at that time until we found out what the organized farmers wanted. Well, Mr. Speaker, other hon. members as well as I attended that conference, for at least part of the time, and I was pleased and more than surprised to hear the almost unanimous demand for legislation along the lines advocated by members of this group for quite a number of years. In their discussions they emphasized in no uncertain terms the fact that no longer should conditions be tolerated under which a small minority, for selfish reasons or otherwise, could upset orderly marketing for the great majority of the producers of certain commodities. In that connection I should like to quote briefly from an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of March 11, in reference to this conference. Here are the final sentences of the editorial:

The request for compulsory marketing agencies is not restricted to grains. The federation has presented the government with a draft of a dominion farm products marketing act. This bill calls for establishment of marketing boards to handle interprovincial and export trade in all agricultural products. And it has asked that the government bring it before parliament this session.
The federation's action indicates that the farmers have not the horror of planned marketing which some attribute to them. iRather they appear to believe that uncontrolled marketing holds greater dangers. No doubt they remember the confusion and starvation prices of prewar days. And they do not desire to have their livelihood again dependent upon the whims of market speculators.
Just to give an idea of what they think should be in a bill of this kind I am going to draw to the attention of hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker, three portions of the draft bill presented by the federation. I need not bother with the sections or details, but will refer first to the short title. There they want the name to be "The Farm Products Marketing Act". May I mention in passing that the bill now before us makes no mention of being a marketing act. Furthermore, the federation specify this draft as-
An act to improve the methods and practices of the marketing of farm products in interprovincial trade within Canada, and in export trade, and to make provision for the regulation and control of trade and commerce therein, and to make further provision in connection therewith.
Then under "Purpose and intent" they say:
The purpose and intent of this act is to provide in respect to interprovincial trade in Canada and in export trade, for the improvement of the methods and practices of marketing of farm products, in any or all respects and in whole or lation or prohibition of the marketing of farm products, in any or all respects and in whole or in part.
I submit that originally the legislation now under consideration did not contain provision for anything in respect to interprovincial trade, until the minister brought in his proposed amendment last evening. I should like to say a few words about the stand taken by the C.C.F. group in respect to orderly marketing during all these years. Time after time spokesmen for this group have placed before parliament our belief that, as I mentioned a few moments before, we should not have a condition under which a few, for selfish or other reasons, could upset orderly marketing for the great majority of the producers. That belief dates right back to the time we first formed our political association. In that connection I refer to a document, known as the Regina manifesto, drawn up at the first national convention held at Regina in July, 1933, setting out the policies and principles of this organization. I need not take

Agricultural Products Act
time to quote from that document except
that portion pertaining to the matter under consideration today, but I can assure hon. members that it contains some interesting proposals. Item No. 4 of the plank concerning agriculture deals with this very question. It says:
The substitution for the present system of foreign trade, of a system of import and export boards to improve the efficiency of overseas marketing, to control prices, and to integrate the foreign trade policy with the requirements of the national economic plan.
During all the years since 1933 we have been advocating this very thing; and as is pointed out in the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen which I quoted a short time ago, the organized farmers in more places than just the prairie provinces have come to lose their fear of orderly marketing. In that connection I might repeat something I have stated on more than one occasion, something which has been stated by many hon. members of this group. I refer to the urgent need for stability in the marketing of our farm products. I contend that this bill does not give the farmers the required stability. In the first place, I can foresee the possibility that this bill may expire a year from now, while some provisions, dealing with certain agricultural products, may run for a number of years longer. In the different branches of agriculture we need a much longer range view than that. We need long-range planning to give the stability I mentioned a moment ago. Take the dairy branch of agriculture, and see the position the dairy people will be in if they must plan only from hand to mouth, so to speak, or from one year to another. We all know that those engaged in dairying must be able to plan their work for some years in advance. Hog production does not need quite as long a time as dairying. Yet this bill does not give those who are connected with hog production any assurance that they will have a long-range policy, or that it will afford them any stability. Beef cattle require a longer period. It takes from two and a half to three years for producers of beef cattle to cash in on their work.
In the matter of fruit, we have a type of farming in which a number of years are required before the farmer begins to realize any advantage from the work he has put in; therefore he needs a longer time in which to plan. Even vegetable growers require stability and planning in their markets. I am happy to say that they too are beginning to realize the necessity for controls and regulations. The great need is for coordination and control of interprovincial as well as export trade, and above all the desirability of as 83166-88J
great a degree as possible of democratic control by the producers themselves. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the re-drafting of this bill to make provision for:
(a)	A dominion marketing board to have control over the orderly marketing of any farm product in interprovincial trade within Canada and in export trade;
(b)	Authority to confer on any existing local marketing board or agency established under law of a province, power to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovincial trade and export trade;
(c)	The establishment where any provincial local marketing board or agency does not exist, of local marketing boards to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovineial trade and export trade, providing the establishment of such a board, is favoured by a majority of the producers in the area concerned, the membership of such a board to consist of producers of the regulated product in the area to which this scheme relates."


James Garfield Gardiner: Rising to a point of order, I was going to deal with the amendment-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I understand the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) has almost completed his observations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought he had
finished.


Joseph William Burton: I am interested in hearing what the minister's point of order is, but-


John Bracken: Will the hon. member explain the difference between his* amendment and that moved by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling)? I understand they are much alike, except that there is greater detail in the one offered by the hon. member for Humboldt. Will the hon. member elaborate upon it?


Joseph William Burton: I should be glad to, but there may be one or two other speakers to follow me, and they will do that. I admit that there is some similarity, yet my amendment covers a wider range of the subject matter under discussion. I am satisfied that there is enough difference to warrant the moving of the amendment to the amendment.
In the limited time I have to read the newspapers, I was astounded at an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of March 11, commenting on the editorials in the'Winnipeg Free Press to which reference was made in the
Agricultural Products Act

house yesterday. I shall not deal with the editorial in the Journal, more than to say that it appears to have taken it upon itself to consolidate the arguments advanced by the Winnipeg Free Press. The editorial in the Journal is entitled "Twilight of Freedom." The editor of the Ottawa Journal and others of like mind have been asleep so long they do not realize that instead of controlled and planned marketing as advocated by organized farmers being the "twilight of freedom," it is in fact the breaking of the dawn ushering in a new day when no longer the tillers of the soil will be exploited by those who would use a few in the industry for their own selfish ends.


William Ross Macdonald: May I point out to the house that already we have an amendment before the house, and that the one offered by the hon. member for Humboldt is in the nature of an amendment to the amendment, or what is commonly called a subamendment. It is proposed in this subamendment that all the words in the amendment be stricken out. In my opinion it is not in order to do so. In such circumstances I believe the proper procedure would be to wait until the amendment itself is negatived, at which time the present amendment to the amendment could be offered as an amendment to the main motion.
In this connection I would refer hon. members to May, 12th edition, at page 266, where we find this statement:
An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment, but in such a case the first amendment must be negatived before the second can be offered.
Therefore I must rule-


Major James William Coldwell: Just before you rule, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that it does not strike out all the words in the amendment; it strikes out all the words in the amendment after the word "that". Therefore the whole amendment is not struck out. May I suggest that the procedure permits a member to move something which may vary the proposal or is declaratory of another principle. I may say that if that point is raised it may well be that this is the same as the motion moved by the hon. member for Yale, but there is an essential difference. If you read clauses (a) and (b) of the amendment to the amendment you will find there principles other than those included in the amendment moved by the hon. member. I suggest that it-has been the custom in this house to accept subamendments in the term

of the subamendment now before you and that the amendment has not been stricken out in its entirety since the word "that" is left in.


John Bracken: If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to compliment the leader of the C.C.F. upon the ingenuity he has shown in supporting his subamendment.


William Ross Macdonald: As the leader of the C.C.F. group has said, the words are not struck out, but all the effective words of the amendment are struck out.


Major James William Coldwell: It does ont say "effective" in the book.


William Ross Macdonald: I must rule that the subamendment is out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: I will move it later on.


James Garfield Gardiner: The point of order which I intended to raise was not in regard to the amendment to the amendment; it was in regard to the amendment. Citation 755 of Beauchesne's, second edition, reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the
bill.
The amendment reads as follows:
That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that it be resolved that an Agricultural Products Act should be based on the principle that producer boards, set up under provincial marketing acts, where such boards exist or as they may from time to time come into existence, be used for the purposes of such Agricultural Products Act, instead of commodity boards established by the minister under section four of the said bill.
Reference is made to section 4 of the bill. If an amendment in these terms is to be moved to the bill the proper place to move it would be when that section is before the committee, not on the second reading. I suggest that section 4 provides for exactly what is suggested in the amendment. Action may be taken not only under the bill but under another act, and I refer to chapter 29 of the statutes of 1944-45, which is the Agricultural Prices Support Act. There is, under that act, the possibility of setting up boards which would do identically the same thing as is provided for in the bill we are discussing.
In other words, there are two different ways of dealing with the transition. We may deal with the transition under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, as we are doing in the case of potatoes, or we may deal with other products in other ways. That act provides in paragraph (i) of section 9:
The minister under regulation passed by order in council has power

Agricultural Products Act
(i) to appoint commodity boards or other agents to undertake the purchase and the disposition of agricultural products.
Under that section we can appoint any agency that has been set up by any organization to undertake the purchase and sale of farm products. In the section referred to in the amendment it is provided that we may utilize the section of the other act for the purpose of setting up boards. If I am permitted to do so under the rules of the house, I should like to read the last part of section 4 which states:
The minister may direct that any agricultural product designated by him may be purchased for the purpose of this act or the Agricultural Prices Support Act, 1944, only from a provincial marketing board.
In other words, where those boards do exist for the handling of products it is possible for us to do exactly what the hon. member for Yale thinks we ought to do. The bill provides for that. There are products dealt with in agreements for which no provincial boards exist. Apples happen to be the only product where there is a complete organization set up right across Canada by the producers to deal -with the situation. I submit that the amendment does not change the legislation; it simply advocates something already provided for in the legislation. Second, it is an attempt to amend a section of the bill which can be amended in committee if we so desire. Such an amendment should not be considered on second reading as an amendment to the motion for second reading of the bill.


Grote Stirling: On the point of order, it would appear to me that the minister's case really turns on what is the principle of the bill. It is quite clear to me that the principle of the bill is that the minister shall be empowered to establish boards which can take and sell, at whatever prices he chooses to set, certain agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be other boards.


Grote Stirling: The principle of the bill is to acquire, deliver, store and set the price. My contention is that that principle is not a good one. I submit that the man who produces the goods should have an opportunity of expressing his opinion with regard to the disposal of his goods and with regard to the price he shall receive for them. I would point out that, so far as the voice of agriculture is concerned, it would seem to indicate that the principle of this bill is not acceptable, but that this other principle is acceptable.


James Garfield Gardiner: That raises another
question which I do not think is open for
discussion at the moment, the question as to whether we are to submit another piece of legislation to this house. The farm organization did not at any time make any representation with regard to this legislation except to the effect that it was acceptable. I have here the submission made to the government asking for a national marketing act. In reply to the hon. member for Humboldt, who brought up the point, I would say that this legislation is not entitled "a marketing act."


William Ross Macdonald: I would ask the minister to confine himself to the point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am going to confine myself to the point of order if the speech of the hon. member for Yale is in order. I said at the beginning that I doubted whether either of our speeches were in order.


Major James William Coldwell: I submit that these are not effective words on the point of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: This submission states that a dominion farm products marketing act is essential to the economic welfare of agriculture, the basic industry of Canada. It states further, in effect, the authority and control which would be provided if such legislation were established and employed by the dominion government during the war years and subsequently as emergency measures in order to secure maximum production and efficient distribution for the purpose of fulfilling overseas commitments and contracts.
In other words, the suggestion is that we should have a marketing act which would contain the same provisions for doing with regard to the marketing of all farm products what was provided for with regard to some products in the orders in council during the war. This bill-[DOT] and this was embodied in the reply quoted a few moments ago which I gave to the farm movement-does continue in existence the orders in council which were brought into effect during the war to set up boards to secure commodities under agreement to Britain. The only additional power contained in this bill, and purposely so, is the power which we had under another order in council to deal with apples. That power has been brought into the bill to enable us to deal under this measure with everything with which we were dealing in war time. I submit that it would be impossible to deal with them in any other way, because there are not set up in the provinces boards through which we could proceed immediately to get the commodities we must necessarily obtain to fulfil our contracts.
Agricultural Products Act


Grote Stirling: The federation at that time had not seen this bill, had they?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should not like to answer that question.


Grote Stirling: Then, Mr. Speaker, I must ask the minister a further question. Had the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at the time to which he is referring seen Bill No. 25, which only appeared before us on the evening of the day of the interview to which I think the minister is now referring. The minister is referring to the first of the interviews that were had, to what he described as the submission.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Are we discussing your ruling, or are we in committee?


William Ross Macdonald: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is well taken, but I would point out that there cannot be a point of order raised on a point of order. The hon. member has drawn my attention to the fact that we should be discussing the point of order. The question which concerned me was whether or not the amendment declares a principle which is adverse to the principle of the bill. I noted the remarks of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) as to his opposition to the principle of the bill, but I am not so sure that his amendment sets forth a different principle. Before the Minister of Agriculture rose I was giving consideration to the question which the hon. member has brought before the house, and it did occur to me that the amendment affected only one clause of the bill, clause 4, and that the bill could be amended in committee by an amendment to clause 4.


Mr. SENN:: Mr. Speaker, the chief difference I see between the bill and the amendment is that the amendment would make the use of producer boards obligatory, while the bill itself makes it optional with the minister whether they shall be used or not.


William Ross Macdonald: Perhaps the hon member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) is right and, if he is right, it again occurs to me that the amendment could be made when the bill is in committee.


Mr. FULTON:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if that is the case it would mean that an amendment to be moved in committee would affect the very principle of the bill itself, because the amendment would practically involve the elimination of clause 3, which is half the principle of the bill. Clause 3 makes the minister the sole one to determine price

and quantity. Under clause 4 there is the possibility that he may use the boards for certain purposes. But the resolution embodied the principle that producer boards should be used for all these purposes, including the setting of prices and dealing with quantities. Therefore it seems to me that the amendment involves a definite departure in principle when it says that producer boards shall be used, for in clause 3 of the bill the minister is made the sole agent to determine these matters. It seems to me to be clearly a question of principle.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what clause 3 says. It says the governor in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My reading of clause 3 i3 that the minister sells on behalf of the Canadian government and buys on behalf of foreign governments and enters into contracts for the storing and processing of agricultural products.


James Garfield Gardiner: Subject to any regulations made by the governor in council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the minister or the governor in council; at all events it is the cabinet authority, and certainly not producer boards. That is one-half of the main principle of the bill and it is diametrically opposed to the principle of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yale.


William Ross Macdonald: I have listened attentively to what has been said both for and against the amendment being in order. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Third Edition, paragraph 755, which says in part:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill to move as an amendment ... a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
The amendment before the house does not, in my opinion, set forth a principle adverse to the principle set forth in the bill but sets forth a different method of putting the principle of the bill into effect. The object of the amendment could be obtained just as well by amending a certain clause in committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You would have to amend two clauses.


William Ross Macdonald: Perhaps two or more clauses. For these reasons I declare the amendment out of order.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago it is clearly a question of opinion as to what is the principle of the bill. We differ so much from Your Honour's view as to what the principle of the bill is that I must respectfully appeal from your ruling.

..	Agricultural Products Act
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows: The question before the house is an appeal from the ruling given by the Speaker. Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products was before the house for second reading. Mr. Stirling moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton:
That the said bill be not now read the second time, but that it be resolved that an Agricultural Products Act should be based on the principle that producer boards, set up under provincial marketing acts, where such boards exist or as they may from time to time come into existence, be used for the purposes of such agricultural products act, instead of commodity boards established by the minister under section four of the said bill.
This amendment was declared out of order on the ground that it was not declaratory of any principle adverse to the principle of the bill, and further that it dealt with a matter which could be considered when the bill is in committee of the whole.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ASHBY:: I was not paired with any hon. member of the house. Had I voted, I would have voted either for or against your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It would not have made the slightest difference to anybody anyway.
(Translation):


Mr. HEON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Lapalme). Had I voted, I would most reluctantly, as you can readily understand, have voted against your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):


Mr. CARDIFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted against your ruling.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted, I would have had to vote against your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Agricultural Products Act

(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gingues). Otherwise I would have voted against Your Honour's ruling.
(Text):


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of this bill I should like to quote a few words written by a member of the wheat pool and found in the Agricultural Institute Review of September, 1945, at page 28:
With the floor price legislation proposed we now have two opposing policies offered to Canadian agriculture for the post war years. The first policy is the laissez-faire, do nothing, take it on the chin, rugged individualistic stupidity we have experienced in the past, and under which, when the depression becomes too severe, we unfortunately have a war to pull us out of the economic mess.
I think, after the vote that was taken last night, we can take it for granted that there are only seven members of this house who believe in that type of policy. In considering this bill which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has placed before the house today, I think hon. members are anxious to try to get the best bill they can for agriculture in this transitional period and for the years to come.
Therefore I think anything said in this discussion can be taken as an honest effort on the part of hon. members to create better conditions for the industry of agriculture in this country.
As to the principle of the bill, I do not think much exception can be taken to it; at least we in this group take no exception to it. However, we believe that principle cannot be carried into effect by the bill in its present form, since it is merely to cover a transitional period. As yet no one has been able to define what that transitional period is. I can remember quite well coming back after the first war and taking up land under the soldier settlement board. I remember the drop in prices of agricultural products which took place in 1921, and then the gradual rise from 1924 to 1928. We thought we were through with the transitional period by that time; we thought we had got over the effects of that war. In the latter part of 1928 and in 1929, however, we found we had only begun to feel the effects of the war. Today how can we judge what will be the transitional period? Is this bill constitutional? If a case is taken to the courts in a year or two from now, will the courts decide that we are still in a transitional period? I do not know, and I do not LMr. McLure.]
believe the minister knows. Therefore I believe this bill should do more than just carry on certain orders in council during the transitional period. It should give some stability to agriculture in this country. I know of cooperatives in the old country who wish to establish purchasing agencies in this country, who would like to start to build up business contacts here, but who are doubtful, under this transitional form of legislation that has been introduced in Canada with respect to the marketing of agricultural products, whether it would be advisable for them to make the necessary investments here, not knowing just how long we might carry on under our present forms of marketing. Therefore, instead of bringing in this order in council legislation, which is about what it amounts to, I think the government should have brought in something more definite and more permanent, which would give the necessary assurance of stability to our agricultural industry at the present time.
As to our floor price legislation, we do not know where the floor prices are to be set. They may be fixed at a level which will give a reasonable return to agriculture, and again they may not. When the floor price legislation was introduced the Minister of Agriculture had this to say, as reported at page 5612 of Hansard jor 1944:
Then I should say it would be unfair to the farmer immediately to require him to sell at the cost of production, without considering at all any losses he sustained because of the war or any returns he was denied through the controls established during the war. The suggestion was made that farmers had been denied returns in the earlier part of the war and that just at the time when in the ordinary course of events, according to the experiences of the last war, he would have reaped some returns which would have been helpful to him, ceilings were placed upon prices, as a result of which he *was denied as great a return as otherwise he might have received. All those matters would have to be taken into consideration during the transition period along the lines I have suggested.
In this legislation there is no indication that this will be done; that is why I feel the bill should be more definite. That is why the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) moved his amendment, which did add certain new principles to the bill. That amendment was ruled out of order because it deleted the Conservative amendment. Now that the Conservative amendment has been ruled out of order, I believe our amendment will be in order. I therefore move, seconded by 'the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of

Agricultural Products Act
this house the government should give consideration to the redrafting of this bill to make provision for:
(a)	A dominion marketing board to have control over the orderly marketing of any farm product in interprovincial trade within Canada and in export trade;
(b)	Authority to confer on any existing local marketing board or agency established under law of a province, power to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovincial trade and export trade;
(c)	The establishment where any provincial local marketing board or agency does not exist, of local marketing boards to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovincial trade and export trade, providing the establishment of such a board, is favoured by a majority of the producers in the area concerned, the membership of such a board to consist of producers of the regulated product in the area to which this scheme relates.
This amendment has two purposes, the first of which is to see that the bill covers interprovincial trade. The bill, as it was presented by the minister, contained no reference to interprovincial trade, except in the amendment he tabled last evening. That amendment refers to one specific product, but that is not sufficient to meet the needs of agriculture in Canada at the present time. That was the statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at their recent meeting in Ottawa. I have in my hand, their brief, in which they say this interprovincial provision is necessary in connection with beans, peas, milk and a great many other agricultural products where small groups of growers, perhaps not more than five or ten per cent of the total number, were marketing their products outside the province and thereby spoiling the work of the commodity board controlling the product within the province. So I believe that provision should be extended, by concurrent legislation or, if the dominion has the power, by the dominion transferring that power to the provincial board in some way, to prevent this interference with the work of provincial boards in the marketing of their products. I am not a lawyer; I do not know where the constitutional authority lies, but I know that either the province or the dominion must have it, because the dominion has any residue of powers not given to the provinces. Therefore the federal government should be able to eliminate this difficulty which the provincial boards are meeting at this time. If it can be done with regard to apples, which from the amendment introduced by the minister I judge it is proposed to do, I see no reason why it cannot be done in connection with other products as well, and I believe the act should say so clearly.
The other point in which this amendment differs from the bill is that we state definitely that the boards set up under this legislation will be producer boards, that the growers of the product within the area in which the board is set up shall compose the board. That can be varied; if a majority of the producers wish to elect someone else to the board, well and good, but certainly the producers themselves should have control over the local marketing boards. That is a democratic principle which we cannot get away from, and something which should be included in the legislation. This legislation can never wTork successfully until it has the full cooperation of the producers of the product to be controlled. It goes without saying that a thousand ways would be found of getting away from the regulations and orders of the board, if the producers themselves are not behind it.
We think the only way the producer can or will be 100 per cent, or to any appreciable percentage, behind the scheme, is by seeing that the local boards are under their control. That has been the policy of this group for many years. We say that the producers themselves should have the domestic control of their product. When it comes to a matter of exporting, where the producers themselves go into the export market; and where products are being produced in different provinces, that is the place where the dominion government should step in, coordinate the work and see that the exporting is done on the basis of the Canadian economy, and not on the basis of provincial economy.
Those are the reasons why we move the amendments. W7e think they are good amendments, and we say they should have the support of the house. I say the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the government should be prepared to accept such a reasonable proposal, which is in the interests of agriculture in Canada.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: May I ask a question? Does the amendment coincide or agree with that offered by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? It will be understood I am not speaking against it. I ask this question because I am particularly in favour of marketing legislation. But I do not think that by your amendment or by any other amendment we can gain the point you and I wish to gain for our farmers, if it is to be declared ultra vires, as it has been in the past. Has the hon. member's amendment been submitted to someone?


Percy Ellis Wright: Our amendment has not been submitted to anyone, except our own group.

Agricultural Products Act


George Alexander Cruickshank: Does it conform with the suggestion of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Their suggestion has been submitted?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes; it conforms closely to what is stated in the draft bill submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I believe all hon. members have copies of that draft bill, and these amendments of ours follow pretty much along the same line. Of course the bill suggested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture goes much further. They want a natural products marketing act. We are trying to amend this measure. We have no indication from the government that they have any intention of bringing in a natural products marketing act. But we are trying to see that this measure is amended at least to the point where it will permit orderly marketing inter-provincially and in export trade.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask another question. Unfortunately, because of an appointment with a doctor I was not able to be here this afternoon, and I did not hear the discussion. I am particularly interested in the orderly marketing of milk. The only way we can attain that in British Columbia is by pooling. Therefore I am interested in learning if the suggested amendment embraces that feature. I do not think the hon. member would expect me to take in, in a minute, the full meaning of the amendment. That is why I have asked particularly how it compares with the bill offered by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.


Percy Ellis Wright: It would apply to any agricultural products which under the bill were declared to be products which they wish to control.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The majority of them.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to standing order 75, and to citation 755 which states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill to move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
I am sorry, but I have to declare the amendment out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a minute; before Your Honour rules, may I point out that the amendment now moved is in a position some-

what different from that moved by the hon. member for Yale, although I believed at the time that his amendment was in order.
It seems to me that this amendment does exactly what the rule provides, where it states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill.
If we look at the bill before us, which relates to the marketing of certain agricultural products, it will be seen that it relates to the marketing of those products under, as the title indicates, an act to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products. Then, when we look further into the bill we find that the reason for bringing it before the house at the present time is that there are certain agreements which make it necessary for us to have a measure of this description.
We want to see something wider and more comprehensive, because we consider it imperative that there be a measure of that kind. We should like to see a natural products marketing act, one which would be entirely comprehensive and along the lines of the draft submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Consequently, because we cannot introduce such a bill, we are endeavouring to state our position in regard to this matter in a manner which we believe is permitted by the rules, and entirely consistent with them. We have suggested a federal act providing for interprovincial trade and for export trade, all under the control of the producers of a given commodity in the area where that commodity is produced. And if a majority of the producers agree to that, we suggest that such a plan shall go into effect. That principle, I submit, is entirely in conformity with the rules, in that it declares some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill now before us. For these reasons I submit the amendment is in order.


Percy Ellis Wright: On the point of order, Your Honour has said it is permissible to amend where an addition is made. The bill states definitely that apples shall be controlled interprovineially. My amendment enlarges that so as to include all agricultural products. Therefore it is an addition.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but the hon. member is out of order. There is no point of order before the house. I must declare the amendment out of order, and for the same reasons as I gave in respect of the one moved by the official opposition, namely that it was

Agricultural Products Act
not declaratory of any principle adverse to the principle of the bill. Further it deals with a matter which could be considered when the bill is in committee of the whole. I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that this ruling is similar to the one which I gave in connection with a previous amendment and which was sustained by the house a few minutes ago.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that your ruling?


James Horace King: I declare the amendment out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: I hesitate to do so, but with all due respect I must challenge that ruling.
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows:
The house was considering the second reading of Bill A'o. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), moved in amendment:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the redrafting of this bill to make provision for:
(a)	A dominion marketing board to have control over the orderly marketing of any farm product in interprovineial trade within Canada and in export trade;
(b)	Authority to confer on any existing local marketing board or agency established under law of a province, power to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovineial trade and export trade;
(c)	The establishment where any provincial local marketing board or agency does not exist, of local marketing boards to administer any scheme of the dominion marketing board in respect of interprovineial trade and export trade, providing the establishment of such a board, is favoured by a majority of the producers in the area concerned, the membership of such a board to consist of producers of the regulated product in the area to which this scheme relates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted, I would have voted against sustaining Your Honour's ruling.


Mr HEON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Lapalme). Had I voted, if for no other reason than that the only lady in the house seconded the amendment, I would have voted against Your Honour's decision.


Mr. JAQTJES:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cournoyer). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: At this
stage of the discussion it is difficult for me to understand the attitude taken by the C.C.F. party toward this bill, particularly in view of the statements which were made in the house two weeks ago and which I shall quote. I said that my interpretation of what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture wanted was not government control of marketing but enabling legislation by which they could control their own markets. That was the statement I made two weeks ago. The hon. member for Melforti (Mr. Wright) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) both took me seriously to task on that statement. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote very much, but I wish to quote some of the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort.


James Horace King: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member for
Melfort said, as reported at page 869 of Hansard:
Having listened to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton), may I say I think he will find, when the recommendations are presented to the government-


James Horace King: Order. I must remind
the hon. member that he is not permitted to discuss a bill which has already been passed by the house.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then, in my own
words, both the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said I was wrong in my statement. In spite of that, they moved an amendment which is practically identical to ours, saying, in effect, that they do not want the government to

control the Agricultural Products Marketing Act. They say that they want the same thing as we do, practically, namely, that the farmers should be permitted to control the sale of their own products. I do not know when this change came about, but apparently it has been quite recent. Whether or not it is a case of their trying to follow the demands of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I do not know and I should not like to say. Nobody can accuse me of changing my mind in the house in that regard. I have been definite at any time that I have said anything on it. I am not in favour of government control. If there has to be any control, then the farmers should be allowed to control their own destiny.
So far as this bill is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind, although I may not be able to read into it what the minister can read in it, that it is purely and simply government control of farm products. Evidently the minister himself can read into the bill what was asked for in the amendment which we moved; but it is not there for me to see. There are too many "mays" in the thing for me to take it at its face value. Surely the minister does not think the farmers of Canada are so helpless that they cannot run their own business. At least I hope he does not think so. When given half a chance they have done not a bad job in the past, except during the depression, which was not their fault.
Contrary to the statement of the minister as recorded on page 937 of Hansard, this bill does not give the Canadian Federation of Agriculture what they have asked for; hence by our amendment today we endeavoured to point out to the government that the producer boards as set up under the provincial marketing acts should be allowed to conduct their own business, instead of having it done for them by government controlled commodities boards, as set forth in the bill.
I should like to quote a portion of Mr. Hannam's address which has been referred to often in the house. The meeting was held in Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier on February 26 of this year. This is just part of what he said, in speaking of the type of marketing for which they were asking;
This type of marketing is midway between state marketing such as the Canadian wheat board, and purely voluntary associations of farmers for marketing purposes. Instead of state marketing with state regulations, state financing and state management, we are asking the state to give groups of producers a chance to do their own marketing. It is essentially a self-help procedure.

Agricultural Products Act
The minister may say that the farmers of Ontario may not want this. To prove that the farmers of Ontario do want it, they have set up the following schemes under the provincial marketing act: cheese; asparagus growers;
pear,	plum and cheery growers; peach growers; vegetable growers; including tomatoes, green
peas,	sweet corn and green or waxed beans. They have a seed com growers association; a sugar beet growers marketing scheme; a berry growers marketing scheme, and the last, a hog producers marketing scheme. During the next month or so I believe there are three or more to be voted on, which include cream producers, grape and soya bean producers. I contend that the producer himself as represented by the producers boards should have some consideration when prices are being fixed by contract for the products which he produces, under this bill. As it stands, the minister seeks the authority to make contracts either with government or government agencies or agencies of any kind to fix the prices and actually to confiscate, seize or, in any way he so desires, to get hold of that product to fulfil such contracts at a price fixed by the minister himself.
As I said before, the minister may be able to read into this bill certain things that are not clear to us. I hope he can; I hope he does that, but it is not satisfactory to us. He says, it is there and he can use it if he wants to. We want to make it definite that it will be used and not left to the discretion of the minister as to whether he will use it or not.
During the war years the farmers accepted controls as part of their war effort; but now that controls are being lifted on many of the articles the farmers buy, they are being asked to accept the maintenance of controls by the government on the produce they have to sell. As I said before, if we must have controls, let the farmers themselves do the controlling. I think they are the people who should do the controlling, if there is to be any control. I can assure you, sir, that it would be much more conducive to good will and understanding among governments, producers and consumers if this were done. If this bill is an indication of what the government's agricultural policy might be, it is only fair to warn the government that there will be a greater number of farm sales in the country and a good many more acres of good soil lying idle in the next few years.
The producers of Canada are now being asked to produce and deliver to Great Britain many products at prices which are less than the English farmer himself is obtaining for those products. I am not saying that we should not supply those products to England at the prices at which we are supplying them,
for the sake of the British people. But if Canada wants to do that-and it is a wonderful gesture on the part of Canada-let the Canadian people as a whole bear the burden and not the farmers alone. I believe the farmers have always accepted their share of responsibilities without receiving a fair share of the returns from their product. I believe this bill discounts the ability of the organized farmers to bargain for themselves. It obviously does that. It is easy enough for government officials to sit back and say what is best for us; but I believe the producers themselves, if given the opportunity, are quite capable of doing a worth-while job for themselves, for the consumers of this country and for the world at large. I would therefore strongly urge that the government give every consideration to the wishes of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and allow them the privilege of doing their own marketing.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Charlton) speaking earlier this session, I am rather at a loss to understand why he voted as he did last night. When the vote was taken on the wheat board bill there were seven members who rose in their places in this house and expressed opinions along lines similar to those expressed by the hon. member who has just spoken. But I notice that the hon. member for Brant was one of those who voted with the 171 C.C.F. and other members of this chamber, indicating that they felt that this bill which has been before the house for some time was a step in the right direction.
I think it is well recognized that the farmers are not asking for any special consideration when they seek legislation of this sort. The hon. member for Brant comes from a part of Canada which has benefited for a great number of years from class legislation which was imposed by this parliament. I happened to look up the Saskatchewan brief which was presented to the Sirois-Rowell commission a few years ago, which tells the story of what the tariffs in Canada have meant to my friend, the hon. member for Brant, and what they have meant to the people I represent. Over a period of years the people of Saskatchewan, according to the statistical work done by the late Norman Rogers, who was a professor at Queen's, the tariffs have cost the people of Saskatchewan approximately $29,000,000 a year; the people of Manitoba, $29,000,000, and the people of Alberta, $27,000,000. Two provinces in Canada have benefited from those tariffs. The province of Quebec has benefited
13S6
Agricultural Products Act

to the tune of $11.03 per person per year and Ontario to the tune of $15 per person per year.


An hon. MEMBER:: I did not get my share.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You probably represent people who have had a great deal more than that. I think there was justification in the early days in Canadian history for deciding that it was important that we establish industries in Canada; and we have taken a great deal of money from the rank and file of the people to bolster up the poor manufacturers in Ontario and Quebec.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How are your socialized industries in Saskatchewan doing?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to point out some of the inconsistencies that are apparent in connection with the discussion which has been going on since this afternoon. Earlier in the session, when the provisions of other bills were before this house dealing with the orders in council which were utilized throughout the war for the purpose of doing things which neither this government nor any other government would desire to do in peace time, the position was strongly taken, particularly by the official opposition, that nothing new should be introduced into any of these bills. That is, we had orders in council which were passed for certain purposes under the War Measures Act, without in some instances having received first the assent of parliament to their being brought into effect. It was stated-and persistently- that in any legislation which was introduced, in order to make for a limited period of time those orders in council applicable to the transition period between war and peace, it was to be taken for granted that this house-and particularly members of the official opposition, in so far as they could prevent it, would not permit any new legislation being tacked on to any of the bills which were brought to the house in order to carry out the intent of making these orders in council applicable to the transition period.
Now we come to the House of Commons on this occasion, when the government has hesitated to put anything into this bill whatsoever which would be new legislation; we hesitated to the extent of not even providing for the marketing of apples under the agreements, through the fruit boards which have been set up by the provinces and organized nationally right across this country.
But in the discussions which took place in connection with the resolution, members in different parts of the house, and more particularly those of the official opposition, raised questions with regard to the fact that full provision was not made for that purpose in the bill. This warranted us in believing that the house would agree that to that extent we could depart from the general principle which was insisted upon in connection with all this legislation, and that we might bring into the legislation something which had not previously been provided for in the marketing of apples.
We have gone that far. I would say that the bill has introduced, in the slightest degree possible, some new ideas into the application of orders in council, for a limited period after the war is over.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is it not so that rulings made this afternoon were to the effect that there was no new principle involved in the amendments?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will come to that; but that is not the point I am referring to at the moment.
Now, members in speaking-and more particularly the hon. member who spoke first this evening-have taken the position that we should introduce into this legislation the whole marketing act which has been proposed by farm organizations. This afternoon the amendment which was proposed by the C.C.F. party could have been thrown out on a ground other than that stated by Mr. Speaker. That amendment provided for the setting up of a marketing board, such as is proposed in the model legislation which was presented to the government, and of which every member has a copy. It proposed the setting up of a model board to handle the marketing of farm products across Canada. That board is to be financed by the federal government. Of course it is obvious to hon. members that an amendment based upon that premise could not be introduced by a private member.
In other words, the proposals have been made to the house, from different parts of it, for the first time in this session, that in a type of legislation which has no other intent but that of providing for the application of orders in council for a period beyond the war, we should introduce all kinds of new things, and that we should apply it in any way that we see fit.
I do not think it would be proper to do that-even if the government desired to do so, any more than members of the official opposition thought at the beginning of this session it would be proper to do so. If and when legislation is brought down to deal with marketing on the basis suggested by the farm organizations, it should not be legislation which has in it provisions to deal with orders in council which were brought in during war time, which were applied during war time, and which are still being applied.
Why were these orders in council brought in, in the first instance? They were brought in so as to make it possible for the government, by compulsion, to take farm products and to send them to Great Britain for the purpose of assisting in the prosecution of the war, for the feeding of our own soldiers, for the feed-

Agricultural Products Act
mg of the British people; indeed, for the feeding of any of the allied forces wherever they might be fighting.
To indicate what we did do under that legislation, let me point out that we went into Ontario and into Quebec and took all the cheese produced between May and October, in two different years of the war; we took all of it, and shipped it to Great Britain. We did not leave any of it here, at all. And at other times we used the authority we had under the act to go into packing plants and take the bacon, and to say to our own people, "You can have in this country only fifty per cent of what you were buying in 1940. The remainder of it is going to Great Britain."
In other words, the orders in council covered by this legislation have in them powers which I doubt very much even members of the socialist party would desire to have in legislation which is to be passed for the purpose of dealing with a situation which will arise in peace time.
We are suggesting in this legislation that for one year we be given authority to continue to do what we were doing in war time. We are not saying that everything we did during war time will be done; but we are saying, or suggesting, that the authority we had during war time should be allowed to us for one more year.
Then I suggested, on the resolution, that in all probability because of the fact that our contract extends through 1947 and 1948-two of them at least through 1949-we shall be coming back to parliament at the end of each one of those years asking for a continuation of the powers as they are related to any of the contracts still in existence. I said, we presumed that, at the end of each of those years, if circumstances warranted it, parliament would give us that authority.
There are persons belonging to the same group who, in this house, ever since the session began, have been saying that these compulsory powers ought to be taken away from the government, and that we should not have them. Then we have the suggestion made tonight that this bill, which is intended to continue only for one year, with authority to come back here and remodel it in order to take care of anything still to be taken care of, should at this time provide for a permanent marketing organization. If it is to satisfy the farm organizations it could not be anything other than a permanent bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: But not by order in council.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will find that most of these bills are put into effect by order in
council. There is very little legislation put on the statute books at any time that any government has any authority over that is not put into effect by order in council. In every bill that goes through this house provision is made for the government to make regulations and to do certain things by order in council. And the same would be true of any bill that may be passed with relation to the marketing of farm products.
The point I wish to make at the present time is this. There are persons who have been talking against compulsion being put into any of these measures or authority given to the government to compel, and who at the same time are talking in favour of a bill which goes much farther in the direction of compulsion-I am not saying whether I am in favour of it or otherwise-than most of the measures that have been before this house. What does this proposed bill provide for? It provides that if the majority of the farmers producing any farm product decide that they want to market their product a certain way, then everyone else in that community must market his product in that way.
These orders in council have given the government authority to go into the market at Montreal and take cheese and send it to Great Britain. They give the government authority to go to the packing plants and take the bacon and send it to Britain and agree to pay what it is worth. We have had that authority throughout the war; we have had that authority in connection with practically all farm products, and that is provided under the orders in council. We are suggesting putting that into a bill.
But the proposed legislation says that wherever the majority of a group of farmers, locally if the organization is a local one, provincially if it is a provincial one, and nationally if it is a national one, vote in favour of marketing a product in a certain way, then everyone else may be compelled to market his product in that way. I do not know how you could carry compulsion much farther than that, or compulsion that strikes at the individual to a greater extent. Again I say that I am not arguing-it has nothing to do with this bill-whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I wish to point out that if this last amendment, which I have not had time to read, is in order and carries, and if the legislation is sent to a committee to be changed in the manner suggested in the amendment, then this legislation passes out altogether and we get a new bill.
That new bill will deal with the situation for all time to come until some other parliament changes it. It will not deal with
Agricultural Products Act

the situation with which this bill proposes to deal. This bill merely proposes to give us authority to go and get the food that is necessary to fulfil our obligations to Britain under the agreements which we have made during the last few years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And to set the price for
all time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not for all time to
come; for one year; to set the prices for those commodities in connection with which we have had agreements during the period of the war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And make new ones.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says,
"and make new ones." He says that we shall have the power to make new ones. I have told the members of this house on a number of occasions that the government has no intention of making new ones


Mr. REID:: We need a new one for eggs.


James Garfield Gardiner: Take eggs, which have
just been mentioned. The hon. member for Kamloops has been saying in the house that we should have new terms in the agreement with regard to eggs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or a subsidy; one or the
other.


James Garfield Gardiner: Either case would
require new terms. He says that we should have new terms with regard to eggs, and to that extent it may be a new arrangement. We have an agreement with Britain to supply her with some millions of dozens of eggs. Hon. members have been getting up in different parts of the house, some of them supporters of the government and some of them opposing the government, and saying that because of the changes which have occurred in the cost of feed with which the eggs are fed we must have higher prices for eggs.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: With which the hens are fed.


James Garfield Gardiner: With which the eggs
are fed. If you have eaten some of them which have been fed by grasshoppers you will know what I mean. Eggs are fed with feed that has gone up in price; therefore they contend that eggs must also go up in price. They say that we must meet the British and discuss with them the possibility of getting a higher price for our eggs. To the extent that we get that higher price, of course the agreement which was made will be changed.

Then we are discovering from time to time that the production of one product is going up and that the production of another product is coming down, and we must adjust the quantities which we are supplying under our agreements and let the British know what we shall have for them in the months ahead. To the extent that those things are necessary, it will be necessary to change the agreements and to carry out the changes which are made.
The discussion this evening has been most interesting to me because it has taken a form which I never expected to have the privilege of listening to in this house, particularly as it comes from the sources from which it does. There are some advantages as well as some disadvantages in having been in politics in this country for a long time. It is now thirty-three years since I entered a legislature of this country. It just happens that I entered the legislature of a province which has led the Dominion of Canada in the kind of legislation which hon. members directly opposite from me were advocating a few moments ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is doing so yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: It led Canada to such an extent that my socialist friends claim credit for having done things which were done thirty years ago.


Major James William Coldwell: No, we do not.


James Garfield Gardiner: I attended a dinner recently-I cannot say where it was because that would give the individual away-and this particular individual told me that he had had a most interesting trip to Regina last summer. I said, "Yes, we have a fine city and a fine province; I am glad you liked it." He said, "I had the advantage of having a letter of introduction from the leader of the C.C.F. party to the premier of Saskatchewan and the premier introduced me to one of his ministers who took me out to show me all the things done by the socialist government in Saskatchewan." I was getting more and more interested all the time but I kept quiet.


Major James William Coldwell: Is that possible?


Percy Ellis Wright: On a point of order-


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member will have plenty to talk about when I get through. This gentleman went on to say, "The minister took me out and showed me that fine building which the wheat pool has on Albert street in Regina. Then he took me over and showed me the fine headquarters which the cooperative creameries have two or three blocks down the same street. Then he took me out to one of those things-what is it you call it, a dis-

Agricultural Products Act
tillery?" I said, "No, there is no distillery in Regina that I know of; was it a brewery?" First he said, "A distillery." I said, "No, there is not a distillery in Regina that I know of. Is it a brewery?" He said, "No." Finally he said that it was a refinery. I said, "Do you mean the farmers' cooperative oil refinery half a mile out of the city of Regina?" He said, "Yes." He went on to say, "Those are some very fine industries, very fine commercial organizations." When he had gone that far I thought it was time for me to say something, so I asked him, "Do you know how long they have had a socialist government in Saskatchewan?" He said, "No, I really do not." I said, "They have had one for two years, and do you know how long ago it was that the refinery was started?" He said, "No," and I said, "It was about twelve years ago." I went on to say, "Do you know how long ago it was that the cooperative elevator system in Saskatchewan was started?" He said, "No." I said, "It was almost thirty years ago." I went on to say, "Do you know how long ago it was that the cooperative creamery was started?" He said, "No." I said, "I have forgotten the exact year myself, but when I was first premier of Saskatchewan between 1926 and 1929 I had all the creameries in Saskatchewan amalgamated under that organization prior to 1929."
What I wish to emphasize is that the organization of the farmers to run their own business was never a part of Conservative policy, either federally or provineially. At the time we were advocating that the farmers run their own business and set up cooperatives with which to do so, the Conservative party in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta was advocating government ownership of elevators in the provinces.


Arthur Leroy Smith: When and where?


James Garfield Gardiner: My friend was a Liberal at that time, and so he would not remember.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank
heaven someone saw the light.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Conservative party today may be surprised to learn that their forebears in the western provinces were advocates of government ownership, and they advocated government ownership because such a remarkable success had been made of government ownership of hydro electric power in Ontario. I was not at all surprised when Chancellor of the Exchequer Dalton, speaking at the Canadian club before Liberals and Conservatives a short time ago, said that he did not see why Conservatives in Great Britain
should object to their government nationalizing the black power of Great Britain since the Conservatives had nationalized white power in the province of Ontario.
These are, of course, matters of political history. All I wish to point out is that when my hon. friends opposite set themselves up in this house as the advocates of a policy under which the farmers organized themselves to do their own business, they are advocating something which has been- Liberal policy for at least the last thirty years and will continue to be Liberal policy as long as there is a Liberal party in this country.
On the other hand, our hon. friends of the socialist party are putting forth the best effort I have ever seen put forth by any party in any legislative body anywhere in Canada to do what? To kill this bill. Both amendments moved today would kill the bill. One was ruled out of order and the other, if it will be declared out of order-


Major James William Coldwell: Did the minister say, "as it will be"?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it will be. Let me say to my hon. friend that we did not suggest that the other amendment be declared out of order, but the fact is that either one of these amendments if put into effect would do away with this bill altogether and mean the bringing in of a new and entirely different bill.


Major James William Coldwell: And a better bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might be. But you should not do away with this bill while you are doing that. The better bill my hon. friend speaks of will not deal with the present situation and could not. I will explain why. There is only one board in this country which is organized on the basis that is suggested by the farmers across Canada, and that is the fruit board. The fruit board is organized provineially in Nova Scotia; it is organized provineially in British Columba; it is organized provineially in Ontario and elsewhere. It has a central organization which meets from time to time to discuss the problems of the industry and to submit its views on the apple industry to those concerned. There is no such organization as that in relation to bacon; there is no such organization as that in relation to cheese; there is no such organization as that in relation to eggs; and there is no such organization as that with regard to any farm product affected by the orders in council other than apples.
Therefore, if we were put in the position tomorrow of not haring this bill so that we could go out and get farm products to supply the British contracts, of course we would not
Agricultural Products Act

be able to continue to supply those contracts. If we came to the middle of May, as has been suggested, or, as it stands now, if we come to the 29th of this month without the enactment of this legislation, we would have no authority to go out and obtain the products that are necessary to supply the British contracts in any of those commodities referred to in the orders in council. So I say, Mr. Speaker, the house seems to have got away from discussing what is involved in the second reading of this legislation and to have been discussing something that is not involved here at all. Hon. members have been disoussing whether we should have a marketing bill for all time in the Dominion of Canada. I submit that that is not the question which is before the house and that all the discussion in regard to it is entirely out of order. There is no motion before the house with regard to a marketing bill for farm products. There is no possibility of changing this bill into a marketing bill without destroying the results which must be obtained if we are to supply the British contracts. There is no possibility of doing the one thing without destroying the other. Consequently, if we are to have both things done, they must be done in two separate bills, and an attempt should not be made to put the other project into this bill. The farm organization realized that when they brought their representations before the government. This afternoon I quoted from the representations which they had made. It was this:
(1)	A dominion farm products marketing act is essential to the economic welfare of agriculture, the basic industry of Canada.
(2)	In effect the authority and control which would be provided by such legislation were established and employed by the dominion government during the war years and subsequently as emergency measures in order to secure maximum production and efficient distribution for the purpose of fulfilling overseas commitments and contracts which had to be honoured.
They said that we had most if not all of the authorities under the orders in council passed during the war with regard to a certain number of products, but they applied only to a certain number; and' they said that they wanted legislation which would apply the same authorities or the greater part of them to all farm commodities in Canada. Then they said they had a method to suggest by which that might be done.
(3)	Such legislation will be a major factor in providing stability for agriculture through the medium of orderly marketing, domestic and export.
(4)	Such legislation will conduce to proper planning by agriculturists over the time or period of years which their particular branch of primary production demands.

Therefore be it resolved:
That this conference convened by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with representatives of major agricultural organizations in attendance from all sections of the dominion ask that the directors of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture convey to the dominion cabinet the unanimous request of this meeting that legislation in line with the attached draft of a farm products marketing act, be introduced at the present session of parliament.
That is the submission made to the government. Attached to it is a model bill which provides for the authorities that I mentioned a few moments ago. It provides that this government set up a dominion marketing board; that we pay the costs of operating that board; that through the operation of the board we direct the activities of export and interprovincial trade in farm products along certain lines.
What was the answer given to that request? In 1930, the first month or so, of the war, the farm federation came to us with the same request. If I remember correctly, in 1939 there were only three or four provinces

I have forgotten the exact number-which had provincial marketing legislation. Since that time, all the provinces have adopted provincial marketing legislation. Nine provinces have set up legislation under which provincial marketing boards can be established. As every hon. member knows, the activities of the provincial marketing boards are confined to marketing within their own province. What is suggested is that we should set up a board which would take over the control of interprovineial and international marketing of farm products. When that suggestion was made in 1939 I made a statement to the farm federation at that time. The man who is president now was the president then. I said, "I am not prepared at this time, and the government is not prepared, to discuss with you the pros and cons of marketing legislation. We have just entered upon a war and that war makes it necessary for the government of Canada itself to set up boards to take control of the marketing of the farm products of' Canada in order to ensure that our own people as well as our allies have the proper proportions of the food which is produced in this country and in order to induce greater production so that we may be able to feed greater numbers during this war period."
Of course the logic of that was agreed to by the farm organizations. From 1939 down to this year the organizations have not asked for that legislation. They have kept continuously reminding us of the faot that provincial legislation has been passed first by one province and then by another, and that

Agricultural Products Act
eventually they would be coming to Ottawa to ask for legislation. Personally I think this was the right year for them to come. This is the first year that we have been entirely away from the war in so far as shooting is concerned, but we have not yet got through the transitional period. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) wants to know when we are to get through it. Well, I will give him the same reply that I gave when the same question was asked-I am not too sure that it was not by the same hon. member-in 1944 when we brought in the legislation which is intended to take care of the transitional period. On that occasion I said that the transitional period of the first war did not really end until 1930, 1932 or 1933; that nobody could be absolutely certain when the transitional period will end. I went on to say that many people contended that it did end in five years; others contended that it did not end for twenty years, but someone will have to make a decision some time as to when the transitional period ends. We cannot do it now.
Some people have suggested that we put four years in the bill; some have suggested that we put five. We finally decided not to put a term of years in it at all. But I want to say quite candidly that if we can so regulate the marketing of farm products in this country as to give a proper deal to the farmers and to the consumers without applying the terms of the floor prices bill to too many products, then we hope to be able to do that. One of the ways in which we hope to be able to do it. is to retain, so long as it is essential to do so, the agreements with Britain which we have covering the marketing of farm products which we can see will be surplus for the years that are ahead of us that will assure to us the British market for the surplus production of farms in this country. Therefore we are asking at this time for authority to continue these agreements under this special legislation for at least one more year. At the end of that year we can come back and state what the conditions are and we shall probably ask for the continuance of it for another year. But if the times ever comes-and we hope it will not-when agreements such as we are now utilizing for the purpose of assisting farmers over the transitional period are not available to us at levels which make it possible for us to carry out our obligations to the farmers, then it will probably be necessary for us to make the floor prices legislation more widely applicable, and make those effective throughout the remainder of whatever the transitional period is.
I am not going to attempt to answer the question of the hon. member for Humboldt tonight as to how long the transitional period will last. I only know that it is still with us and, if I read correctly the discussions which took place not later than either this morning or yesterday, and which are reported in the papers tonight, on the floor of the House of Commons in Great Britain, then I am inclined to think the transitional period is still with us with a vengeance; because there are some people in the House of Commons in Great Britain who think the farmers of this country are making great profits at the expense of people who live in Great Britain. We have not realized that. We do not believe it. As a matter of fact, we think the farmers of this country are making a real contribution to the feeding of the British people, to the feeding of the European people and to the feeding of others who are short of food in different parts of the world. We feel that we are doing this at a less cost to the people concerned than they are being supplied from any other part of the world. That being so, I think it is time for someone to say that when a man stands up anywhere in the world and says that Canada is trying to make profits at the expense of someone else, either he is talking about something he does not know anything about or he is speaking with some intent other than that of serving the people of his own country.
This legislation is to deal, not necessarily with the whole transitional period but for a part of it; and the only part that we can say with definiteness at the moment that we hope it will continue in existence to deal with, is to take us through the bacon contracts which run to the end of 1949, to take us through the beef contracts which also run to the end of 1949; to take us through the contract on dairy products, which up to date runs us down to the end of the 1947-18 period, and which we expect will carry us on through a period similar to the other two contracts. We hope that a similar arrangement will be made with regard to apples; that by a cooperative arrangement between Great Britain and this country we shall be able to get reasonable returns, not necessarily as high returns as the farmer in Britain receives unit for unit of the different products produced in that country because their costs of production are not necessarily the same as ours-there are reasons why they are not-but will give us returns which bear a reasonable relationship to the prices which are being paid by the British to their
Agricultural Products Act

own people and a reasonable relationship to the prices which are being received by people in some of the other parts of the world.
May I say again that we have been carrying out that idea, that we have been supplying food to Britain at a lower cost-as every member in- this house has been saying, some of them agreeing with it and some of them disagreeing-than other people in the world have been supplying it up to the present time. And I say quite candidly that we expect that over the entire period of the three or four years during which these contracts last we shall have a reasonable return, as compared with other peoples in the world from that market which we believe to be our best market, our most secure market, and the one in which we have the best chance over a long period of time of being paid for our commodities.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the minister include cattle in that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The other night the minister said that the United States was our natural and best market.


James Garfield Gardiner: Although I did not mention it at the time, in view of the question which has been asked, I will mention it now: for five years we are told that we can have a market in Britain for all the beef we desire to send them.
Those facts being the case, all we are asking the house to do at this time is to pass this legislation to give us authority to go on with the provisions made in the orders in council, over a sufficient period of time to permit of our carrying out the contracts which we have with Britain. We are asking for nothing more than that. We believed that in bringing the bill down in its present form we were asking for what this house wanted us to ask for, particularly the opposition, namely, only the authority to do under this special legislation what we had been doing under the War Measures Act. We are asking no authority to do anything else. Therefore I object to any attempt being made by the house now to put into this act terms which never were intended to be in legislation of this kind; terms which, if they are to be enacted at all, ought to be enacted under separate legislation brought into the house, discussed on its merits and if this is the proper time to pass it, if it must be passed, then it should be passed. But if it is not the proper time to consider it, in view of the fact that organizations are not yet prepared to do the job that is required to be

done, then it could be brought in at some other time by whatever government is then in power.
But we submitted this argument to the farm organizations, and so far as I know the farm organizations accepted the argument and did not expect legislation this year. However, I would submit that they do expect legislation as soon as they can get it and would take it this year if they did get it. I am quite certain that they do not expect it this year but rather that they expect that with these powers under this bill, and with the extra power which has been asked for in connection with apples, we could go through this season without bringing any great hardship upon any one, even to the extent of not doing injury to the views which they hold with regard to compulsory marketing of farm products. So I would suggest that we discuss the bill on its merits and not discuss all kinds of amendments which would put this bill completely out of existence and call upon us to bring in some other form of legislation to deal with the permanent situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to a point of order and just leave the matter with Your Honour. On looking into the amendment of my hon. friend, I suggest to you that, with regard to clauses 1, 2 and 3, there is at least the possibility of there being an impost upon the public revenue. I just bring that to your attention, sir, and leave it there. Second, I refer you to paragraph 668 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads as follows:
On the second reading of a bill, the house may decide to refer the subject matter thereof to a commission although the bill-
I wish to emphasize this point particularly: -could not be referred to a committee of the house before its second reading.
Again on page 604, the assertion of Mr. Meighen, who was then in the house, that it was not so with regard to a bill but with regard to a resolution; he said that it could not be directly referred to a committee. I just leave this point with Your Honour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we have listened for some considerable time to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) criticize other members in the house for straying from the bill; but probably because of the portfolio he holds, he has himself led us into pretty far and green fields. I shall try to answer some of the arguments which he put forward with such violence and vehemence. He first criticized the official opposition because he said there was incon-

Agricultural Products Act
sistency in our attitude. He criticized us because, as he said, we now asked him to import into this particular bill matters which are foreign to the purpose of the bill, which is merely to place in statutory form those things which previously have been done by order in council. He went on to say that it would be improper to do anything more at this time or to import any other matter into the bill.
I take some issue with the minister in that respect. It is true that we in the official opposition have pressed for the cessation of legislation by order in council. I make the distinction again between administration and legislation. We have pressed for the end of the practice of doing by order in council what should properly be done by act of parliament, and of giving to ministers, or boards set up under ministerial authority, power to make rules having the force of law perhaps contrary to some existing statute. We had hoped to see introduced legislation to replace the orders in council passed under the War Measures Act. That is the type of legislation which we had hope to see in Bill No. 25. But what we find, Mr. Speaker, is not an act putting into statutory form what has hitherto been done by order in council, but an act giving authority to continue to do by order in council what we say should be done by statute.
That is the first distinction I would make, that this bill gives to the minister just as wide powers as he ever had under the War Measures Act or under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act; and there is no point therefore in his objection to our criticizing the bill and saying that we wish to see this thing put on a regular and permanent basis. We desire to see a proper marketing act and enabling legislation brought in, not legislation simply under the guise of a regularizing act to continue placing in the hands of the minister power to do those things which should be done by parliament or some duly constituted authority subject to the control of parliament.
In support of my contention I would refer to section 3 of the bill. Without reading it in detail, I may say it gives the minister power to sell, to buy and to store; it gives him sole control over the price level, and control over the quantities to be marketed, in connection with all agricultural products in the Dominion of Canada with the exception of wheat. The producers are given no voice in setting the price, in the quantity to be bought or in the marketing of their product. That is why I say, instead of regularizing powers or giving powers back to parliament, this bill simply continues
a situation to which we have objected in the past; that is, it gives the minister and the governor in council power to do things which should be done by and subject to the control of the House of Commons. That is the answer I would make to the minister's first objection. There is no inconsistency in saying we should have a marketing act that is a marketing act and not an act which simply makes the minister the buyer, the seller and the sole authority over markets in Canada.
Second, the minister said he was not taking any very great powers under this bill, and that therefore the charge that he was seeking to set himself up in sole control of agriculture was not well founded. I asked him, what about the power to continue the contracts or make new contracts? He said, "What we are going to do under section 3 is to continue the contracts already made. We are giving ourselves wide powers under that section, but we will not be exercising them. We do not really need them, and we do not intend to exercise them." When taxed with this again, however, he went on to say, "Well, we are not ' exercising very wide powers, except occasionally the power to negotiate new prices." Some hon. members, he pointed out, were pressing for new prices under some of the contracts; and he said some of the contracts would be going on until 1949.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you want to quote me you would be much closer to the facts if you waited till you got and read Hansard tomorrow morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In important matters of this type I sometimes prefer my own notes, which I make at the time, because sometimes Hansard bears remarkably little resemblance to those things which most hon. members heard fall from the lips of the ministers.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I hope the hon. member is not reflecting on Hansard. If there are inaccuracies or mistakes in Hansard they should be brought to the attention of the house as soon as they are discovered, but at no time should an hon. member reflect upon Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hasten to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my reflection, if there was any, was not directed at Hansard. I thought I was stating a fact, that occasionally the things we hear and the things which appear in Hansard do not resemble one another, and I was leaving it at that; I believe that is a mere statement of fact. I did hear the minister say in effect that there would be no substantial creation of new contracts. He went on to say, however, that there were contracts
Agricultural Products Act

which took us up to 1949, and I suggest that, as situations change, these contracts will require to be revised, and under the terms of this bill the person to revise them will be the minister, without reference to the producers or to parliament. He comes in here with an agreement already signed, brings this legislation before us and says, "We have to have it in order to carry out these contracts. If you oppose it you will be besmirching'the good name of Canada, because without it we cannot live up to our obligations to another country."
With regard to the question of giving powers which it is said are not intended to be exercised, this whole question was up in the house as long ago as 1934, when the Bennett government introduced its marketing act. It is significant to note the extremely violent, vitriolic attacks which were made, not only upon the legislation but upon the ministers introducing and supporting it. They were represented as villians and rascals of the first order, who were seeking only to abuse their power and to grind the country under their heel. One of the hon. gentlemen in the opposition at that time who made an attack on the legislation upon these grounds is the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). I should like to read what he had to say at that time in regard to giving these wide powers to ministers and ministerial boards. I quote from page 2210 of Hansard for March 16, 1934:
We cannot assume that the drastic powers which are conferred upon the government by this measure will not be exercised. Some of those in my constituency who urged that I support this bill have said:	"Yes, these powers are
exceedingly drastic, and we can understand how in their working out great injustice might be done or great inconvenience suffered, but we must not assume that the government will misuse the powers granted under the bill or need not assume that the government will invoke those powers."
Then he went on:
I do not think a member of parliament should vote to confer powers the exercise of which he disapproves. For this reason I am afraid that I shall have to oppose the bill as it stands.
The minister is in his place in the house at the moment, and I would be very glad to hear from him as to whether he still feels the same way about conferring powers the exercise of which we do not approve, even though we have the assurance from the minister that it is not intended to exercise these very wide powers. I for one agree entirely with the remarks of the right hon. Minister of Justice at that time, and I hope he still feels the same way.

The Minister of Agriculture ended up with the point at which he started, and said that in introducing a measure of this sort to regularize the emergency powers exercised under the War Measures Act and the transitional powers act it would not be proper to seek to introduce a full-fledged marketing act. He gave as one reason that this is a transitional measure, that these conditions may be entirely transitory, and that what he is seeking to do is take care of these transitory conditions. However, in almost the same breath with which he was saying this was only a temporary measure he went on to say that he could not give any assurance that he would bring in a marketing act because, he said, after the last war these transitional conditions continued for ten years or more, and they might go on this time for four or five years. The minister seems to envisage a pretty permanent transitional measure, and if it is to endure for as long as he forecast tonight, then instead of constantly continuing emergency powers I think he should do now what the farmers of this countiy are pressing for, and bring in a proper marketing act which would give the producers of this country control over their produce and their processes, instead of leaving it exclusively in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture.
One other point in the minister's speech was significant, and I should like to comment on it now, and shall refer to it again later in my remarks. We saw him make once more an effort to hold over the head of the official opposition the big stick of the contracts with Great Britain. The minister said, "If you oppose this bill you will be denying to us the powers necessary to carry out our contracts." For my own part, Mr. Speaker, I object strongly to what I thiffir is cheap legislation; legislation which, under the guise of giving powers necessary to carry out contracts signed by the government of Canada, introduces provisions for all sorts of extra and additional powers which in our view should not be given; powers which certainly are not necessary for the carrying out of these contracts; and in connection with which we are then told, "If you oppose the bill, if you oppose it in its entirety or in part you are taking away from us the power to carry out these contracts", and therefore holding us up in the light of being anxious to besmirch the good name of Canada, and to jeopardize the discharge of responsibilities undertaken by the government of Canada.
It is cheap on two grounds. It is a cheap way of getting excessive powers which the government wants, and it is a cheap effort to

Agricultural Products Act
place those who conscientiously oppose many of the things done by this bill in the light of being opposed to the preservation of the good name of Canada.
Well now, having said that, in so far as the minister's speech is concerned-because I felt many of the things which he said should be answered-I should like to speak with regard to the bill itself now before the house. It is difficult to discuss this bill on second reading, because its very principle is so difficult to find. I think that was illustrated this afternoon in the rulings which were given with respect to the two amendments which at various times were before the house.
An effort was made to find the principle of the bill, and to introduce amendments which would be contrary to the principle, or to suggest opposed principles. Each time Your Honour found in the amendments no sufficiently clear distinction between the amendments and the principle of the bill to bring the amendments within the rule, and on that ground they were ruled out of order.
It seems to me that that is a proper criticism to make of the bill, and it arises from the fact that under the guise of seeking to carry out a contract with Great Britain a great deal more is introduced than is necessary to bring about that purpose. After careful examination, however, we cannot say that the principle of the bill is only to carry out the agricultural agreement made with the United Kingdom. If it were that, no one would oppose it. There is a great deal more than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing more than that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The principle is not to be found in the title. The title gives the purpose; it is to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products. I am following here a distinction made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself in 1934, when he was discussing the Natural Products Marketing Act introduced by the Bennett government of that day. At that time the Prime Minister carefully distinguished between the purpose of the bill and the principle of the bill, and no one questioned his distinction. The Prime Minister of that day agreed with it, and all hon. members in the house agreed with and accepted it.
The principle is not to be found in the preamble; again that seems to define the purpose. Then, it is not to be found in the title, or in section 1, nor is it found in section 2, the definitions section.
I suggest it is not until we come to section 3 that we get any inkling as to the principle behind the bill. And when we study section
3 carefully we find the principle of the bill is to enable the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to control the marketing and sale of all Canadian agricultural products, with the exception of wheat. That is the first principle of the bill-to give that control to the minister. A secondary principle is found in section 4, which enables the minister to establish one or more commodity boards. This being so, I suggest that we have to examine section 3 closely to understand the full import of the principle of the bill.
Paragraph (a) of section 3 gives the minister power to sell all agricultural products in Canada. Paragraph (b) of that section gives him power to buy on behalf of foreign countries any agricultural products in Canada. Paragraph (d) gives him power to store any or all agricultural products in Canada.
So we find the minister in the extraordinary and preferred position of being both buyer and seller. He is the czar of all agriculture in Canada-not the producers, themselves; they have no say in the prices or quantities of their produce sold-the Minister of Agriculture is to have the whole say in this sphere. That is my main objection to the bill, namely, that the producers of Canada will have no control over their produce, or their activities in selling them or marketing them. The Minister of Agriculture alone controls those features.
The second provision which I find objectionable is the one which gives the minister power to conclude new treaties and new agreements with other countries without reference to parliament. One of the features to which wre have already taken objection is the fact that this parliament is thus placed in the position of having to accept the whole of these measures, because included in them is one particular power, namely the power to carry out agreements already made. That was the position we were in with respect to the wheat board act, and the position we are now in with respect to this bill, because there is meat; there is beef; there are bacon, and eggs which are already the subjects of agreements with Great Britain. And I object to that principle wherever it is found.
I object to parliament's becoming nothing more than a rubber-stamp to carry out the predetermined policies of the Minister of Agriculture. He goes to these countries and makes agreements with them as to prices and quantities. Then he comes back to parliament and says, "I have made this agreement; this is the price level, and there can be no question about the agreement. You must accept this legislation in order to enable me to carry it out."
Agricultural Products Act

I can just hear what would have happened if this party had been in office and had introduced similar legislation, and the same hon. gentlemen who sat on these benches in 1934 had been facing the government which was trying to get this legislation through. I can just hear the minister who comes from Vancouver Centre; the hon. member for Quebec South; the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) and the Prime Minister, who excelled themselves then; and I somehow feel they would have done even better tonight in their attack on this bill, had it included these powers.
I want to read what the Minister of Justice, who was perhaps the most reasonable, being a lawyer, of those who made the attack in 1934, had to say. Let me read what he said with regard to taking away the powers of parliament in this matter. Speaking on April 16, 1934, he is reported at page 2212 of Hansard in this way:
One by one measures are introduced which take away the powers and authority of parliament. I certainly cannot approve, nor do I think my constituents or the producers of this country will approve, of the taking away from parliament of its time-honoured rights and privileges, its function of legislating for and protecting the interests of all classes in the community.
Well, what is the provision under the bill now before us? Have producers any say in the marketing of their commodities? They have only such say as the Minister of Agriculture, in his goodness, may give them. He buys; he sells; he stores; he sets prices- and he sets the prices before the consumer and before the producer knows what is going on. Then he comes back to parliament and says, "I have made an agreement; I have set the price, and you will have to ratify it." And parliament not only is in a position where it cannot hold the minister responsible, but cannot take any step it wishes to take on behalf of the producer, if he thinks his price is too low; because we have seen in the last week that, if we make any effort to remedy the situation, deliberately we are held up as being those who are trying to make it impossible for the government to carry out its sacred word. So I say that is another of the principles of the bill, another feature in it, which is most objectionable. I think it should be provided that in future no agreement made by the Minister of Agriculture with any other country shall be valid until it is ratified by parliament. I think the proper way to proceed would be to have the producer boards control this thing, not the minister. We have introduced an amendment which would serve that purpose but it has been ruled out of order.

Nevertheless, our view is that the producer boards should have this power and then there would probably be no objection.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Shall have what power? Shall have the sole power of negotiating with the British government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, exactly as was done in the case of apples, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Yale. When the British government wanted to buy apples Sir Arthur Jones-this is what the boards tell us-went out there and made a deal with them as to prices and quantity. They found those details satisfactory. He then came back here and signed on behalf of the British government, and I understand the Minister of Agriculture signed on behalf of the Canadian government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government made the contract.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be interested in hearing an explanation as to how it was concluded, because that was the explanation given to us by the boards in British Columbia which were concerned with the agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can tell you how it started, but it has not yet concluded.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the way in which they desire these agreements to be made. The producer should be able to have a say in the price and the quantity before the agreement is signed. That principle is not being carried into effect in this bill. Therefore we should like to see provision for the second safeguard; that is, that no agreement shall be valid until ratified by parliament. That would give the duly elected representatives of the people a chance to consult with those who had elected them and find out whether the price is indeed a proper price and whether the quantity is a feasible quantity. The country would no longer be in a position where the Minister of Agriculture can sell it short and make a bad guess and tie it up for the next four or five years without any possibility of a change.
I can imagine what would be said if a private broker were in a position to go out and sell the country short. He might make a good deal when he would make a profit, but if he made a bad deal he would not be the one to go broke; the people of the country would pay for it, particularly the agricultural producers. That is what we want to prevent. If they are to be asked to pay for it we want them to have some say in the making of the deal. That is why we object to this bill.
There are many other features of the bill which are objectionable but they can be dealt with in committee. Section 7 gives the minis-

Agricultural Products Act
ter, with the approval of the governor in council, the power to hire and fire and set salaries with no reference to the Civil Service Act. Section 9 gives the minister the power to create new offences and impose fines up to $5,000 for offences which are not yet established. After having read the debate which took place in 1934, to which I have referred, one is forced to wonder what change of heart has come over those who at that time sat in these benches.
The Prime Minister then delivered a speech of two hours-some said it was two hours and twenty minutes-and he criticized every single aspect of that bill. None did he criticize more severely than the power to create new offences and to impose fines. The section against which he thundred most vehemently was a one which provided for a penalty of $500 for a breach of the regulations. Here we find exactly the same section providing that the penalty shall be $5,000. That is ten times as much as it was in 1934.


An hon. MEMBER:: Inflation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Somebody remarks that that is inflation, which is perhaps another thing for which the government are responsible. I wonder if they are now ten times more socialistic than they were in 1934. In 1934 they opposed the bill introduced then as being a socialistic measure. They now do some things in this bill that are ten times as bad, and they still refuse to introduce a proper marketing act which will give the producers control over their own products.
In conclusion, I wish to summarize my own views with regard to this bill. I know the producers, particularly the fruit producers in my constituency, have been pressing for many years-the minister has admitted this- for marketing legislation. They have wanted an act which will enable the boards which they have set up after a long struggle and have now got going on a successful and proper basis to continue the orderly marketing of their products, not an act which will enable the minister to set up some over-all board or to step in himself and control every single feature of their production. Not only that, they want some assurance that they will have some say as to price and quantities in connection with any deal made in the future. That is what they want and they are not getting it in this bill.
In addition, they want a further safeguard which we will ask for in committee. As members of parliament, I think we should ask for an assurance that the minister will not continue the practice of concluding treaties on his own and then coming to parliament and saying, "You have to give us these powers because we have already signed." We will press in committee for a provision that in future no agreement shall be valid until it has been ratified by parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As a practical matter, if we can sell 500,000 barrels of apples to the United Kingdom within the next two weeks, does the hon. gentleman suggest that we should not complete the deal without bringing it back to parliament for ratification?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If it is desirable that 500,000 barrels of apples should be sold, you could sign whatever is necessary in the way of a preliminary agreement, but you should say, "This cannot be official and binding until the parliament of Canada has given approval".


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. gentleman realize that the apple growers have to borrow money and make arrangements for growing their crop and they have to know what is to become of that crop? Does the hon. gentleman seriously suggest that they should be kept in a position of uncertainty for months to come?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no necessity for keeping them in a state of uncertainty for months. I have suggested that none of these deals should be concluded without the producer boards being consulted. If the producer boards are consulted, then we would have reasonable grounds for assuming that there will be a fair price and a reasonable quantity. If a deal is concluded on that basis and is brought into this parliament, there is no reason to assume that it will not be ratified. I am simply saying that, with this bill as it stands, there is no provision for consultation with the producers. The minister can do the thing on his own hook.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statements that are being made are absolutely false. There is provision in the bill for an advisory committee to be appointed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister wishes to appoint one.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has never been an agreement reached without its being referred to any board that happened to be in position to give advice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister desires to do so, he may appoint an advisory committee, but there is no provision that he shall appoint an advisory committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the orders in council there are advisory boards. The chairman of one is in the gallery now.
Agricultural Products Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure he is very much edified by the ministers comments. '


James Garfield Gardiner: He would be with your speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am inclined to think the minister should withdraw his remark that my statements are completely false. I take serious issue with him there. They are not inaccurate. There is in this bill no provision that there shall be an advisory board. There may be one if the minister wants it.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And the minister does not have to consult the producers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do consult.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Are we in committee? The hon. member for Kamloops has the floor.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no point in carrying on the present altercation across the floor, but if the minister feels the way he does I think he should show us where in the bill provision is made that producers must be and shall be consulted and shall have a say as to the price.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought you were not in favour of compulsion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a provision that they may be consulted but that is not sufficient and there is no provision for the prior submission to this parliament of the deals made by the minister. I have made my position clear on that. Those deficiencies in the bill would incline one at first sight to vote against the second reading, but in the hope that those weaknesses may be rectified in committee I personally do not intend to vote against the second reading of the bill, because we intend to move amendments in committee to correct these weaknesses and we still have an opportunity to exercise our decision on the third reading of the bill. I would not like to make any forecast of what my attitude would be then. I do know that the producers in my constituency, who, I believe, are typical of producers all across Canada, would wish to see the provisions put in the bill which I have suggested. They would like to have the assurance that they will be consulted before any deal is made which binds up their future production for the next four or five years.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, is there any objection to my getting in on this? I have heard so many statements on wheat and a few other things

in the past few days that I cam well understand a letter which I got, and which I presume every member got, from which I quote:
We did inform Air. King, Air. Coldwell, Mr. Bracken and Air. Low to hand us the full administration of Indian Affairs, which is the only wish the Indian nation has to be governed and administered by a national Indian government.
After listening to similar speeches I have heard during the past week, I say, let us give them the whole government and make a good job of it. I want to explain my vote and incidentally I warn the C.C.F. that I am not going to vote for their new amendment. If people keep on moving amendments for the next few weeks we shall get nowhere.
I have no hesitation in telling the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that I do not like his bill, and I voted for the two amendments to demonstrate that we in western Canada do not like the bill. It does not properly cover the issues. At the same time I am going to support the bill. I appreciate the fact that if we did not have this bill we could not carry out our contracts which affect the poultry men and berry growers in my riding, and for that reason I am going to support the bill as being in the best interests of many farmers in my constituency. I told the people of my riding-and I only wish they were listening-before I left the far west, which is the real Canada, that I did not expect that we westerners would get support from the east on a real marketing act, and I still do not think we shall. I think my hon. friends from Saskatchewan will agree with me on that.
The only good thing I know of that ever came out of a Conservative administration in Canada was the Bennett marketing act, which unfortunately was declared ultra vires. I am not sure just what that means, but probably the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who never interrupts at all, knows what it means. What I do know is that the act did not hold good in British Columbia, except for the lawyers. I wish the minister would consult, not some of these technical experts that he has in some of the buildings, but some of the men who really know marketing and really know production in agriculture.
I have read the bill; I heard the minister's remarks on the resolution, and I air-mailed them to the province of British Columbia, to the man who knows more about marketing dairy products than any other man in Canada, Mr. W. L. Macken. Today I got his reply. I know he does not object to my using his name. He is president of the largest dairy cooperative in the Dominion of Canada. This

Agricultural Products Act
bill is not all-embracing. It is of no protection to our dairy farmers in British Columbia at all. That is the reason I voted for the two amendments, to impress on the government, this government or some other government- perhaps under a later redistribution, in 1951, we shall get the number of members we ought to have-that we in western Canada are going to persist until we get a marketing act that will be for the benefit of all our farmers.
I realize that we cannot amend the bill that is before the house. I want to be fair and say that I believe this bill will benefit the poultry men and the small fruit growers in my riding and to a certain extent the dairy men, in so far as the contracts for the ensuing year are concerned. I disagree with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), because the minister or some official or some agent must have the authority to carry out the contracts. If my hon. friend lived in such a delightful spot as the Fraser valley he would not want to come back here every two or three weeks in order to have some contract approved by parliament before the products could be secured to fill those contracts. The minister and his officials must have that authority.
A word of warning to my hon. friends of the C.C.F. I think the Minister of Agriculture said that the marketing act was socialism.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not I.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then it must have been somebody else. Let me say that if an all-out, all-embracing democratic compulsory marketing act is socialism I am a socialist. I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops and one other member over there who said this afternoon that a marketing act should be under the control of the producers themselves and that they are the ones who should set the price and the regulations. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association sets the prices of the products they are going to sell, and why should not we farmers set our prices?


Mrs. STRUM:: Move over here.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would never be elected again. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Kamloops that they should settle their disputes the way the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Burton) and I settle ours.
I wish to say in conclusion-and I say this in all seriousness-the people of the Fraser Valley riding and, I believe, the entire farm population of British Columbia-although I have no authority to speak for other than my own riding-the dairymen of the province, the poultrymen of the province and ninety per
cent of the berrvgrowers, who incidentally last year in my riding alone produced 11,475,428 pounds of raspberries, are not requesting that this government; they are demanding that this government put into effect an all-embracing marketing act which will protect both the producer and the consumer.


James Horace King: I should like to say to the house that, having studied the amendment very carefully and after having considered the remarks made by the leader of the house, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment is in order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment and to express my disappointment with this bill. Before going on to give expression to the things I wish to say, first of all, I should congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) on his courageous stand in expressing the views of the farmers whom he represents. I hope his example is followed by more hon. members of the party with whom he sits.
Before proceeding, may I say that I do not discuss this matter from the legal angle, as a lawyer, as a broker, as a grocer, or as a doctor. I discuss this matter this evening as one who has tramped the highways and byways of my own constituency trying to get signatures for our contracts in the early days in British Columbia, and as one who has done considerable speaking in support of this legislation. I am very happy on that account to be able to continue to support it in this house.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), to his definition of certain difficulties and to his explanations. I am not going to deal at length with what the minister had to say, but shall simply say that, after listening carefully, I am of the opinion that the minister clearly reflected the policy of this government, which is to delay again and not to respond to the demands of a large section of the people of this country at this time. You have delayed again, apparently, the enactment of a national products marketing act; you have delayed a national labour code; you have delayed an old age pension amendment to satisfy the people of this country; you have delayed health insurance. In my opinion that correctly reflects the attitude of the government here at this time to the situation as it exists in Canada at the present time, and is the cause of, shall I say, the uncertain morale which exists in the country.
Agricultural Products Act

On May 28 of last year I spoke at some length on the question of national farm marketing. I do not intend this evening to repeat my arguments or illustrations, except to say that I think the decision of the conference of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which was held in Ottawa recently proves the validity of the arguments I put forward at that time and the illustrations I gave, as to the stand of the farmers of this country behind this legislation.
With other hon. members I had the opportunity to attend one morning session of that conference, and I must say that it was even surprising to me to see the unanimity which was expressed regarding this question of national farm marketing legislation. It was not sectional, although this idea, I am proud to say, originated in British Columbia. The idea was supported from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. I do not think I have ever attended a farmers' convention in which there was expressed such general agreement on a principle. I am not going to quote the resolution carried by that conference. The minister has already read it to the house and it is on our records, which I think is a good thing because we shall want to refer to it in the future. But I wish to refer briefly to three or four points. I think the action of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture conference, which shows that there is unanimous support across Canada for this type of legislation, proves that the people who are directly concerned with this legislation support it and desire it, and desire it and demand it now.
Second, it is definitely democratic. While we use the words "compulsory marketing legislation", I personally do not like that term; I think it is democratic marketing legislation because it is the decision of the majority of the industry concerned.
This conference in Ottawa was not produced as a result of short-term action on the part of the people. What happened in Ottawa recently was the result of this matter being discussed for years by the small local organizations of farmers throughout the country. The decision of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture conference in Ottawa was a decision which was arrived at as a result of the work, the will and the activity of the rank and file; it was a decision produced from the bottom up and not from the top down.
Then, again, I think this type of legislation has proven its worth from experience, and I am not going to take the time to go into that. We in British Columbia know, after some years of experience with this type of legislation, it has been the salvation of the
[Mr. Hcrridge.J
fruit industry and has put that industry at the present time on a sound financial footing, provided that we get the type of legislation which is required in the future to supplement provincial marketing legislation. I think that is admitted generally.
Another point, Mr. Speaker; at this time many of us are concerned about the youth of this country returning to the farms. I am one who is very much interested in the building up of the rural population of Canada, because I believe that so long as we have healthy rural communities and a prosperous agriculture, we shall continue to have a democratic and prosperous Canada.
Many of us are particularly concerned in seeing that the young veterans returning from the last war particularly have an opportunity to become established on the farms. We find that many boys raised on the farms- I have some of them in my own district and in my own constituency-are hesitant to locate on farms. Why? Because they want to be assured of some measure of security in the future. I say-and I think I shall receive general agreement in that respect-that if we can have the type of legislation demanded by the farm organizations of Canada we shall at least be showing these boys that we are doing all that is within our power and under our control at this time to secure for them a satisfactory living on the farms in the future.
I must say that I cannot understand the attitude of this government, a Liberal government which professes to support free enterprise. I say that this government, professing the principles of free enterprise, has, in recent months, struck some heavy and lusty blows at democratic enterprise in this country, and by its failure to bring in this national marketing products act legislation is causing a great deal of delay in democratic action by farmers in Canada. WTe must not forget that this government for the first time taxes cooperative societies. I am one who believes that the cooperative movement is the economic penicillin of modern society.
Then this government is now apparently failing to act as a result of the farmers demand to enact farmers marketing legislation. I cannot understand that, coming from a government professing Liberal principles. WThen I think of these things, of the history of the Liberal party to which I once belonged, and read the speeches and writings of the great leaders of Liberalism of the past, I am beginning to think the spirit of Liberalism is departing from the benches opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has gone long ago.

Agricultural Products Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It has gone, shall I say, in connection with the cooperative movement. The delay in natural farm products marketing legislation is arresting the activity of a large section of the Canadian people at this time, people who are not coming to the government asking for something for nothing, asking for cash, asking for subsidies or asking for a hand-out. They are simply asking this government to place upon the statute books of this country legislation which will give them an opportunity to manage their own affairs to the best advantage, in a democratic way.
In conclusion, may I say that I am going to support the bill in the hope that some amendments will be put forward which will improve it. I do say that I think even this bill indicates that the Minister of Agriculture has taken a few steps forward to the penitent's bench and I trust that, before many days are past, his conversion will be complete to the faith which is now held by the farmers of this country in the value of the legislation they demand.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, while I intend to support the bill, I rise particularly, after listening to the speeches all afternoon and evening, because I am afraid that the position of many members of the house might be misconstrued in the same manner as the position of the Liberal party has been misconstrued. There is misconception in the minds of many people that the Liberal party are out to kill the cooperative movement. That misconception is a result of discussions which took place in the house last year and is one which many of us are finding it difficult to contradict. Many wild statements have been made. We have realized that amendments have been moved this afternoon with the object of trying to tack on to this bill marketing legislation which has been asked for by various organizations. It is with that thought in mind that I rise, at least to place myself on record in the house and to make a few comments regarding some of the things which have been said.
I think it can be fairly said that most, if not all, hon. members of the House of Commons are in favour of marketing legislation. I think it can also be fairly said that every member, whether he represents a city riding or a farming constituency, is in favour of the farmers having control of their product. I think that goes without saying. I do not think any member will get up and contradict what I have just said. But I wish to say this, and I have never said it in the house before
regarding marketing legislation, if I am a member of the house when marketing legislation is introduced, I am one of those who are going to endeavour to see that in the marketing legislation all the regulations and all the laws relating to it will be in the legislation introduced, because I think there is great danger unless that is done. Some of the marketing boards have gone much too far in Canada, as a result of provincial legislatures passing something like an omnibus bill giving some of the officials what I claim to be too much power and authority. That must not be interpreted as meaning that I am against marketing legislation, because I am in favour of it. But I am in favour of this parliament putting every regulation and every bit of power into the bill before it passes and becomes the law of the country. I wish to place myself on record clearly on the matter.
I now come to another point, the selling of produce. I think it can be fairly said that, over the years, the history in Canada has been a tragic one of farmers trying to sell their surplus products. It has been a tragic effort and has not been successful. I think the prices which the government has obtained under the agreements which we are dealing with under this bill have been accepted as being fair by all farmers throughout the entire dominion. That being the case, why the opposition to the bill?
I am speaking tonight not only as a member representing the constituency of New Westminster, but also as a member of the Pacific Poultry Association. I know full well, in the days past when we had a surplus of eggs, the tragic situation which arose with regard to price. Who was to take the surplus eggs which the poultry men had and market them in foreign countries or in Great Britain? No wholesaler would take the risk of taking a small shipment of eggs, going across to Great Britain and finding a market four or five thousand miles away from British Columbia, with the result that, on occasion, eggs dropped to a price as low as eight cents a dozen. Poultrymen went out of business and in many cases lost all they had.
So we come now to a time of war and of demand, and the government steps into the picture and makes an agreement. Will any member get up and say the price under the agreement is wrong? It is true that adjustments should be made. As we in British Columbia have been saying to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) adjustments should be made in the price of eggs now in view of the change in wheat prices. That is only natural because, so long as the govern-
Agricultural Products Act

ment is controlling prices, just so long must it be responsible for the entire picture. Therefore we have had no compunction in coming to the Minister of Agriculture and demanding that the agreement made with Great Britain must be altered in some way.
I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I am going to say this. I doubt if we shall 'change this system in the future. A great many statements have been made about what the Liberal party is doing now as compared with what it did ten or fifteen years ago. Do hon. members realize that the lid has been blown off the top of the world, that the people are on the march, and are not going back? Do hon. members realize that governments today in certain countries are the purchasers of food and not individual wholesalers or buyers? Do they realize that no individual from Canada can go to those countries and make a deal? He is at a loss. What other agency is going to make a deal than the government of Canada through the Minister of Agriculture and the boards set up?
We listened all afternoon to hon. members trying to tack onto this bill a Natural Products Marketing Act, and probably trying to leave the implication that those who voted against the Speaker's ruling and speak now are against marketing legislation for the farmers. Let us now get the picture clear. The government is asking power for one year; and it would be tragic if it had not that power in so far as one branch of industry is concerned, namely the poultrymen, I think that would apply to every other branch of farming as well as to the poultrymen in British Columbia. So let us have the picture clear with regard to what wTe vote on, and let us not have it thrown at us that we are against marketing legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bill.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am a modest sort of fellow and do not like to express opinions unless I know a little about the subject with which I am dealing. But since there are, evidently, so many immodest people in the chamber, I thought I might as well take a flyer too.
As I have followed the debate which has taken place in this chamber in connection with this bill, my understanding is that the principal difference between the members of this group and the government is that this is a temporary measure, special bill for one year, and we believe that is not what is called for at the present time but rather a measure that is more or less of a permanent nature. Whether that point of view is correct I do not know, but I do know that,

when this bill expires, whoever may be minister of agriculture will be compelled- because circumstances will not be any different at the end of the year from what they are now-to introduce a bill that will do what we have been trying to do this afternoon. My point is that I am not sure whether or not this is the time to introduce such a measure. If that cannot be done, of course I shall support this bill, and I think my colleagues will do likewise. But we believe there should be more comprehensive legislation now7.
As a matter of fact, the farmer is not seeking government assistance in marketing because he likes to have government assistance. He is seeking it because he has no other choice. The individual farmer today is not dealing with individual buyers but with large and powerful organizations. He is helpless in selling his products under those circumstances. He has, therefore, no choice but, first, to organize as farmer and producer groups, and, then, to seek through legislation, both federal and provincial, to obtain orderly marketing of his products. The farmer is compelled today to do what the industrial worker has done over the last 100 years; that is, to organize to sell his products. The industrial worker, having no property except his labour, could easily see where and how he was exploited. The farmer, having a certain amount of what he called property, required a fairly long time to understand that he was being exploited in the same way. He has now arrived at the point where he realizes that, and he is creating organizations for the orderly marketing of his products.
I was interested in some parts of the speech of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I happened to be here in 1934 when the Bennett government was trying to get its marketing legislation through parliament. My hon. friend is quite correct when he says the Liberal party opposed it most strenuously. They debated the matter day after day, night after night, week after week, enlarging upon the dangers of government control and all that sort of thing. So much were they opposed to it that when the legislation was finally passed they took it to the courts, which declared it ultra vires. The only difference I can see now is that my hon. friends are doing the very same thing the Liberals did when they were in opposition in 1934. Referring to the fine of S5,000 provided in this act, as compared with the fine of S500 in the other legislation, my hon. friend asked, "Are the members on the government side of the house ten times as socialistic as they were in 1935?'' Well, if the enlarging of the fine is

Agricultural Products Act
the measure of their socialism, perhaps they are; but a great deal of water has gone under the bridge since 1935, and while my hon. friends on the opposite side of the house may not be as bright as those on this side, they have learned some things in those ten years. But there is another factor entering into the picture; that is, they are faced with the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country, and you cannot be as irresponsible on the government side of the house as you can be on the opposition side. That is something we do not always keep in mind.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No one knows that better than you do.


Angus MacInnis: Well, I do not know. I have a feeling I have tried to be responsible since I came inito this house. I may not have succeeded, but at least I have .tried. I did not get much of an education; there were too many potatoes to dig, too many berries to pick and, when there was nothing else, there were stones to pick, so that there was not much time to go to school. But I had a fairly good training in the shorter catechism, and I have a good idea of what is it to be honest, so that I can never bring myself to the point where I can be irresponsible just because 'the other fellow has the responsibility; and I am in the same position now. I have said that I think what this group is asking for is reasonable; it will have to be done some time, and .the only question is whether this is the time to do it, and whether this is the time we should try to force it to be done. If it is not, then we shall support this bill.
But let me get back to the point I mentioned a moment ago, as to the measure of the socialism of my hon. friends opposite. If the Conservatives in 1935 favoured legislation of this kind and the Liberals opposed it, and the Liberals favour it now while the Conservatives oppose it, does that mean the Conservatives in the house today are ten times less socialistic than they were in 1935?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This bill is not socialism.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think I am able to define exactly what is socialism, but really it means the social organization of the efforts of the people of the community to provide for themselves. What may be called socialism today and denounced because it is socialism, tomorrow will be considered good and accepted because it is good, because it serves the needs of the community; as a matter of fact, because we cannot get along without it. Personally I 83166-90
have never been able to see that there was any great merit in leaving the resources of the country in the hands of a few people, because there was something democratic and fine about it, and. making the _ mass of the people go to those few to obtain access to the economic life of the country from their hands. I was brought up on a farm. I have tried farming; I know what it is like. This is what I found. When I went to sell farm products, butter, eggs, lambs, potatoes, oats, pork and and so on, I always asked the man to whom I was selling the products, "What are you giving for this today? What is the price of potatoes today? What is the price of pork?"
But the funny part of it was, when I went to buy from these same people, I also asked what was the price, the price of the things I wanted to buy. So that the farmer, under conditions of that kind, got it, as the saying is, both coming and going. No wonder he has been skinned beautifully down through the years.
Just one point further; in regard to a statement made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I do not think I can agree with him-and I do not think he will, when he thinks it over-when he says that we must put all the details of marketing into a bill. I do not think that is possible. We would have so many clauses, sections and subsections that it would not make sense when you finished with it.


Thomas Reid: If I might interrupt, I think they did that in the British House of Commons in their marketing legislation before 1939. All the regulations were in the bill.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot contradict the hon. member, because I did not see the legislation. But my personal opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that you cannot put all the details into a bill. Circumstances change from day to day, and the person or persons responsible for the administration of the legislation must have a certain amount of leeway so that they may be able to manoeuvre under those circumstances. If they are to be bound by legislation in an act, they just will not be able to do what it was intended they should do. So that I believe that, while the act should be as explicit as possible, we must, in the natural order of things, leave a certain amount of leeway to whatever board or minister, or whatever other officials are administering the act.
Let me repeat that this group will support this legislation. But we believe that what is required now is not merely an emergency bill



Agricultural Products Act
for one year, but a measure which will meet the needs of the producers of this country for some years to come.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to add further to the confusion. I rise at this time for the purpose of trying to get a few things clear in my own mind. First, I should like to say that when I first came to the House of Commons I was under the impression that I was entering the national parliament of Canada, a body which legislated for the whole country, on an equal basis. But I find, since coming here, that, instead of sitting in a national parliament, which should aim at the equalization of conditions in the country as a whole, I am sitting in a form of nine little parliaments of Canada, each of which is endeavouring to do everything it can for its own particular province. After my experience here, that is pretty much my conception of parliament at the present time.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) rose in his place and spoke for his constituency. That is what he is here for. But, in addition to that, he talked about the west, and the extreme west. That is all very fine, too. Then he made reference to the great prosperity of the east at the expense of the west. For his benefit let me say that, so far as the extreme eastern section of Canada is concerned, that portion from Quebec to the east, his statement would not apply; he was thinking in terms of central Canada, the exploiting machine of the whole country.
The extreme eastern section of the country is in pretty much the same position today as in Europe-after having come through a war. It is on relief. It is 100 per cent unemployed, because of neglect in the field of labour relations on the part of the national government. Today they are going from coast to coast, seeking relief for the persons in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They have chaos, and no one is trying to do much about it.
I say that for the purpose of-


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, you don't like it, do you? But you are going to hear it, so long as Mr. Speaker permits me the same latitude as other hon. members were given.


Mr. BROOKS:: It is bad enough, but it is hardly that bad.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, it is that bad; it is that bad in the very section you come from.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No, not that bad, at all.


Clarence Gillis: Check up on your Minto mines, after a seven weeks' strike. I say this for the purpose of bringing to the attention of hon. members wrho emphasize conditions in the west, that I am thinking in terms of Canada as a nation. This is a national forum, and is supposed to look after the difficulties of the east and the west on an equal basis.
With respect to the present legislation, naturally I shall support the bill, because it is a step in the right direction. A minute ago the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said it was a hesitant step on the part of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Well, I hope that, before this parliament prorogues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will take equal steps, no matter whether they are considered hesitant or not. I would hope that they would take those steps in the industrial field. I consider the step now being taken in respect of the marketing of agricultural products on a national basis is a long step forward.
This is not the farmers' problem; it is an economic problem. It affects the whole of Canada, and ramifies into all its economic processes. A minute ago the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) stated that the measure was necessary to protect the farmer, because he is an individual, and that the worker had done a similar job for himself a good many years ago. I do not see it in exactly that way. Under his cooperatives, and the like, the farmer has been organized for a long time. But when he had to go out barehanded and deal with Canada Packers, Swifts or the grain exchange, he was in exactly the same position as the industrial worker is in, whether organized or unorganized, when he has to deal with the same Canada Packers, Swift Canadian, British Empire Steel and Coal, General Electric, and such others of the few large organizations which control all the economic processes in this country.
As I said a minute ago, I hope similar legislation will be brought in by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to protect the fields covered by his department, including, for example, the marketing of lumber and the establishment of a national fuel policy for the regulation and sale, and the import and export of Canadian fuels, so that we shall be in the same position as are the farmers, with their boards.
I hope the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will introduce a bill to set up a coal board, for the purpose I have mentioned; also to supervise the millions of dollars spent

Agricultural Prices
from the national treasury in the fuel industry, and to see that that money is spent in a manner whereby there will be supervision of imports and exports. That is not being done in industry today. That is why there has been industrial unrest. I hope, too, that the Minister of Labour will take a leaf from the book of the Minister of Agriculture and bring in a bill to establish national labour.


James Horace King: Order.


Clarence Gillis: I know I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I will sit down in a minute.


James Horace King: If the hon. member is not out of order, he is certainly on the borderline. I would call his attention to the fact that we are discussing Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I was just about to finish anyway.
Tonight I have listened to talk about peaches, strawberries, rocks on farms and potatoes, and then we have had the legalistic end of it from over here. I thought I might as well bother you a little bit and have you decide that I was also out of order. I am just going to conclude by saying that, as one from one end of this country which I consider has received a pretty raw deal, I feel that the people there will be greatly benefited by legislation of this kind in the economic field.
On motion of Mr. Bentley the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, March 17, 1947