Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):

Might I ask the Prime Minister if the Hon. Mr. Patenaude has been named lieutenant-governor of Quebec?

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):

His Excellency the Governor General has approved of the appointment of the Hon. E. L. Patenaude as lieutenant-governor of the province of Quebec.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):

A few days ago the hon.

member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) asked a question with regard to the purchase by the Canadian National Railways of some land in Winnipeg, at Fort Rouge. The hon. member made some statements which were rather startling, and I promised that I would make immediate inquiries and see what were the facts, since I had not heard of the matter before. His first statement was:

It is now rumoured, firstly, that an excessive price was paid for these properties-

May I point out that these properties were bought in 1927, 1928 and 1929, and I quite agree that probably the prices were excessive. Then the hon. member said:

-that the expenses in connection with the handling of them were padded to a very decided extent-

I cannot answer that statement, but I am asking for a further report. Then the hon. member added:

-that rents are collected on the properties that are not turned in to the railway at all in some instances, and that greater rents are collected than are turned in to the railway.

That is a pretty serious matter, and again I cannot make any statement at the moment, but inquiries are being made. The railway did buy properties in the years mentioned, according to my information, for the purpose of extending their yards, wdiich has not been done except to a very small extent. They bought the properties through a firm named Harris & Chisholm, who get five per cent for the collection of rents. An employee of Harris & Chisholm, whose name I do not care to give because he may not be guilty and I do not think I should label him as guilty, is said to be short in his returns to the extent of some $500. According to the statement given me the railway would appear to be wondering if they were to lose the $500, but I should think it would be Harris & Chisholm who would lose the money if their agent collected it and failed to turn it in. However, I shall endeavour to secure further information and furnish it to the hon. gentleman later.

Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):

I

made it quite clear that this was in the nature of a rumour and not a definite statement. The rumour was to that effect.

Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last evening I WR3 discussing the bill before the house in general terms and was about to express the opinion that the farmers of Canada have been looking for just such legislation for some considerable time. I am glad that my opinion in this regard was supported last evening by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luch-kovich) in the very admirable address which he presented to the house.

Let me say that when this bill was presented, in view of the fact that hon. gentlemen

Marketing Act-Mr. Myers

opposite had been asking for a number of years for just such legislation in order to alleviate the condition of the farmers of Canada, I hoped that the bill would receive unanimous support and would be passed through the house with the least possible delay. I am afraid, however, that the opposition that has been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite will have a tendency to divide the opinions of the farmers themselves on this question. I think unanimity in regard to this bill should have been shown here and should have been carried right through the farming districts of Canada.

In the few minutes at my disposal I propose to answer some of the criticisms that have been directed to certain clauses of the bill under consideration. A considerable amount of discussion and doubt seems to have arisen with regard to subsection (c) of section 4, which reads:

to compensate any person for loss sustained by exporting, storing or withholding from the market any product pursuant to any determination or order of the board;

I think it was the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) who made the remark last night that this meant that the farmers or producers themselves were to be compensated for any produce they were asked to withhold from the market. That is not my understanding of this subsection; my understanding is that when there appears to be a visible surplus of any commodity on the markets of Canada that would have a tendency to depress or lower the domestic market, certain dealers or exporters might be asked either to withhold a portion of this commodity from the market or to take a certain amount of that commodity off the market and export it to some other country. If they suffered a loss through such transaction then they would be compensated to the amount of their loss under the power granted by this act. Then there has been some discussion with regard to subsection (e):

to assist by grant or loan the construction or operation of facilities for preserving, storing, or conditioning the regulated product and to assist research work relating to the marketing of such product;

The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) seems to have almost an undue amount of imagination; he reads into this clause power to establish sawmills, flour mills, bakeries, canning factories, tobacco plants, breweries and distilleries. I would not object very much to the last two, but I see no reason why the hon. member should fear the construction of all these plants under the authority of subsection (e) of section 4. In my opinion under this subsection the board 74726-160

would have power to establish certain curing houses or storehouses that might be of great advantage in the marketing of some of our farm products, such as cheese. I am very sorry, as a farmer, that our position in regard to cheese is not as good as it was several years ago. The manufacture and sale of cheese in Canada has been more or less on the decline for a number of years, while the production of butter has markedly increased. I believe the Department of Agriculture might well devote their energies to fostering the manufacture of more cheese in Canada, especially in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Under this subsection they would have power to establish curing houses in Canada or elsewhere, as might be thought best, in order that our cheese might be properly cured before being placed on the British market. It is well known that Canadian cheese goes almost directly from the factory to the trade. As a matter of fact I believe that is the reason for some of the unpopularity of Canadian cheese at the present time. The market for our product is largely in Great Britain. We know that the consumers over there want a well cured and uniform product. Under this subsection arrangements might be made for the procuring of storehouses which could be used for the proper curing of our cheese. During the time required to effect the maturing the board would have the power to provide the necessary money to pay the farmers for the milk consumed in the production of the cheese. The same suggestion might be applied in connection with the erection of potato warehouses in my own province. In Prince Edward Island there is only a very short period in the fall of the year, before the frost sets in, during which we may market the major portion of our crop. A number of the business men, shippers and farmers of that province, backed by our board of trade have been asking both the local and provincial governments to assist in the erection of proper storage warehouses in order that we might be able to hold our potato crop for a longer period.

The hon. member for Weyburn has referred to paragraph (f) of subsection 1, section 4, which reads as follows:

(f) To reqxiire any or all persons engaged in the production or marketing of the regulated product to register their names, addresses and occupations with the board. . . .

And so on. The hon. member seems to take great exception to the word "register" and, at a later point, the word "licence." My interpretation is that the first part of that clause refers to the producer, and the last part to those engaged in the trade, or in the handling and marketing of the commodities.

Marketing Act-Mr. Myers

May I say to the hon. member that there always comes a time when you have to register your men; you have to count heads and see where you stand. A short time ago I heard about a Newfoundland sea captain who had to accomplish a certain piece of work in connection with which he was not making very great headway. The crew were down in the forecastle. The captain went to the companionway and said, " How many of you are down there?" They said, "Three of us." He said, " Well, come up here, the half of you." I believe that principle applies as well to this legislation.

For the information of the hon. member for Weyburn let me say that since 1920 in the Potato Growers Association of Prince Edward Island we have been numbered, we have been counted and we have been registered, licensed, or whatever name you wish to apply. Not only that, but we have paid and continue to pay an annual fee of $2 into our association for that very privilege of being registered or numbered. It could not be otherwise. How could any board or the secretary of any organization or marketing association intelligently conduct its business unless he knew the number of growers or producers for whom he had to provide. That procedure is absolutely necessary. Not only do we have to register, but we have to record the number of acres of potatoes under cultivation in the year under review, and we are living through it. I say no harm can come from that clause. The same applies to shipping clubs. In the province of Prince Edward Island we have a number of clubs whose duty it is to ship hogs. Not only do the members have to register once a year, but every time they wish to sell hogs they have to record their names and the number of hogs they wish to export.

Then, the hon. member for Weyburn took exception to paragraph (g)-

To require full information relating to the production and marketing of the natural product from all persons engaged therein and to require periodic returns to be made by such persons, and inspect the books and premises of such persons.

Let me say right here that the hon. member ought to have an opportunity of going into some of our packing houses and cold storage plants, and inspecting their books so that he might be able to ascertain the spread between the price received by the producer for the goods he puts into those plants, and the price that the consumer pays for the same goods when they come out. Last night the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke) referred-and not quite correctly-to what

the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) said when speaking about this matter. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi did not object to the grading regulations; on the contrary he said he approved of them. He did voice the objection, however, that when the farmers begin to produce in the spring of the year the prices for eggs and butter invariably go down. Those commodities are put into cold storage by the owners of the plants, and kept in storage during the summer months. Then in the fall of the year when the supply from the farms begins to slacken off the storage supplies are put on the market. If one were to judge by the price the consumer has to pay he would never know it was the same article that had been put into the plants earlier in the year. What is true of eggs and butter is equally true of hogs.

May I say a word or two about a matter which has always caused me a great deal of annoyance. Hon. members who till the soil, as I do, and know anything about the management of farms know that there are two principal seasons in the year in which farmers market their hogs, namely the fall and the spring. Almost invariably for as many years past as I care to remember-and more-during times when great numbers of hogs are offered on the market the price has dropped. Then, again, during the summer and midwinter seasons, when few if any hogs are offering for sale, the prices will go up sky high. To my mind one of the functions of the marketing board established by this legislation would be to see to it that no such fluctuation could take place. The hon. member for Weyburn would do well to examine the books of these companies in order to ascertain whether or not the farmers are getting a square deal.

This legislation is to receive the sanction of local legislatures throughout the dominion, and the sanction of those engaged in the particular industries affected by it. The legislature of the province of Prince Edward Island for a long time has been looking for some such bill as the one now before us. While the local legislature of that province was in session, despite the fact that this bill had not passed the federal house, it passed the necessary legislation. As a result that province is now engaged in setting up a marketing board to cooperate with the central marketing board, and they are in great hopes that the central board may be established in time to look after this year's crop.

At this point may I read what an influential Liberal representative in the province of Prince Edward Island said about the marketing board legislation:

Marketing Act-Mr. Myers

Mr. LePage said that he had been looking forward to some relief for the farmers. He could see great benefit could accrue from this legislation. The bill is now before the dominion parliament, and after it has been passed there, there would be a better opportunity for knowing more about it. He had suggested such legislation and was glad to know it was being introduced at this time. After receiving an anonymous letter similar to that received by Mr. J. A. MacDonald and which was signed "Association nf Independent Potato Shippers" he was more than ever convinced that there is need of a marketing board to control prices. The farmers have been suffering for a number of years through their products being handled by speculators and not receiving sufficient prices for them.

Mr. LePage said that Canada controls the lobster supply of the world. He saw great possibilities in the lobster industry through cooperative marketing once the prices were controlled. If Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island were not quoting different prices, we might be getting $30 in place of $20 now through the marketing board. The price to the fishermen might also be controlled, so that they would receive more for their catch.

Ninety-five per cent of the beef raised in Canada is consumed in Canada, but the farmers are not getting the price they should receive. The meat industry is in the hands of a few big packers. There is something wrong when pork is selling on the street at 9 cents a pound, and yet bacon is selling at 30 cents. The same is true of fish. Though codfish is selling at 10 cents a pound in the city, yet on the shore about 20 miles from here, it only brings from one to two cents. Here is where a marketing board may prove of great benefit.

I would like to say a word or two with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). That hon. member was dealing with the wheat situation and I gathered from his observations that he was opposed to the bill all the way through. I do not know very much about the marketing of wheat. It is possible that this bill might not operate as successfully in the marketing of wheat as in the marketing of some other commodities but I would just 'ike to ask the hon. member for South Battle-ford, and other farmer members on the other side who have spoken in opposition to this bill, whether, in view of the fact that they do not know of a certainty just how this bill will work out, they are prepared at the present time to return home to their farmer friends in western Canada and take upon their shoulders the responsibility of advising them to have nothing to do with the present marketing bill. That is the question they will be called upon to answer when they meet their constituents, and it is the one which they must answer if they wish to be known as the representatives of the people and those who have the best interest of their people at heart.

74726-160 J

The hon. member made one or two remarks to which I take a good deal of exception-I am sorry he is not in his seat, because X always like to be able to look at a man when I am talking to him. Speaking of wheat growing and the marketing of wheat in western ' Canada, he made this astonishing statement:

I am one of those who favour the setting up of a marketing organization that will take delivery of all the wheat and then Canada can do what she chooses with it. We should not ask the grower to bear this burden; I do not think it is fair.

Then he continues:

I still say that if Canada wishes to control and regulate wheat she should take the responsibility of financing the whole operation.

Any man who would put before the House of Commons a proposal that the federal government take over-which means buying-the entire crop of western wheat and then find a market for it and stand or fall by their operation, surely cannot be serious. Only a short time ago the same hon. gentleman spoke in very disparaging terms of what was done by the government during the past two sessions in order to stimulate and improve the marketing of western wheat. I remember that his criticism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and Mr. McFarland who were engaged in this work, was very strong. Now he comes forward with the statement that the dominion government should take upon its shoulders the responsibility of marketing the whole western crop.

I will not take up any further time. I might just say this, that I listened with amazement to the two-hour speech delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day. He spoke on just three points: the independence of parliament, the constitutional issue and the Magna Charta. I wonder what the farmers out in the fields of Canada care at present about the Magna Charta or the constitution or the independence of parliament; they are more concerned with the marketing of their farm products.

Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary's) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I followed closely and with much interest most of the speeches delivered on this measure. No doubt the house is unanimous in recognizing that it is expedient, owing to the difficult times we are experiencing, to improve certain methods in our trade. The point on which we disagree is the scheme that the government wishes to impose so to attain its purpose.

Marketing Act-Mr. Deslauriers

I make it a rule to respect the views of my colleagues and all those with whom I differ of opinion. I intend in the course of my remarks to follow this principle. However, I shall point out to the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers), who has just preceded me in this debate, that I do not entirely agree with his views on certain phases of the bill, especially, when he contends that the prerogatives of provinces are not threatened by this legislation. No doubt, he refers to section 11, which reads as follows:

The Board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, exercise any power conferred upon it by or pursuant to provincial legislation with reference to the marketing of a natural product.

The board may exercise any power conferred upon it by a provincial legislation. The section does not state that it should but that it may; it will therefore be optional for this board to exercise the powers conferred upon it by provincial legislation. The section adds that this board may moreover exercise "any power under the authority of this legislation in connection with the marketing of a natural product, I am not a lawyer, however, I think that this section implies that this board may exercise all the powers conferred by a province; however, on the other hand, that it is perfectly free not to exercise them or set them aside and exercise those authorized by this section 11 under the act.

Furthermore, if the press has well interpreted the statement of the hon. Prime Minister of Quebec, whose standing as a legal authority is well known, one may note that his views certainly agree with the comments I have just made.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) seemed quite astonished, last evening, to find that the Liberal party opposed this measure and he could not understand our attitude. He spoke jokingly and ridiculed the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as regards his arguments from a constitutional viewpoint. I thought that my hon. friend seemed quite pleased last evening, when he delivered his speech. He probably had reason to be because it referred to a radical measure and, as a member of the C.C.F., that pleased him very much. On the other hand, we are not obliged to share his views and the reason we oppose this bill, at present, is because we are the pioneers of this American continent, we were born in Canada, we have but one country, Canada, our history is dear to us, we possess institutions which are equally dear to us and we have a constitution that we wish to safe-[Mr. Deslauriers.!

guard. We also have traditions which we do not want to foresake for new principles such as those that are advocated by our friends on the extreme left. At all events, if the hon. member for Vegreville will only, at the next election, consult his French Canadian constituents who usually support him and repeat to them what he stated as regards this bill, they will know how to act and jyill give him a full measure of justice.

In perusing, sir, this legislation known as "An Act to improve the methods and practices involved in the marketing of national products, 1934," I feared at any moment to come across some expression with a Russian consonance, so much I found that this piece of legislation was remote from all British practice. We must, on the second reading of this bill, confine ourselves to the principle of the bill. I heard it said in the house that this bill contained not one principle but three. I think that there is a very important one involved and it is easily discovered.

To all purposes the government wishes to upset the authority such as constituted in this country and destroy one's liberty as well as commercial freedom.

The apparent purpose, improvement on the methods in practice for marketing the Canadian natural products for exportation, an improvement which we recognize as necessary, becomes of minor importance and cannot be the principle of this measure if the government persists in following this procedure rather than proceed by placing an item in the estimates and by cooperating with the provinces.

To allow the government to build up an allpowerful board having its elbow room in the public treasury without the authority of parliament, a board responsible to no one, which would have the right, without consulting any one, to legislate, monopolize, reward, licence, indemnify, expend, discount, exempt, possess, destroy, punish and even throw people in gaol, that is no more a principle. Organize boards of all kinds, shake up a whole army of officials whose number is unlimited and at a salary determined by themselves-

Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

Informers.

Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation):

-it is simply an abuse of power which, in certain countries would probably result in civil war. And should we somewhat consult history, we shall easily find examples where these improper legislations brought the downfall of crowns. Even in our own country, hardly a century ago, owing to quite a similar legislation the

Marketing Act-Mr. Deslauriers

people of this country took up arms and were thanked by a responsible government' which the Liberal party upholds to-day.

Mr. DUPRE (Translation):

You are not in earnest ?

Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation):

Should this bill be enacted in its present form, we shall witness the rights of parliament, of the representatives of the people, usurped, the liberty of the nation and commerce encroached upon and provincial prerogatives despised.

We note in section 3 that the governor in council shall establish a dominion board of organization which they wdll set up as they think fit and fix whatever salaries they please. Such legislation could, perhaps, be understood under a government like the present one in Germany or like the government under Mussolini, in Italy, or again like the one under Stalin, in Russia, but not under a responsible British government like ours. The representatives of the people have a right to know who shall form part of this board, how many persons will it comprise, moreover it is a special prerogative of parliament to vote all salaries.

Subsection 5 of section 3 stipulates that the board may, with the approval of the governor in council, employ such technical, professional and other officers as the board may deem necessary or desirable and grant them salaries as may be fixed by the board without being authorized by parliament, just as if it were a matter of urgency, when we already have a National Research Bureau paid by authority of parliament. This arbitrary provision constitutes a dangerous abuse of power which may have an entirely different result than that of improving trade and, I think, it is our duty to point out this fact to the public.

Subsection 6 of the same section grants to this all powerful board the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property or destroy them if it so desires and make the governor in council foot the bill. By subsection 9 of the same section the governor in council completes its powers by assuming the right to pay to this board all such sums of money as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of this act and this out of the consolidated* revenue fund, without consulting parliament whose duty is to check up the administration of public funds derived from the taxes levied on the people.

Section 9 of this act constitutes, perhaps, the provision which calls for the most severe criticism. Without any petition from any board, association, group of producers already

established, without any complaint on their part, on the minister's owm initiative, should a friend complain that the local board or any group of farmers-for instance "l'Union Catholique des cultivateurs de Montmorency" -is an impediment to the trade of certain products, this section authorizes the minister to introduce a bill for the marketing of this product; the governor in council may approve of such a scheme and authorize the board to administer such scheme through any agency or council which it may establish itself-no doubt, friends will be remembered- and remain in force as long as the board deems fit. This is a section which is directly contrary to the views of the hon. member for Queens. By this section the minister in charge of the administration of the act, may, on his own initiative, appoint a board entirely foreign to the organizations of the district where he will enforce the act and even if the provinces protested, I think that such protests would be disregarded.

Bearing in mind human weakness, it is possible that the minister has been misinformed, that only one side of the question has been explained to him and thus the public will be exposed to a grave injustice, moreover, this bill might serve the most deplorable purpose without the people being able to protect themselves. That is what may be termed, so to speak, an unwarranted authority.

In section 4, subsection 1, it is stated that this board shall have power to regulate the time and place of marketing the regulated product. As we are well aware through the Economic Conference agreements, at Ottawa, that the desire of this government is to promote the British Empire's interests, Canada is thus assured of an imperial boom, without precedent, and a strong reaffirmation of what the entire world deplores, economic nationalism.

Paragraph (b) of this subsection 1 empowers this board to exempt any person from conforming to the ruling as regards a natural product. This opens the door to the worst abuses, and we may expect friends to take advantage of such an opportunity to make a small fortune while their neighbours watch them becoming wealthy at their own expense.

Paragraph (f) empowers this board to require a licence from all producers regardless of his importance. We must, therefore, admit that numerous boards and officials will be appointed, et cetera, to annoy the farmers accustomed to living like little kings in their own domain. This paragraph is far from fostering the back-to-the-land movement because liberty which is dear to all, especially, to the

Marketing Act-Mr. Deslauriers

farmers, will be replaced by slavery and might even lead to the gaol. Under the circumstances private enterprise must be greatly decreased.

The idea of improving the conditions of supply and demand-an unalterable principle of commerce-is accepted by all and no one will criticize the government for such a laudable endeavour. The proposal to improve certain trade methods is not a new one. The United Kingdom which possesses the genius of business to a high degree, also possesses an organization known as the British Marketing Board, an institution organized with the greatest circumspection so as not to harm the rights of any one and protect all interests, producers, salesmen and consumers-

Mr. BARBETTE (Translation):

That is

what we also intend to do.

Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation) -an

organization worked out by parliament, according to all the rules and regulations of the constitutions and which entirely eliminates all irregularities and criticism, inspires trust and encourages all those interested. Why did this government not proceed likewise and why has it not introduced a similar bill to that of Great Britain with which, no doubt, they are acquainted? In such a democratic country as Canada, the government has no excuse to introduce this bill. At a time when every person of sound mind are requested to oppose systems with subversive and radical notions which endeavour to take root among us, why does the government, in the interest of peace, order and good government, introduce an incoherent and autocratic bill, setting aside the rights of parliament, throwing overboard our constitution, our statutes and endeavour to enact a measure which should only find a place in Russia.

If the government did not proceed as did Great Britain when establishing its marketing board, the reason is that in Great Britain, statesmen who govern the country respect their constitution, while in Canada our rulers, in introducing this bill, have given proof of an entirely different attitude. The Prime Minister himself, states that our constitution shoidd be amended. May it please Heaven that it be not in the sense of the bill under consideration, because it would be better to begin immediately to disrupt confederation.

It is absolutely unreasonable for the government to request the representatives of the people to approve an act granting the governor in council powers which they cannot forsake according to their oath of office and the constitution of this country. This bill

would grant to the government, already in possession of a signature in blank, the powers of an absolute dictator. It is most unreasonable to request the members to help in undermining their parliamentary rights, in destroying the constitution and to place in the hands of one man the destinies of the whole nation. If that is not sovietism, I wonder in what way this bill differs. In fact should this bill be enacted in its present form, we shall witness throughout the country the organization of dominion marketing boards, local boards, investigating commissions, agencies and subagencies, composed of persons paid by the government from the consolidated revenue funds, indemnifying those who are friendly and presenting accounts to be paid by the public treasury on orders issued by the governor in council.

Moreover, we shall find that this staff will assume all prerogatives pertaining to provincial authorities, regulate the work of the people, like in Moscow, regulate production, take possession of it and market it, while the people will be powerless to prevent them doing so. The people will always be in danger of being ruined by a ridiculous and heavy fine or even thrown in gaol. Why not have added exile, as in Russia!

We shall witness the greatest abuses. It cannot be otherwise. These dictators under the plea of doing their duty, will have on hand licences to grant to any one, with conditions attached-that is sure to happen- they will enslave a whole nation to favour profiteers, political followers, they may even organize rackets worthy of the city of Chicago. That is where this section of exemption may lead us. While a friend is granted the privilege to squeeze a market, accumulate a fortune, his neighbour will not be permitted to market the fruit of his labours.

We shall surely see malignant, envious men, suing their neighbour through spite. Will not the country in which we live produce such a state of chaos, when the destinies of a whole nation are in the hands of one man, of a governor in council?

Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):

Are you opposed to the principle of the bill?