1. Is Edmond Desmarais, of Richmond, in the employ of the dominion government?

2. If so, since when and what salary does he receive?

3. What position does he occupy?

Mr. CAHAN:

I have inquired of each and every department of government at Ottawa and in each case I have received the reply that no person by the name of Edmond Desmarais is in the employ of that department. If the hon. gentleman could give me clearer indications of the department in which the person in question is presumed to be employed, I will make further inquiry.

1. Does the government intend, at an early date, to make a permanent appointment to the vacant position of collector of customs and excise for the port of Quebec?

2. What are the names of the applicants?

3. Have examinations been held for the said position?

4. If so: (a) on what date; (b) where; (c) who acted as examiner; (d) who were the candidates at such examinations?

Mr. BENNETT:

This question, I think, is one that should not be asked. It is covered by statutes of the country dealing with the civil service commission and appointments made thereby.

Question dropped.

1. What was the total amount expended by

the dominion government for seed grain advances in western Canada in the years 1918, 1919, and 1920?

2. How much of the said amount remains unpaid?

3. Is it possible for the government to accept less than the full amount of principal and interest due on the said seed grain advances?

4. Will the government insist upon the payment of the said seed grain advances?

Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :

When I previously spoke, in opening this debate, I expressed the hope that this bill would not be thrown into the realm of controversial partisan politics. I asked most sincerely for constructive suggestions with reference to the bill, suggestions that would improve it and make it more possible to effect the aim as set out in the title of the bill.

I should like to take this opportunity tc express most sincerely my appreciation of the conscientious and constructive suggestions that have been made by members on both sides of the house, which suggestions, in many instances, I believe will at least be of benefit to the measure. I left no doubt that there were great difficulties confronting the bill, and that the first year's experience with it would perhaps do more to perfect it than any further suggestions that might be made. I felt hon. members on both sides would agree that the fact that obstacles of various kinds stood in the way was not a sufficient reason why an honest attempt should not be made to solve some of these difficulties and overcome these obstacles, in order that the primary producer might reap a greater return for his efforts.

I think it is generally agreed, no matter on what points we may have differed in this debate, that there is a very great wastage in the present system of marketing primary products and that some effort should be made to avoid that wastage. I would say then, at the outset, especially because of misinterpretations that have occurred in connection with the bill, leading to the belief that established trade will be wiped out or interfered with, that this is the very opposite of the whole spirit that has led to the introduction of this bill. That means destruction, and destruction means further wastage; whereas the thing we are endeavouring to overcome is the wastage which we agree exists. Only those who have given a good deal of thought to the problems that I have mentioned and to a solution of them are really fitted to appreciate the great difficulties.

First let us consider this-and I shall not attempt to answer in each case the points made with which I disagree; I think it will save the time of the house if I do not traverse the ground I have already covered, but rather give my interpretation of the bill and at the same time, without dealing specifically with each objection taken, refer in a general way to the various types of objection taken by different members.

There are those who have stated that if our bill followed the pattern of the British

2736 COMMONS

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)

marketing act they would support it. I do not think any hon. member who understands the British marketing act and who has an appreciation of the difficulties with which we are confronted and that we are endeavouring to solve would say that that act is adaptable to any great extent to meet our problems. In the first place the territory involved there is very small in comparison with ours; the distance limitations are quite different and their agriculture itself is not nearly so diverse as ours, so that their problems are entirely different. Further, the problem to be solved there is to assist the primary industry of a country that is chiefly an importing one, whereas our primary industry is concerned greatly with the problem of exports and of properly regulating the flow of products abroad as well as to our domestic markets.

Further, they have one parliament, not ten as we have. They are not confronted, as we are, with the question of provincial rights and other problems that have arisen by reason of the British North America Act. One of the chief principles in the British marketing act is price fixing. In this country there is a great body -of opinion that is against price fixing including even some of those hon. members who spoke freely in favour of the British act. There is also in the British legislation provision for restricted production and I maintain that restricted production is not referred to in any particular in our bill. Therefore I say that for those reasons the British marketing act which is applied to meet different conditions and different problems arising out of those conditions does not adapt itself to any great extent to solve the problems confronting us. We have considered our problems and have endeavoured after study to produce a bill that, when passed, will enable us to set up machinery that we think will meet the peculiar needs and overcome the special difficulties with which we have to contend in Canada in the marketing of our primary products. In so far as certain principles that we have found it necessary to adopt are the same as those appearing in the British act, we have taken advantage of them because to a certain extent they have been tried out and been found successful.

The first difficulty that confronted us in attacking our problems was the limited jurisdiction of the. federal government as a result of provincial rights as laid down in the British North America Act. I think hon. members who will earnestly study the bill with a desire to see the best in it will agree with me that in it there is nothing that will conflict in any way with the British North America Act. The whole bill is based on a spirit of cooperation

to fill that need which I believe the great majority of the Canadian people feel, irrespective of the province in which they live, namely, to create a more economical system for marketing the products of our primary producers. In that connection, because of the flexibility that has been forced upon us in any bill we introduce, I believe we are sound in the first principle I have enunciated, I hope, more clearly than I evidently did when I last spoke,-namely, to put the power for the regulation of the marketing of the products of the primary producers into the hands of the primary producers themselves in so far as they give evidence that they are anxious to have that power to handle the regulation of the marketing of their own products as shown by the extent to which they are prepared to organize to do this. In this connection they may use their own cooperative organizations or established channels of trade. I believe there is in this country a great body of opinion in favour of cooperative marketing, while there are others who are in favour of marketing by what hds become known as private enterprise. In this regard I am reminded of a statement made by a noted Anglican divine of Toronto whose church I used to attend regularly when I was at the university, He was discussing the question of church bazaars. My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) says that I must be careful on this question. This Anglican divine said in reference to churoh bazaars that he did not believe the men of his congregation were any more anxious to be taken in in the name of the Lord than in any other way. I think many farmers and producers in this country are not particularly anxious who markets their products as long as they receive the greatest returns from them and the work is done efficiently. In connection with marketing I believe healthy competition is essential but there must be no monopoly.

The basis of this bill is that a representative body of producers will submit a scheme that they have carefully thought out and in which they are interested in a way that no one else is, for the marketing of their primary products. Some hon. members have suggested that if we had stated1 in the bill that there should 'be a poll and that if producers representing seventy-five per cent of the production voted in favour of a particular scheme and authority would be given for the other twenty-five per cent to be forced in, they would support the bill. Due to the different problems that we have in the marketing of primary products in Canada it is not possible to insert such a provision. For

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)

example, let us take one of the simplest of the primary products-apples. The problem of marketing apples in Nova Scotia is different from that in Ontario and also from that in British Columbia. In Nova Scotia for the crop year 1933-34 eighty-nine per cent of the apples were exported, so that their major problem is one of export. In Ontario only thirty-seven per cent of their apples were exported, so that their problem is chiefly a domestic one. In British Columbia some forty-seven per cent of their apples were exported; their problem therefore is pretty well divided 'between domestic and export marketing. That is one instance, but I could give a large number, showing why we do not consider that we should fix any limitation as to how this scheme shall be brought into effect, lest by such definition we should make it inadaptable to different conditions in regard to different products in different parts of the country. Further, it has been left open in order that bodies of producers may meet their provincial government, submit their scheme to them, and if the provincial government thinks well of the scheme and allows them to form a local board with the powers given in this bill, or perhaps with different powers, we can if necessary use that board as our agent under the Dominion Marketing Act. The basis of the bill is to put powers into the hands of the producers themselves, in so far as they indicate through their own organization that they wish it, and thus there will be no conflict with provincial rights. For these reasons I believe it is sound policy to leave the provisions as flexible as they are. Hon. members have suggested the possibility that the local board, to take the extreme case stated by one hon. member, might consist of a number of Chinese laundrymen. I do not know whether there is anything in our legislation setting up the railway commission to prevent Chinese laundrymen, if they were British subjects, from being appointed to it, and it is just as rational to expect that they would be appointed to it as to this board. The clause here is very clear; it has been referred to by so many members of the opposition that I think it well to read it. I quote section 5, subsection 5:

(5) Every scheme as approved shall state,

(g) the number of persons who shall comprise the local board and the basis of their selection.

That is, the group of producers in their scheme must state the nature of the board that is to handle the scheme that they propose. I know that in some branches of the industry they feel that the board should consist entirely of producers; others are very

decided that there should be producer representation, and representation from the trade that is vitally interested in the marketing of that product, and also that consumers should be represented. But the primary object of this bill is to give power to the producers even to the extent of recommending and setting out the manner in which the board is to be appointed.

The second principle of the bill is that power shall be taken to investigate the spread, using the term in the general and popular definition. What we have in mind is this. Here is a product and here is the consumer, and the cost of getting the product from the producer to the consumer is the spread. Therefore power is taken to ensure if necessaiy that there shall be no unfair profit taken, no unfair manipulation in this process that takes place, to increase unduly the cost between the time the product leaves the producer and the time it reaches the consumer. To meet that situation, if a small group of producers wish to organize solely for the production of the best quality product in uniform supply, they will be assured of that protection and of efficient marketing of their product. I do not think any hon. member can object to either of those two principles, namely, first, giving into the hands of the producer the power to handle his own product, and second, assuring for the protection of both producer and consumer that there shall not be any artificial manipulation by people who made no contribution either towards the production or towards the rational, honest marketing of the product.

Then in the third place we have taken power under this act to limit, if necessary, imports and exports. I do not think that any one can take objection to that. We have had instances which I would like to cite to the house, but because they are connected with individuals closely associated with members of the house I shall not do so. I shall be glad, however, to show to any hon. member a description, for instance, of one shipment of cattle to the old country within the last few months that had a very damaging effect on the reputation of our cattle. It is almost unbelievable that such a shipment should have been made. I feel that it would have been in the interest of the producer himself had he been prohibited from exporting them, and it certainly would have been a benefit to all other live stock producers of Canada who wished to avail themselves of the market for our cattle in the United Kingdom to take the best advantage of that market by sending their best quality products.

2738 COMMONS

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)

Certain amendments have been prepared that will be submitted in connection with this bill-

Oh, oh.

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

-not to change the principle of the bill in any way but to clarify certain points such as that referred to by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and I believe the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). It was my understanding that these matters were taken care of in the bill as it stands-I think I would have no difficulty in proving to anyone that they are- but it is felt advisable that this clarification should be made. The amendments are ready and will be brought down when the bill is before the committee.

I have dealt in a general way with the criticisms that have been levelled against the bill; first the objection that the producers lose control, that control is taken out of their hands and put into the hands of whoever may be appointed to the boards; second, the objection to the type of board that may be set up. I think one hon. member mentioned that it might consist of about fifteen old decrepit politicians. I could not help but be struck with the thought, when he was speaking, that he had in his mind a very definite picture of the man he thought capable of being chairman of this board if it were in his power to set it up. But I feel that his opportunity in that direction will be very slight. I believe he is better qualified, if I may use the illustration, to use a little pick to scratch the mortar out of a standing building, hoping it will fall down and be destroyed, rather than to take any constructive step in the erection of a building. As I have said before, the purpose of this bill is construction, not destruction, and I am sure hon. members will agree that people of that type should not look for any position on the board.

I have dealt so far with criticisms repeated by various hon. members opposite. I should like for the few minutes remaining at my disposal to deal with some specific criticisms raised by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). In fifteen different places in his speech he referred to the principle of this bill as being restriction of production. In one place he is very emphatic that that is the chief principle of the bill. I would not for an instant suggest that the right hon. gentleman did not in his own mind understand that to be a fundamental principle, but I maintain that nowhere in this bill is restriction of production mentioned. It is simply for the purpose of regulating the products going on the market. The right

hon. gentleman stated that producers had to be licensed. He spoke in favour of orderly marketing, and in his amendment put himself on record as favouring it. What orderly marketing could we have of any product in this country if we did not know the quantity of that product that was to be placed on the market in any given time? The only way in which that information can be obtained is for the producers to submit what they expect to produce, the acreage seeded, the number of head of live stock and so on. That work is done now by various branches of the agricultural industry that have approached us already with schemes they wish set up, under which they undertake to license producers of their own product for the very reason that it is impossible for this government to have any orderly marketing unless they have some knowledge of the volume of the product that is to come forward. That is their own suggestion.

In this connection I should like to say in passing that every branch of the industry that has approached us has asked only that it be allowed to stand on its own feet. But these are the branches already organized. They do not wish any money from the consolidated revenue fund, but there are other branches of the industry that are not so thoroughly organized, and we feel that it is necessary, in order to tide them over until they can organize for orderly marketing, to insert some provision in this bill so that such branches may be looked after in the meantime. That is the only reason for that provision in the bill to which a number of hon. members have objected. Many branches of the industry are so upset that they are not in a position to organize at once, perhaps because of the number of people involved or the area covered by that particular branch, and those branches are in the greatest need of assistance. We also feel that conditions may arise in the future, as they have arisen in the past, which will make it highly desirable for us to extend sufficient assistance, under the powers we have taken by this bill, in the marketing of that particular product in order to make such marketing profitable where otherwise it would be conducted at a loss. That is one of the chief reasons why some of the power taken under this bill may seem excessive though I do not consider that power excessive at all. We are simply applying what are recognized as sound principles in successful enterprise in this country.

The least that we as a government and as

members of parliament, irrespective of party, can do is to use the resources of the country

Marketing Act-Mr. Weir (Meljort)

tvhere necessary to assist the primary producers. In that connection I would say that if any persons attempted, by means of the machinery set up under this bill, to revolutionize the entire marketing system of the dominion in a month, in six months or in a year, undoubtedly they would do a great deal more harm than good, but we do feel that it is necessary to have this power, which will be used as any sane man would use it and as we, in our heart of hearts, all agree that it should be used, irrespective of the opposition that has been raised.

A further argument used by the right hon. leader of the opposition was that this bill took away the rights of parliament, that there was too much compulsion in it, and in his amendment he stated that he was unalterably opposed to compulsory legislation. I think perhaps the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has answered that argument in a better way than I could answer it, and in a way which must impress the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Melville cited the compulsion that was necessary to enforce the policy in regard to bovine tuberculosis and the testing of cattle. I think there was almost civil war in Nova Scotia when that policy was first enforced, but now there are no further complaints wherever it is applied. I believe it is one of the most constructive policies we have ever had in connection with our live stock industry. I believe the hon. member for Melville stated further that they had proceeded even without order in council to prevent cattle from being shipped out of this country.

Hon. members on this side of the house have spoken at length and have cited the legislation of a compulsory nature introduced by the right hon. gentleman when he was in power. One cannot but feel that this objection or criticism was raised not from the standpoint of merit but rather for effect. The right hon. gentleman referred to the Magna Charta and said that this bill affected the rights received by the people under the provisions of the Magna Charta. I am sure I was not the only hon. member in the house who wondered, when the right hon. gentleman made that statement, if he could have been transported, with the attitude of mind that he has exhibited towards this bill, back to Runnymede on that fine May day in 1215, whether he would have been on the side of the barons or on the side of the king. The barons were spreading authority; they were delegating it to a place where it never had been delegated before. Further in this connection I might ask the right hon. gentleman if there ever has been a session of parliament in Canada since confederation during which parliament did not delegate authority to bodies outside parliament.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that while this bill is a long way from being perfect-

Hear, hear

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

I greatly appreciate the fact that only two hon. gentlemen opposite applauded that remark; it is the highest compliment that could be paid to the intelligence exhibited across the way. This bill can be perfected only through experience and the overcoming of obstacles, which will indicate what changes should be made in the bill.

I close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, with a further appeal for constructive suggestion when the bill is in committee. I had thought, following the suggestion of hon. members of different parties, that it might be well to refer this bill to the agriculture committee or to a subcommittee of that committee, but as time is the chief essence, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has put himself on record as being unalterably opposed to it, and as it has been stated that the official opposition will fight this bill to the last ditch, I feel- and I regret it-that there would be little gain in wasting the time of any committee if the bill is to be fought out in the house clause by clause and phrase by phrase.