Mr. SPEAKER:

When shall the said bill be read the third time?

Mr. DUNNING:

With the consent of the house I should like to move the third reading now by unanimous consent. That would enable the bill to go to the Senate and if passed there, to the various provincial legislatures which are sitting at the present time.

Mr. GARDINER:

Mr. Chairman, the

present Feeding Stuffs Act which the bill founded on this resolution is intended to replace has been in effect without amendment, except with regard to wheat by-products, since 1921. The purpose of this measure is to provide for the control of additional feed products; to require guarantees suited to the

different kinds of feed products now on the market; and to facilitate enforcement, and to consolidate and clarify the wording of the act where necessary or advisable.

It will be apparent to members of the committee that during the years since 1921 there have been a number of new feed stuffs for feeding animals placed upon the market, and it is intended to bring the act up to date. For the benefit of the committee I may say that when this bill is given second reading it is my intention to have it sent to a committee, in order that those interested may appear and make representations in connection with any changes that may be proposed. Therefore I would suggest that it might not be necessary to enter into any detailed discussion of the measure at this stage.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am very seriously concerned about our power to enact legislation founded upon such a resolution, in view of the recent decisions of the court of last resort. It will be observed that we are selecting one article of commerce, namely, feeding stuffs. It will be observed that we propose to control and regulate (a) the importation, (b) the exportation and (c) the sale, and other dealings therewith. If the judgment to which I refer has any value at all it has the effect of saying that any attempt on the part of this parliament to regulate the sale would be an invalid exercise of our powers. I am not going to use technical language; I am speaking broadly and generally at the moment.

Further, these means are to be accomplished by registration and inspection. It will be recalled that the court said that it made no difference what method was used; if the purpose sought was what is sought here, then it was not a valid exercise of power by parliament to attempt to do it. The imposition of registration fees, and the authority given the minister to appoint officers and so on, are supplementary matters.

I am not going to raise the issue in any sense beyond directing attention to it at the moment. Perhaps a bill might be introduced based on this resolution, without prejudice to any position which may be taken subsequently; then the bill might be given first reading tonight and stand for second reading as soon as convenient thereafter. In the meantime I merely direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the matter, for what it may be worth, because these words in the form in which they are now used, having regard to the language employed by the privy council, would seem to me to indicate a contemplated

Seeds

measure that would be beyond the jurisdiction of this parliament to enact. I say that regretfully, because I should like to see this parliament have that power.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I think

that was the reference on which there was a unanimous decision.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, against us.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Quite so.

Mr. BENNETT:

As a matter of fact, since the minister has mentioned it, that is the one I am least able to understand. Had this arisen through a concrete case I say to the minister frankly that I think the judgment might have been different, because that measure provided that there should be cooperation. The minister will remember that in the Crystal Dairy case the privy council said British Columbia could not impose fees that, according to the privy council, amounted to the exercise of the taxing power in an indirect manner, which was beyond their jurisdiction. The marketing act, to which reference was made by the minister just now, certainly shared the fate of previous acts, but on the ground that in this instance it was the exercise by this parliament of powers that belonged to the province. As I say, I can hardly reconcile that. But without going into the matter at any length, I think ample opportunity to look into it will be afforded after the bill has been printed and second reading given, since the bill is to go to a committee, which appears to me to be a very proper course to pursue with respect to a matter of this kind.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64. to control and regulate the sale of feeding stuffs.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. GARDINER:

Mr. Chairman, I think probably the comment that was made by the leader of the opposition with regard to the last bill would apply here also. The purpose of the proposed bill is to amend and consolidate the Seeds Act, in the light of the experience gained in the administration of that act and the merchandising of seeds over a period of thirteen years. The act has been on the statute books for thirteen years. We have gathered certain experience from the administration of it, and think there should be amendments to it. It is mostly a consolidation of amendments which have been made during that period of time.

I intend to make the same suggestion with regard to this measure, that it be sent to the committee on agriculture, in order that those representing seed houses and producers of seed may appear before the committee and make their representations. I would therefore suggest that the resolution be passed and that the bill based upon it be read a first time, with the understanding that the whole matter will be open for discussion at a later stage.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, it will be observed that there is some slight difference between the two resolutions. The resolution dealing with seeds does not purport to control. That dealing with feeding stuffs does undertake to control as well as to regulate. Of course, there has been held to be a substantial difference between the use of the words control and regulate.

The word which I believe should be given special consideration in the resolution is the word "sale." I would not go to the trouble of mentioning it now, were it not for the fact that possibly the law officers of the crown may desire to look into the matter with care. I direct the attention of the house to the word " sale " because a decision of the court of last resort apparently is to the effect that sale is a matter which is regulated by the law of the province, dealing as it does with property and civil rights. It would seem to me, indeed, difficult to indicate under what branch of section 91 of our constitution this legislative power is conferred upon the parliament of Canada. Our claim that it came within property and civil rights fails, because the court has reasserted the view that we cannot consider a specific article of trade and commerce when we are dealing with a question of regulation.

Questions

With respect to sale, I have already indicated the extreme view taken by the court in recent cases. I certainly think, however, that this parliament has complete power to deal with questions of importation. Obviously that power is exercised and has been exercised every day. But the other questions which arise are not so free from doubt.

I believe the suggested method of dealing with the measure is to be commended. The bill could - be read a first time and then after it has been given second reading-which probably would have to be without prejudice to the position which might develop after the discussion in committee as to its legality -it could be referred to the appropriate committee. Do I understand it is to be referred to a special committee or the standing committee on agriculture.

Mr. GARDINER:

The understanding is to refer them both to the standing committee on agriculture.

Mr. STEWART:

I notice the resolution proposes to appoint officers. How are they appointed under the existing legislation? Is

it by the minister or by the civil service commission?

Mr. GARDINER:

Speaking offhand I

believe it is now by the minister, but I would not be certain.

Mr. STEWART:

I do not think so.

Mr. GARDINER:

That is a matter which can be discussed.