Mr. Gardiner:

That provision is now in

the law, that we can prohibit the importation of substitutes for butter or the movement of substitutes from one province to another. That is necessary because of the fact that at the moment Quebec and Prince Edward Island prohibit the manufacture and sale of substitutes. This gives us authority to enforce the wishes of the various provinces in that regard.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I am very sorry this

bill has been brought in. Representing an important rural dairy riding I came to the chamber in such a hurry that I forgot my glasses and have had to send for them. I presume a draft of this bill has been sent to the ministers of agriculture of the various provinces. Perhaps I should be abrupt and come right to the point. Is this going to facilitate in any shape or form the increased production of an imitation of a natural dairy product, such as margarine? In particular, will it in any way facilitate the importation of this product or any of its ingredients from other countries?

Mr. Gardiner:

The bill does not change

the position in any way in relation to the importation of substitutes. Margarine has never been mentioned as a product either in this bill or in the act. The term used is "substitutes for butter", and substitutes are in exactly the same position as before, in that they could not be imported into Canada. There is other legislation dealing with imports which makes more specific provision, but so far as this act is concerned there is no change in that regard. This act has to do with the decision made first by the Supreme Court of Canada and then by the privy council to the effect that this parliament has no authority to prohibit the manufacture and sale within the provinces of substitutes for butter. That is an authority which rests with the provinces. All we have done is to take out those parts on which we had no

authority in the first place; and if the provinces desire to pass them, they may do so. The province of Quebec has already done so, and so has Prince Edward Island. The other provinces can do the same thing if they so desire.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I am glad to see that

others are coming to the defence of the dairy industry. Will this give the provinces the right, if they so desire or decide, to take the action the province of Quebec has already taken?

Mr. Gardiner:

The supreme court and the

privy council have decided they have that right. This measure does not say anything about it; but they have the right under the constitution.

Mr. Cruickshank:

Exactly what is this

measure for, if it is not going to protect the dairymen?

Mr. Gardiner:

It does protect the dairymen to the extent that it makes it possible to exclude the importation of these products.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I am sorry to carry the

discussion further, but from what the minister has said, my understanding is that it does permit the exclusion of the importation of these so-called substitutes for natural butter; is that correct?

Mr. Gardiner:

Yes, the bill as it is drafted does that.

Mr. Cruickshank:

You say it does that?

Mr. Gardiner:

Yes.

Mr. Hunter:

Would the minister explain the constitutional aspect of trading between the provinces? If shipments of margarine can be prevented from, let us say, Ontario to British Columbia, there must be some trade barrier which can be created by regulation.

Mr. Gardiner:

I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it is my understanding that that question was settled some years ago in connection with shipments of liquor from one province to another, and that there are certain set conditions under which it can or cannot be done. The same principle applies in this instance.

Mr. Hunter:

May I suggest that the same principle would not be effective? Shipments of liquor from one province to another is prohibited by provincial law. In this instance we are endeavouring to state in a federal law what a province can do. While I am not prepared to say that I am a great constitutional lawyer, it does strike me that in this measure we are putting up barriers between provinces, and possibly doing so without proper jurisdiction.

Canada Dairy Products Act

Mr. Gardiner:

It would only be where a province has taken action that we would take action under this legislation.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I understand that the proper law officers have approved this bill. However, for forty years the dairymen of Canada were protected, as I understood it, by legislation similar to this. Then, out of the blue, the privy council said that the dairymen should not be further protected. Has this legislation been referred to the supreme court for its decision?

Mr. Gardiner:

This legislation has been before the law officers, and has been drafted in the light of the decision made by the privy council. As I understand it, all the privy council said in connection with this matter was that we had no right to say that a substitute for butter could not be manufactured in a province and sold in a province. They have said we had no right to say it-and for exactly the same reasons as I gave a moment ago, that we have no right to interfere with the grading of butter in a creamery in Ontario. That is a matter for Ontario. It is only when there is shipment of a product from one province to another or from this country to another country that we have anything to do with it. That latter power is all left with us; this bill still provides for our doing what we did under that power before.

Mr. Cruickshank:

One more question; quite frankly I am very careful about any bill affecting the dairymen, after the deal they got in the last two or three years through a decision of some people over in England who knew nothing at all about farming in Canada. If any provincial department of agriculture tests this bill, will it be referred to the supreme court for decision?

Mr. Gardiner:

My understanding is that if any provincial government desires to prevent the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within its own province, it has the right to do so, in accordance with the decision of the privy council and also the decision of our own supreme court before the case was taken to the privy council. Any province that desires to stop it can stop it. As I said a moment ago, Quebec and Prince Edward Island have already done so. The other provinces may do so if they so desire.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I know this bill must have been designed to protect the dairymen, but I must say I am sceptical, because the dairymen got a dirty deal through the decision in England. This bill apparently has not been, submitted to the dairymen in the provinces, and certainly it has not been submitted

4684 HOUSE OF COMMONS

Canada Dairy Products Act

to members of the House of Commons repre- The same procedure is open, so long as senting dairying constituencies. If the there is an appeal to the privy council; it department of agriculture in any province can be taken there by anyone who objects to takes exception to the legality of the bill, the legislation and thinks it is not intra vires, will it be submitted to the supreme court A province or, indeed, anyone else, can do for decision? that. But there is no occasion to submit it