May 8, 1934

UFA

Michael Luchkovich

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

Notwithstanding

everything that has been said with regard to the curtailment of liberty and constitutionalism by the provisions of this bill, I have come to the conclusion that the protagonists of liberty and constitutionalism have laboured very hard to produce an argument only to give birth to a squeaky constitutional mouse.

Topic:   MARKETING ACT
Subtopic:   ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Is my hon. friend referring to himself?

Topic:   MARKETING ACT
Subtopic:   ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS
Permalink
UFA

Michael Luchkovich

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

The leader of the opposition asks me if I am referring to myself when I speak of liberty-

Topic:   MARKETING ACT
Subtopic:   ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Not liberty.

Topic:   MARKETING ACT
Subtopic:   ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS
Permalink
UFA

Michael Luchkovich

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:

Well, then by the assumption of his parentage to myself the leader of the opposition is neither logical nor natural. When I spoke of the squeaky constitutional mouse I was referring to the squeaky constitutional mouse which he produced when he spoke for two hours the other day. On more than one occasion the leader of the opposition has said that base money drives

out good money. If the wheat pool was not one hundred per cent successful I think the reason was the forty-five or fifty per cent who refused to join. If the farmers had joined the wheat pool one hundred per cent I do not think there would have been any argument as to its success. The hon. member for West Lambton was asked by the Minister of Agriculture how we could have orderly marketing without some degree of compulsion. He said that he did not say he was in favour of orderly marketing, that he was in favour of cooperative marketing. How in the world can you have cooperative marketing without orderly marketing? The hon. member is absolutely inconsistent in that position. I am not averse to some form of compulsion. It is not possible to have a marketing bill, whether that bill be introduced by the member for Melfort or by the member for Melville, without embodying in it a measure of compulsion. In my opinion the only liberty that is being interfered with here is the liberty of small-minorities to oppress and enslave the community as a whole; there is no question in my mind about that. Liberty is really the greatest good of the greatest number.

Reference has been made to-day to the system of education in this country, and it has been said that we have a good system owing to the past policies of the Liberal government. Well, I have been educated in schools directed by ministers of education who were both Democratic and Republican, Conservative and Liberal, and I think that the courses in education which have been carried on in this country have been fairly well conducted whether under one government or the other. But there is a phase of the system of education which I would bring to the attention of the house and that is compulsion- compulsory education. I was a teacher once, and I know that in the Education Act there is a section which makes it compulsory for all children between the ages of seven and fifteen to attend school. Parents by the dozen have often come and asked me to allow their children to stay at home during the harvest or at other times for five or six weeks, and some have stayed at home in spite of the fact that I wanted them to attend. The result was that the Department of Education had them up before a justice of the peace and they were obliged to pay a fine. And this is done whether the Minister of Education is Liberal or Conservative or United Farmer. I do not think that these arguments in regard to liberty have anything at all to do with this bill. When hon. members bring up this ques-

Marketing Act

tion of liberty and constitutionalism they remind me of a man sweating very hard to drive an ordinary carpet tack with a sledge hammer or, to use a biblical metaphor, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. Undoubtedly the principle involved in this bill is a worthy one and I am quite sure that the farmers of the west, if not all of them at any rate the great majority, are absolutely in favour of that principle, namely, orderly marketing.

Topic:   MARKETING ACT
Subtopic:   ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS
Permalink
IND

Angus MacInnis

Independent Labour

Mr. MacINNIS:

I listened with much interest to the remarks of the hon. member for St. James, who is not now in his place. The hon. gentleman must have had his ear to the ground; apparently he has realized that the opposition is making a grave mistake in opposing the bill. He very adroitly suggested that they ought to withdraw their opposition and allow the bill to pass. It was exceedingly clever and I compliment him. He even went so far as to intimate, if I understood him, that he would support the bill himself.

I do not know what the attitude of farmers in other parts of Canada may be towards compulsory marketing, but I am satisfied that so far as British Columbia is concerned the dairy farmers and the fruit growers are heartily in favour of a compulsory marketing organization. I think it was in 1926 that the milk producers of the Fraser valley first approached the government of British Columbia for a dairy produce marketing act. Their bill was turned down on that occasion, and again in 1927 they approached the government with a similar measure. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre was a member of the legislature at the time. They did not pass the bill on that occasion but appointed a commission to investigate the milk producer situation in that province, and that committee reported unanimously in favour of a bill for compulsory marketing and pooling of profits, with the result that the following year, in 1928 or 1929, the legislation was given effect to. However, like all our marketing legislation in Canada-that is, all provincial legislation-it was taken to the courts by a minority who did not wish to come under the bill and that legislation was declared ultra vires. The same happened with the efforts of the fruit growers in regard to their affairs. Last year in the Okanagan the fruit growers, without any legislation at all, took matters in their own hands and by sheer force compelled cooperative marketing.

So far as British Columbia is concerned, some form of compulsory marketing legislation is essential and they must have it. Whether this bill goes far enough or too far I

do not know, but I think it would be much better for us to take up the various sections and either allow the government to amend them as we come to them or propose amendments ourselves, as private members, with regard to provisions that are obnoxious to us.

When I hear hon. members talking about individual liberty-well, I was going to say that it gives me a pain in the neck, but that might not be parliamentary. The member for Weyburn says that the farmer should be allowed to cultivate his land in whatever way he likes and to sell his products wherever he likes. But suppose he wished to cultivate it so that it grew nothing but weeds; would the hon. member agree that this was right in relation to the farmer's neighbour? If the state has a right to say that the farmer must not grow weeds on his land, then it has a right to say that he must grow other things and that he must not do certain things that are detrimental to his neighbours. And he may be doing something just as detrimental to other farmers through his marketing policies as in his methods of cultivation. And when I hear Liberals from Quebec talking about liberty, I would ask them-did they ever hear about Bill 28, which compels every organization which proposes to call a public meeting, and issues notice, to obtain the approval of the police before the notice is posted? Of course, that is aimed at people with whose opinions we do not agree, and for that reason I suppose it is all right.

Mr. DUPUIS; May I ask the hon. member whether he knows the difference between liberty and licence?

Mr. MacINNIS; Yes, I know it quite well. Liberty is allowing people to do anything they wish to do in so far as it does not interfere with the welfare of others, in so far as it does not prejudice the interests of the community. I am quite clear with regard to the difference. But my hon. friend will not say that it was licence to call a public meeting, and issue notices with regard to that meeting, without having to hand that notice to the police to see whether they would allow the meeting to be held or not.

Last year Dean Clement of the University of British Columbia was asked to make a report on the fruit marketing situation in that province and this is part of his report. He said:

Dean Clement claims that ten times too many men are making a living between the growers and the consumers and says several large wealthy jobbing firms are trying to drive *wedges into the fruit industry in an effort to gain or retain control. Growers are urgml

Questions

sticky together and it is stated that the only solution to the present difficulties is one hundred per cent grower control.

You cannot have one hundred per cent fruit growers' control without some compulsion. Our Liberal friends are great on liberty. I am reminded of an item I read in a book by H. N. Brailsford that came out a few years ago, and I am going to quote it in conclusion. This is what he says:

A network of parties, trading associations and newspapers is engaged in propagating this belief in the efficacy of competition. It is instilled into us with such persistency that it avails with the majority to counteract the evidence of daily experience. There are still millions who listen with acquiescence to the defence of the competitive system by the Liberal press and the Liberal party. Yet they must know that this press is mainly, and this party largely, financed by captains of industry who long ago discarded unrestricted competition. In the making of thread and soap, cocoa and chemicals, the great Liberal industrialists have found a more excellent way. In their own business _ they practice combination, but they still maintain an expensive organization to sustain our belief in the virtues of competition. It is an intelligible form of insurance.

Yes, it is an intelligible form of insurance. For the good of the farmers of the dominion we had better get down to this bill, deal with it clause by clause, bring forward our amendments and then, after it is amended, if it is what we would like it to be, let us vote for it when it comes up for third reading.

Progress reported.

Topic:   MARKETING ACT
Subtopic:   ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE METHODS AND PRACTICES IN MARKETING NATURAL PRODUCTS
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ASCENSION DAY ADJOURNMENT

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

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

In 1912 the house was in recess

on Ascension Day. In 1913 and 1914 it did not sit on that day. In 1915 and 1916 it was in recess. My information is that on Ascension Day there was no sitting in 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 or 1926. In 1927 the house was in recess. In 1928 and 1929 there was no sitting. In 1930 the house sat on May 29. In 1931 the house sat on Ascension Day, and it will be recalled that there was some protest against its sitting. In 1932 it did not sit, and last year we sat in order that the business might be concluded so that I might attend the conference in London. Under these circumstances my intention is to move to-morrow that when the house adjourns to-morrow, it stand adjourned until Friday at three o'clock.

On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 1056 p.m.

Wednesday, May 9, 1934

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   ASCENSION DAY ADJOURNMENT
Permalink

May 8, 1934