Mr. RALSTON:

The right hon. gentleman skated around it in every way he could. He has been talking about the markets being closed-oh yes, the markets have been closed. I ask him if he has not closed the markets himself. He talks about having only one market. What could work more towards that than to have my right hon. friend pegging the duty on one hundred and thirty-nine articles in the tariff schedule? He has made it impossible to make trade agreements with other countries because he has agreed with Great Britain that the duties should remain fixed for five years. I say to my right hon. friend all he has to do to find out whether or not the market was closed when he came into power is to study the returns of exports and imports to countries other than Great Britain, and compare them with to-day's returns. If he would do that he would find out who has closed the market.

But has he dealt with the feature that I felt and I believe all of us felt was the most important in connection with this legislation? He has dealt with the constitutional aspect of the matter. He has laid down a new principle. I saw some of his supporters gasp when he suggested that in this country a man is violating the law of Canada when he sells his goods lower than his neighbour does. That is not to be done after this. My right hon. friend says that that is the law of Canada, and that all we are doing is to put it into

Marketing Act-Mr. Ralston

this legislation. Well, some of my friends who are dealing in coal, lumber, steel, or gasoline may approach my right hon. friend after this session and say to him, "Say, look here, is this true, or were you just spoofing?" I say to my right hon. friend he knows perfectly well that he went a bit too far when he laid down the principle involved in the old case of Rylands and Fletcher, which instances the bringing of a wild beast on your own property and being responsible for keeping it there and liable for any damage which it does if it escapes. I ask the right hon. gentleman if that case could possibly have anything to do with the question whether or not a farmer has the right to sell his potatoes for twenty or thirty cents a bushel, despite the fact that his neighbour may wish to get forty or fifty cents. That is a new doctrine which is laid down by the right hon. gentleman; certainly it is a new doctrine in this country. It is a new doctrine laid down by a man who is a good constitutional and commercial lawyer. But I submit he goes a bit too far when he Jays that down as the law of this country. Now he says, "After all, we must see to it that one man is not going to damage the other in connection with the sale of his goods, and we are bringing in a marketing bill for that purpose."

The right hon. gentleman does not quite correctly reflect the views which have been expressed from this side of the house when he says that there is opposition to this bill per se. The opposition to the bill was laid down in the amendment moved yesterday afternoon by my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The opposition to the bill is against giving arbitrary power to an unnamed board to make laws without reference to parliament. Further than that, there is given to the same board, or to the governor in council, the power to regulate the whole export and import trade of the Dominion of Canada. That is something with which he did not deal; and we say also that there is no protection for consumers. The right hon. gentleman has gone all over the case of Hodge and the Queen, and the Apollo Candle case from Australia has been the subject of a great part of his speech. He talked a lot about imperialism, endeavouring to deny, and denying rather faintly, that he had the object in mind with which my right hon. leader charged him. But he said nothing whatever with regard to the fundamental objections to this bill which are dealt with in the amendment. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister strangely enough did not even speak on the amendment. He never said a word on it by way of

answering the objections which had been raised by my right hon. leader. No; he reserved his speech for the third reading because he felt that if he spoke on the amendment he would have to meet those very points. It was a good deal easier to talk about Hodge and the Queen, about the Apollo Candle case, about the Grain Act and the Elevator Act, and the Inland Water Freight Rates Act, and things of that sort than to deal with the essentials. Oh yes, and he paid a wonderful tribute to Samuel Plimsoll, of the dear old loadline, to the memory of that fine old Englishman and what he did. One would have thought we had not had in this country either under Conservative or Liberal administration any of the social legislation which has been put on the statute books of this country, and which has been there for twenty or thirty or forty years- the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Combines Act, the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, the Old Age Pensions Act. These aro all on the statute books at the present time and have been for years-all liberal measures too. But my right hon. friend has forgotten all about these things. He thinks that we are still in those black days before the time of Shaftesbury.

I say to my right hon. friend, let us get down to what this bill is really about. Let us get down to the essentials with which my right hon. friend has not dealt. My right hon. friend says that individualism is gone in this country and that an individual cannot exercise his individual liberty, but that for the first time a group of men who are in business have a right to exercise their majority control just as majority control is exercised under the British North America Act and under the acts of the parliament of Canada whereby a majority of voters may send members to parliament. There is no comparison between the two, and my right hon. friend knows it. He knows that the right of majority representation in the House of Commons, as in the parliaments of other countries, has been sacred with us for many years, and he knows also that side by side with that the individual has the right of an individual to carry on his occupation lawfully and properly and to enjoy the fruits of that occupation-that that right is just as sacred as the right of the franchise.

What we are endeavouring to do-let us get down to fundamentals-is to reconcile the two major factors in human activities. One, individualism; not selfish greed, but the right of a man to have the joy of achieving and the exhilaration of accomplishment in con-

37TS

Marketing Act-Mr. Ralston

nection with his daily occupation. That right carries with it not only the joy of achievement but the right to earn something for his work, to get remuneration for his labour. Generally I think it is true that three-fourths of the people of this world do not ask for profits for their own individual selves, but rather that they may support their families and look after those for whom they have responsibility in life, and make some provision for their old age so that they will be independent of charity and the poor house. That is individualism. Is there anything wrong about it? We have heard to-night for the first time that a man has no right to dispose of his goods or services or to do anything which may cut under the price which his neighbour wants to get for his goods or services. That is on the one side.

What is on the other? The other factor is cooperation, namefy, that a man living in society has to have in mind another consideration. He must be fair to the other fellow. We are in society with that in mind, whether we admit it or not. It has been very properly said that the laws that are passed from time to time are restraints on human liberty, but up to the time my right hon. friend spoke a man had a right to do what he liked with his property, to do what he liked so long as he did not injure his neighbour; but my right hon. friend has laid down a new doctrine to-night.

Cooperation, then, is the other thing. As to what my right hon. friend is aiming at in this bill and what we on this side express in the amendment moved by my right hon. leader, we are perfectly willing to follow him in the matter of cooperation and in endeavouring to help individuals get together and express their collective will, subject to the provisos that I shall mention in a moment.

But what do we find in this bill? Where is individualism in this bill? Section 5 lays down that a group of men get together and form a scheme, as they call it, for the purpose of marketing their product. So far so good The individual is represented. He has to consent to that scheme. They get together, they lay down the scheme. What should come next in the ordinary course of things if the principle which the Prime Minister lays down is correct? They should publish that scheme and there should be a hearing on it, in order that they may see to it that their neighbours who are not in the scheme are not going to be injured by it. Is that done in this bill? It is not. But that would be cooperation. Is that done in Britain, whose legislation we are supposed to

be following in this measure. It is provided in the British act that when the producers get together and lay down their scheme and submit it to the minister, he goes over it and advertises a public hearing so that those who may be affected by it, not only those in the particular industry concerned but those outside, may be heard in connection with it.

What else? In addition to that there is a consumer as well as a producer, and in the British act provision is made for the appointment of a committee representing the consumer. Is there any provision in this bill for that? None at all. My right hon. friend at one time was particularly strong on this question of the consumer. He pointed out that the consumer should be looked after, and that any legislation which was for the benefit of the producer and against the consumer was not right. This is what he said, speaking at Moncton on July 11, 1930, in that celebrated election campaign when my right hon. friend said a good many things that I think he now wishes he had not said:

For it should never be forgotten that the solution of the particular problems of one community which does not directly or indirectly benefit all other communities, is not a solution worth having. The prosperity of one section of Canada at the expense of another cannot be enduring. The betterment of one class with loss to any other, cannot be permitted. So, when a government, to meet the insistent demands of any section, or class or business, enacts legislation which is harmful to any other, that is bad government.

And listen to this:

If, to help the industrialist, the agriculturist is injured, that is bad government. If to benefit the producer the consumer is made to suffer, that is bad government. For the consumer must not suffer and cannot suffer without injury to the producer.

Does my hon. friend adopt that policy in this bill?

Mr. BENNETT:

Hear, hear.

Mr. RALSTON:

Has he proposed anywhere in this bill that the consumer is to be protected? Is the consumer mentioned from beginning to end of this bill? Are any of the safeguards which are contained in the British act. for the appointment of a consumers' committee as a sort of king's proctor to represent the consumers found in this bill? They are absolutely wanting in this piece of legislation. That is section 5.

The scheme goes to the minister. The minister decides whether those who present the scheme are sufficiently representative of the industry. If he decides that they are sufficiently representative of the industry then the scheme is approved and a poll is taken as

Marketing Act-Mr. Ralston

provided in the act, and that is the end of it. The scheme is in force. As my right hon. leader pointed out yesterday, the law is made there and then. It is not merely a matter of regulation. The law is passed which decides whether John Smith shall export his fish, it may be, under a quota, allowing so many thousand pounds to be exported from some particular locality or to some particular market at a certain time, or whether some other man may export and sell his potatoes in another province under certain regulations which will permit perhaps only one-tenth or one-fifth or one-twentieth of his whole supply to be sold. Or perhaps provision is made whereby the local board can say to any producer in that particular area: You hold your fish, you hbld your potatoes or you hold the natural product in which you are dealing, we are going to allow somebody else to sell his product while your products shall wait. That becomes the law and not just a regulation. For the first time in the history of this country we are interfering directly and definitely with the rights of the producers of these goods. Has my right 'hon. friend realized that in this bill he is making a law which is directly contrary to the provisions of the combines act? Is there any provision in this bill which repeals the combines act? That act says that any man who makes an agreement or enters into an arrangement-

Mr. HACKETT:

Which is harmful.

Mr. RALSTON:

My hon. friend can keep on if he wants to,

which is detrimental to the consumer or to the producer or to anyone else, is guilty of an offence under the act. This scheme may be detrimental to the consumers, but is there any provision to take care of that? It is directly contrary to the combines act. Section 498 of the criminal code makes it a crime to combine in connection with the production, the marketing or the handling of goods in order to enhance the price or unduly to restrict production or marketing. I am not quoting the exact words; I have them here but I shall not take the time to read them. This bill is in a directly opposite direction, and my right hon. friend makes no provision whatever to take care of the anomalous situation.

Let that pass: we have a scheme approved and we have a law in force. The minister has approved the scheme and we are away. As the hon. members for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) pointed out this afternoon, there may be a certain proportion of the producers who

would not consent to the scheme but nevertheless they are bound by it. I say exactly what he said about that. Without the safeguards which are contained in the British act, there may be a time when a small majority shall be forced to do certain things. We should have those safeguards and not simply have a scheme presented by a group of producers, carried to the minister without any hearing of any kind, and made the law of the land.

Mr. NF.ILL: My principal objection was that it might be possible to have a scheme proposed and accepted by only those concerned in marketing and not the producers.

Mr. RALSTON:

As has been pointed out, the British act goes further and provides that before a marketing scheme can be effective it must be laid 'before parliament and approved by parliament. There is nothing of that kind here. My right hon. friend skated over it and cited Hodge vs. the Queen. He said: Any way we have the power to do it. We are not talking about the power to do it; we are talking about the policy and whether it is right to do it. My right hon. friend cannot seem to get that into his mind, or, if he does, he omits to notice it in any way. In England parliament passes on the scheme; after a resolution has been passed not only by the House of Commons but by the House of Lords, the scheme becomes law.

Let me pause here to emphasize the fact that that act was passed in England in 1931; it was not a deathbed act, like this one, passed in 1934. That act was amended in 1933, when it was practically reenacted, but not a section with regard to the safeguards to which I have referred was changed. They have been kept in the British act and they are all there to-day. With that example before him, my right hon. friend still says that this bill should be put into effect. In England you have the majority rule my right hon. friend speaks about, but here you have no hearing, no publicity, no approval by parliament and no protection of the consumer as you have in England.

There is another thing which I do not think has been quite realized and it certainly has not been dealt with by my right hon. friend. I refer to what I call the compulsory features of this act. My right hon. friend skated over the powers of the dominion board. He stated that those powers were given only for the purpose of being used on occasions of emergency or in connection with international matters. I want my right hon. friend to look at the bill and see the powers conferred on the

Marketing Act-Mr. Ralston

dominion board under section 4. Under that section the dominion board requires no approval of any kind for a scheme. All that is required is that a product must have become a regulated product, that is, that there has been a scheme approved by the producers or that the minister has approved a scheme. Then the dominion board has jurisdiction. The dominion board may grant to the local board the power to regulate the marketing of a certain product, but at the same time the dominion board may exercise the power to prohibit entirely the marketing of that very product. A producer goes into a scheme because under section 5 (c) he is able to designate the powers which should be given to his local board; so that the producer consenting to the scheme knows just exactly what powers the local board will have. Under subsections (g) and (h) the scheme states the number of persons who shall comprise the local board and the basis of their selection, the name and number of the local board, the place and address of the head office, the chief executive officers, the quorum required to approve any order or resolution, and how vacancies are to be filled. In other words, the producers are entitled to select their own board and to say what powers that board shall have. A scheme having those particulars once being approved, a regulated product comes into being. Then what happens? As I said a minute ago, the dominion board may exercise any powers it likes of those mentioned in section 4 without any reference whatever to the producer. A man may go into a scheme thinking that John Smith, Bill Jones and Harry Thomas, who are his neighbours, are to be on the local board and are to have the power to regulate the marketing of his product. He may then wake up and find that the dominion board has stepped in and Nickerson, McLelland and McDonald up in Ottawa are suddenly handling his product and exercising powers which he never thought would be exercised in connection with his product. Subsection 2 of section 4 provides that the dominion board may withdraw from the local board every power which has been given to it. A regulated product having once been brought into being, the dominion board may step in and say: We think it is best in the interests of this industry that we should take charge. The man who goes into a little scheme with his local board with its limited powers, suddenly finds those powers withdrawn and the dominion board in control.

This is why my right hon. friend did not say anything about compulsion. This is why he dealt at such length with Samuel Plimsoll

-it was safer. My right hon. friend talks about the international powers of this dominion board, but this board has the power to exercise all the powers set out in section 4, either by way of substitution or concurrently with the local board itself. So I say to my right hon. friend that there is a power of compulsion in this measure, a fact around which he discreetly skated. I say to my hon. friends who spoke so eloquently this afternoon with regard to the power of compulsion and the rights of the minority that not only the minority but the majority may be put under compulsion by reason of the fact that the dominion board may substitute for the local board and exercise powers which they never dreamed would be exercised.

Mr. VENIOT:

That is the minority controlling the majority.

Mr. RALSTON:

As the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) says, that is the minority controlling the majority. I do not care who says it is sovietism, I do not care who says it is socialism, I say it is naked fascism. The governor in council gives those tremendous powers to their own appointees without any reference of any kind or description to the producers in that particular industry.

Only one word more with regard to section 12, which has been dealt with very eloquently and effectively by the hon. members for Labelle and Comox-Alberni. I do not think there is anything I can add except to say that anyone who violates the powers given with respect to tariff matters and the other matters in this bill, is liable under section 14 which reads:

Every person who fails to comply with any order of the board or of a_ local board or any regulation of the governor in council

This may be a regulation restriotng the export of a natural product.

-shall be guilty of an offence and punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.

That is the gentle little act that has no compulsion in it, one of the voluntary measures that we ought to pass because we are all boys together. That is the kind of act that is being put on the statute book for the purpose of assisting producers.

What I believe this parliament should do, within the ambit of its legislative jurisdiction, is to encourage cooperative marketing by following the logical course, namely, employ-

mg men who know something about cooperation and sending them among the producers, having them meet the producers for the purpose of assisting them in connection with organizing associations. In his speech my hon. friend spent a good deal of time on British Columbia Cooperatives and the wheat pools, but all of these were voluntary. Then, if the producers need discipline within their ranks, let them come to this parliament or to the local legislature and obtain such power, provided it is safeguarded by the provisions contained in the British act. By so doing we should begin at the beginning, working from the bottom up rather than from the top down. But this act is conceived wrongly when it begins with the minister, the governor in council and the dominion board itself.

So that there may be no doubt about it, what we on this side say is this. We are for cooperation, but we say that sections 4 and 9 should be cut out, and section 12 as well. Section 12 I regard as an intrusion; it does not belong to the act because it has nothing to do with marketing. The price spreads provision should be placed where it belongs, in connection with any legislation brought in as a result of the report of the price spreads committee. But let us have a marketing act and not an act which combines the creation of new crimes, the provision for tariff regulation and arbitrary compulsion with what is essentially marketing. On this side we believe in proper and genuine marketing legislation to enable the producers to help themselves, giving them the power of discipline, provided first that the plan emanates from the producers and is always under their control; provided that the board and its powers cannot be changed at the will of an autocratic dominion board; provided that full provision is made for a hearing, so that those affected, both in the industry and outside, can be heard; provided there is approval of the scheme by parliament; and provided further that the consumer receives consideration. Even then you would be going to some extent in the direction of compelling the minority, whatever that minority might be-and I do not think it should be too large. But this bill authorizes a board which is irresponsible either to parliament or to the producers to paralyze, to misdirect and to divert the whole trade of the dominion in natural products, regardless of the opinions of the responsible representatives of the people of this country, and regardless of the policies of those who are engaged in industry and who know best how to carry it on. Some gentleman from Ottawa, knowing nothing about an industry, may go to fisher-

Marketing Act-Mr. Ralston

men or potato growers or those producing apples and tell a man who has had the experience of a lifetime when he is going to ship, what quantity he is to ship, and so on, withholding his goods and allowing someone else's to be shipped, or refusing him a licence altogether.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these three features, the autocratic and compulsory feature

of the marketing act itself, the tariff feature

which does not belong to the bill, and the

price spread feature without proper definitions, are all inimical te the welfare not only

of the producers but of the people of Canada

generally. And when I look at the act and

realize that the Prime Minister has completely failed to justify these vital and all important

features, which have been pointed out over

and over again in this debate, I am reminded that whom the gods would destroy they first

make mad. I say to my right hon. friend in

all seriousness that if he passes this act and

attempts to enforce it in the dominion he will

find that his destruction will be certain and

sure.

The house divided on the motion (Mr. Weir), which was agreed to on the following

division:

YEAS Messrs:

Anderson (Toronto- Laurin

High Park) Lucas

Arsenault Luchkovich

Arthurs Macdonald (Kings)

Barber Maclnnis

Baribeau MacMillan

Belee (Saskatoon)

Bell (St. Antoine) Maephail, Miss

Bell (St. John-Albert) McGillis

. Bennett McLure

Bowen Manion

Burns Matthews

Bury Mitchell

Cahan Motherwell

Cantley Mullins

Carmichael Murphy

Chaplin Myers

Coote Peck

Cowan (Long Lake) Pickel

Davies Plunkett

Dickie Price

Duguay Quinn

Duranleau Rhodes

Ernst Robinson

Esling Rogers

Fraser (Cariboo) Ross

Gardiner Sauve

Garland (Bow River) Senn

Gobeil Shaver

Gordon Simpson

Hanson (Simcoe North)

(York-Sunbury) Simpson

Hay (Algoma West)

Irvine Smith

Kennedy (Victoria-Carleton)

(Peace River) Smith

Lafleche (Cumberland)

Marketing Act-Division

Speakman

Spence

Spencer

Sproule

Stanley

Stewart (Leeds) Stewart (Lethbridge) Stirling Stitt (Nelson) Sullivan

Sutherland Swanston Tetreault W ppcp

Weir(Melfort)

White (Mount Royal)

Willis

Wilson

Wright-85.

++NAYS

Messrs:

Beaubien Hanbury

Boucher Howden

Bourassa King. Mackenzie

Brasset Mackenzie

Brown (Vancouver Centre)

Butcher McKenzie (Assiniboia)

Cardin Moore (Ontario)

Casgrain Neill

Chevrier Ralston

Denis Raymond

Desrochers Rinfret

Dubois Roberge

Duff Sanderson

Dumaine Seguin

Fontaine Stewart

Fraser (North- (Edmonton West)

umberland, 0.) Totzke

Girouard Vallance

Golding Venoit-35.

pairs is furnished by the chief Messrs:

(The list of whips.)

Anderson (Halton)

Baker

Barrette

Beaubier

Bell (Hamilton)

Bey non

Black (Halifax)

Bowman

Bourgeois

Boyes

Casselman

Charters

Cotnam

Cowan (Port Arthur)

Dorion

Dupre

Edwards

Embury

Fortin

Ganong

Gagnon

Garland (Carleton) Geary

Gott

Guthrie

Hackett

Harris

Johnstone

Jones

Kennedy (Winnipeg Larue Lawson MacDonald (Cape Breton) MacLaren MacNicol

Factor

Bertrand

Rheaume

Ahearn

Mercier (St. Henri)

Euler

Dubuc

Hanson (Skeena)

Deslauriers

Hepburn

Howard

Blair

Hurtubise

Ilsley

Verville

Ferland

Elliott

Bothwell

Fafard

Michaud

Boulanger

Goulet

Mercier (Laurier-Outremont) Rutherford Lapointe Perras Jacobs Donnelly MaeLean McIntosh Thauvette Gray Urquhart

Fiset

Rennie

McDnde Dupuis

McGibbon Power

McGregor Fournier

Maloney Young

Morand Parent

Nicholson Bradette

Perley (Qu'Appelle) Munn

Perley, Sir George Marcil

Pettit Bouchard

Rowe Lacroix

Ryerson Taylor

Short Ileenan

Smoke Pouliot

Spotton MacMillan (Mackenzie)

Stevens Malcolm

Stinson Hall

Stitt (Selkirk) Weir (Macdonald)

Thompson (Simcoe) Jean

Tummon St-Pere

Turnbull McPhee

White (London) Gershaw.

Mr. HALL:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Victoria (Ont.) (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Mr. YOUNG:

I was paired with the hon.

member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Mr. TURNBULL:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. MacLAREN:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. JOHNSTONE:

I was paired with the hon member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. RENNIE:

I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Mr. WHITE (London):

I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. BAKER:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. BOYES:

I was paired with the hon.

member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):

I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Bank Act

Mr. THOMPSON:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Jean). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):

I was paired with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.