I understood the minister to say that the scheme fell down because there was no provision made for taking care of the loss sustained by selling the butter. How was it determined that there was to be a loss?
rather involved scheme, and my information is that there were a number of reasons why the board did not approve of it. I understand that this is more or less a confidential document we have in front of us, bu't so far as possible I shall be glad to set out in detail for the hon. member's information the scheme and the objections so far as they are set out here by the board. The board found the
scheme lacking on a number of grounds. Another question was whether or not the scheme should be proceeded with before further opportunity was given to the combined dairy interests to submit a scheme that would take in the whole dairy industry. I shall be glad to give the hon. member more information but I regret I have not got it with me to-night.
There is just one other matter I wish to refer to. We were discussing it last night when the house adjourned. The discussion brought up a ruling given by the Saskatchewan court of appeal and the minister interjected into my remarks that "that case did not refer to the provisions of the marketing act; it had nothing to do with the marketing act," and I replied "I know that." But I spoke too soon. I did not mean to say that it had nothing to do with the marketing act, but that it had nothing to do with the marketing act directly. The minister must surely admit that the case was a very clear one, and that it did strike at the very root of the marketing act. The actual case was brought up under the Live Stock Act, but the point was that this appeal court decided that this system of trying to pass enabling legislation was ultra vires. I have the case in front of me here. It is reported in the Western Weekly Reports of May 4, at page 34. It is the case of Rex versus Zaslavsky. It appears that he is a dealer who bought some cases of eggs and did not comply with the regulations made under the Live Stock Act of this parliament. The case was appealed and a stated case was presented to the court, asking three specific questions: (1) Whether the Live Stock Act of Canada and the regulations thereunder were valid and binding on the accused; (2) if not, were they valid and binding on the accused by reason of the Live Stock Products Act passed by the Saskatchewan government; (3) was the governor in council empowered under the Live Stock Act of Canada to enact prohibition in regard to purchasing of eggs as contained in clause 9 (4) of the regulations. I have put the questions briefly in my own language. The answer in the case of the first two questions was no, that both the act and the regulations sought to be enacted by the Dominion of Canada were ultra vires, and so they were under the provincial act.
The minister I think said last night that I wmuld find if I looked at the case that the objection taken was to the manner in which the enabling legislation was passed, but I think
the language used was that customary in all these cases. The judgment said:
It was provided that any provision of the dominion act ... within the legislative authority of the province, and outside that of the Dominion of Canada, shall have the force of law in Saskatchewan, and. unless otherwise enacted by the legislature of Saskatchewan shall be and remain in full force and effect therein to all intents and purposes whatsoever, until the same is repealed by the dominion parliament.
Then in the article there is this remark:
This phraseology is used in nearly all provincial enabling statutes.
I believe that that is practically the language generally used. Well then, if it has been decided, although not of course finally because no doubt the case will go to the privy council, bv an appeal court in the province of Saskatchewan that this system of passing enabling legislation is all wrong and ultra vires, I ask the minister and his officials whether that does not strike at the very root of the marketing act when it. is admitted that we here have not sole jurisdiction nor has the province, and we try to get around it by passing enabling legislation. I think the province of British Columbia passed legislation along somewhat similar lines. If the only legal decision up to date of any value going beyond magistrate's court is the one I have just cited, and that cannot be denied, what is the advice of the minister as to the legal status of the marketing act?
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I have no advice to give in that connection. What I had reference to last night was that this was dealing specifically with the marketing act. The judgment given found the court divided.
Yes. The case has been brought to the attention of the Department of Justice. I think everyone who has given any special attention to the question of a lot of this legislation, and the benefit of it while it has been in operation, realizes that it is a matter of the very first concern that all these acts do operate to a certain extent on the basis of enabling legislation. Under the marketing act there are certain things that can be done without enabling legislation of the province, but they may not be as complete and effective as if enabling legislation were passed. The matter is, as I stated before, under advisement by the Department of Justice. What, their opinion is I do not know. I do not think they have come to a decision yet.
In view of that does not the minister think it would be wise to have a close season on starting any more of these schemes until we get the opinion of the Department of Justice? Is it not better to go slow in starting any more schemes? We have thirteen on our hands now of doubtful validity, and it might be a good thing to have a close season for a little while.
, Mr. BEAUBIEN: If the producers of a natural product have voted on a scheme, can another scheme in regard to that product be voted on within a certain period?
I had in mind Manitoba particularly. The people there voted against the scheme that was proposed to them by the egg and poultry pool. As the minister knows, they voted strongly against it because the producers of that product in Manitoba are against the compulsory features of the act and in the scheme as it was presented to them. Suppose another scheme is presented with compulsory features; I hope that the minister will be very reluctant about adopting a scheme which will inconvenience the people of Manitoba in connection with that same product, putting them to the trouble of voting again. I believe there are three members on the dominion marketing board. Am I right?
I understand that in voting on these schemes there are two official languages, and I wish the minister would instruct the board that when they are taking a vote on any scheme in my riding, where there are many producers who do not understand English very well, he will see that the two languages are used so that it will be satisfactory to the people. This was not done on the last occasion.
Some schemes were printed in both languages and every care is taken to provide for those who spoke only French, or spoke French with greater facility than English. As regards the printing of the ballot in French, this was not done, but I agree with the hon. member that in cases such as this it might be made available in both languages when desired.
The other evening I referred to the pegging of prices, and my information, according to what I saw in the press, was that it had been abolished, that there was no pegged price now for potatoes. Is that correct?
I understand that Mr. Cunningham of New Mills, New Brunswick, is the agent of the board. I see by the Royal Gazette that his address is given as New Hills; it is New Mills. What has he received in the way of compensation since he has been acting from, I believe, the first of January last, and from whom, and in what manner has he received it?