June 26, 1935

CON

Franklin White Turnbull

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):

I desire to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is there any foundation in fact for a statement attributed to a Regina speaker by the Regina Leader Post of June 15, 1935, that five dollars was deducted from the pay of Canadian soldiers killed in action overseas in the great war to pay for the blanket in which they were buried?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Grote Stirling (Minister of Fisheries; Minister of National Defence)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):

This story has been told before and has been denied on frequent occasions. The hon. member for Regina told me that he proposed to give me yet another opportunity for denying it. No such regulation was ever passed that I am aware of, and careful investigation of the records shows no foundation whatever for so heartless a story.

RADIO INTERFERENCE On the orders of the day:

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
IND

Alan Webster Neill

Independent

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Does the Minister of Marine anticipate that he will be able this session, either by legislation or by regulation, to make changes giving power to inspectors to enforce the prevention of radio interference?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Alfred Duranleau (Minister of Marine)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):

The change suggested by the hon. gentleman would have to be made by legislation, and I am sorry to say we do not intend to propose any legislation to that effect this session.

PRIVILEGE-MR. GOTT On the orders of the day:

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):

The Ottawa Morning Journal contains an erroneous

Marketing Act-Mr. Elliott

article with reference to the section of country from which I come. I wish to take this opportunity, on a question of privilege, to refute that article. I have not the paper before me-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman cannot raise a question of privilege with regard to an article in a newspaper, relating to the matter he has referred to.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

I wish to correct the statement.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

I regret to say that the hon. member is not in order. The house would be busy listening to corrections of articles in newspapers if the hon. member could correct articles of this nature in this manner.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink
CON

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

Am I not permitted to correct an erroneous statement in regard to the section of country from which I come?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Permalink

MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 117, to amend the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934.


LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):

moved in amendment seconded by Mr. Lapointe :

That Bill 117 an act to amend the Natural Products Marketing Act 1934 be not now read a third time but that it be recommitted to a committee of the whole house with instructions that the said committee have power to amend the said bill by striking out from section 5 thereof all the words after line 15 on page 2 thereof being the following:

(2) In any prosecution under this act or under any regulation it shall not be necessary for the prosecuting authority to prove that the product in respect of which the prosecution is instituted was produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, and if the accused person pleads or alleges that the product was not produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, the burden of proof thereof shall be upon the accused person.

He said: This question was debated at some length last evening and it is not my intention now to take up the time of the house repeating what was said then. I simply wish to move this motion, seconded by my hon. friend, the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfart):

I believe there

has been a good deal of misunderstanding with reference to this subsection. The purpose of the subsection is very simple. In any regulated area where there is a regulated product-for example, the British

J, J

Columbia tree fruit scheme operating in that province-the board passes certain regulations, one of which sets out that there shall be a small levy with respect to all fruit marketed; and the board, in the carrying out of its duties, makes this levy on all the regulated products marketed within that area. But if any individual in the area, dealer or otherwise, wishes to bring in a product from outside the area and to claim exemption from the application of these regulations, then in claiming this exemption he has to give proof that he has brought in the article from outside.

After careful investigation it is felt that the matter cannot be dealt with in any other way, because if this were not done and twenty per cent of individual farmers or dealers in the district simply stated that they would not pay or conform to the regulations, the board would have first to prove that the product was produced within the area, and in that event the whole act would1 fall down in that regard.

The reason for putting in this subsection is simply this, that those who wish to claim exemption from any of the orders or regulations within the area must give proof that the article is from outside, and an invoice would be the simple way of showing from where the article was shipped. In this respect this subsection is identical with the Fertilizer Act passed in 1928. If officials of the Department of Agriculture, in their work of inspecting the fertilizers that are offered for sale, find a dealer in possession of a fertilizer that is not up to standard or that is other than .advertised, they proceed against that dealer, even though he may be guiltless of the offence, unless he submits proof as to the person from whom he purchased it and the fact that the sacks had not been opened or the material altered until the time of inspection.

That, I believe, is sound legislation, because otherwise the inspectors of the department, in trying to enforce the act, would be put in the impossible position of adducing proof themselves that the dealer had not been at fault. It has worked out well, and it is felt that there will1 be no hardship on any person. There is no crime involved. It is simply an exemption from the regulations or orders of the board. I believe practically every act of a similar nature that has been passed contains a similar clause.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Not the same.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

In the Fertilizers

Act the principle is exactly the same as it is in the bill before us. Those who have

Marketing Act-Mr. Lapointe

given every consideration to this matter feel that if this subsection, providing that the man claiming exemption must, in order to get exemption, give proof that the product was produced within that part of Canada to which the scheme relates, is not included in the bill, it would be almost impossible to administer the scheme, because then the proof would be on the board as to the product of every farmer within the regulated area. I therefore feel it would be a serious mistake to wipe out this subsection which is felt by those administering the act to be so essential while working no hardship on any person whatever.

Hon.ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East): The explanations given by the minister do not at all clarify the situation as to the advisability of this amendment. He says that those who claim exemption from criminal prosecution should bring forward the evidence that they are so exempt; hie claims also that if this amendment is not inserted in the bill the officers of the department who want to prosecute-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Robert Weir (Minister of Agriculture)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WEIR (Melfort):

Not the officers of

the department, the local board administering the scheme.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

He claims also that the

local board or anybody that wants to prosecute under the provisions of this legislation shall have to show that the man who is prosecuted is not guilty. Neither of those positions is right. The man has simply to be left alone, and if officers of the department or members of the local board institute criminal proceedings against any Canadian citizen, they should bring forward the evidence that that citizen is guilty of an offence and not place upon him the burden of showing that he is not guilty.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Robert Charles Matthews (Minister of National Revenue)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MATTHEWS:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment,

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink
CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD (Cape Breton):

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

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT
Permalink

June 26, 1935