1910-04-25

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 216) respecting the British North-western Fire Insurance Company.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR presented the Teport of the special committee to investigate the lobster industry on the coast of the maritime provinces and Quebec. He said : I desire to give notice that I will move the adoption of this report on Wednesday next.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER laid on the table the report of the special committee to revise the rules of the House and moved that the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration tomorrow.
Mr. SPROULE.: Would it not be well, even necessary, to have copies of the proposed revision in the hands of members before the matter is taken up? There seems a very short time for consideration, if a report only now presented is to be taken up to-morrow.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: This report will be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of to-morrow. If not convenient for hon. members to consider it then, some other day will be chosen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be better later on.


Wilfrid Laurier: Next Friday.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Taken into consideration next Friday. Carried.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 217) to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. He said : The Manitoba legislature, at its recent session, passed an Act establishing an industrial home in the province. Such an institution would not be within the language of our present Prisons and Reformatories Act. This Bill is introduced to amend our statute in order to enable the courts in Manitoba to sentence prisoners to the institution just established.
Motion agreed to. and Bill read the first time.
Mr. FIELDING.: 



RETAIL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 210) to incorporate the Retail Merchants' Association of Canada-Mr. Gervais.
Mr. LENNOX.: I was not in my place at the moment when the resolution to go into committee on this Bill was presented and carried. I have been requested to ask that this Bill be allowed to stand over, as there are some gentlemen who wish to deal with it, and who could not be here to-day. Also, I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not in his place, and I am told that there is need for an amendment of the Bill, to which his attention should be called, to prevent this corporation being given the right to act as bankers. For myself, I have not gone into the matter at all carefully, and I do not wish to be pressed into having to deal with it. One hon. member, who was obliged to leave Ottawa on Saturday and has not yet returned, particularly desires to deal with this Bill. I would ask that the govern ment consent to have the Bill laid over until to-morrow.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I think that my hon. friend from Montreal, St. James (Mr. Gervais), in whose name this Bill stands, is not in his place at the moment. I suppose he will arrive by the noon train. I think there could be no objection to postponing the consideration of this Bill until to-morrow night. Will that do ?


Haughton Lennox: Yes. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 211) to incorporate the Pioneers Loan Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 214) respecting the Alberta and British Columbia Railway Company.-Mr. Herron.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARDEE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 213) respecting the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
Mr. McGIVERIN.: I notice that the name of the Bill on the order paper is not the same as in the Bill itself. The name of the Bill is the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company, and on the order paper it is the Brandon, Saskatchewan and British Columbia Railway Company.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The name is correct in the French copy. It is merely a typographical error.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.


Mr. S. SHARPE:: 1.	Has the St. Lawrence Power Company complied with section 13 of the Act of Incorporation, 1901 ?
2.	Has the government investigated the facts in regard to this question?
3.	If so, in what way and what conclusion has the government reached?
4.	If not, does the government purpose instituting any investigation with the view of ascertaining whether the powers of the company under the Act of 1901 have become null and void?
5.	Does the government entertain the view of the Solicitor General, that the amendments inserted in the St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill dealing with the St. Lawrence Power Company, created by the Act of 1901, cannot possibly control or affect the company under the Act of 1901?
6.	Do any of the amendments inserted in the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Bill, in the opinion of the government, have the effect of reviving any of the powers of the St. Lawrence Power Company under the Act of 1901, which may have become null and void by reason of the said company not complying with the provisions of said Act?
7.	Was it the intention of the government or the hon. member who had charge of the Bill, by any of the amendments, to revive said rights?
8.	If the said company have forfeited any of the rights, is it the intention of the government to claim the benefit of such forfeiture?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY.: I call attention to the fact that the 5th paragraph states that the Solicitor General entertains certain views with regard to the Bill. I think the question is irregular in that respect. But if my hon. friend will be good enough to point where and when the Solicitor General made that statement, I will get the answer. In the meantime, the question might stand.


MAIL MATTER CARRIED BY FREE DELIVERY.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Is mail matter, other than letters, delivered to street addresses in places having a system of free delivery to carriers?
2.	If so, to what class of matter, other than letters, does such free delivery extend?
3.	Has the Post Office Department established any regulations respecting free delivery of matter, other than letters? If so, have such regulations been made public and where?


Hon. R. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Yes.
2.	All classes of mailable matter, except such packages as may be too heavy to be taken out by the letter carriers.
3.	The only class of people affected are the business men, senators and members of parliament, living in cities, who are perfectly aware of the rule.


CHINAMEN PAYING CAPITATION TAX.
Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	How many Chinamen entering Canada paid the capitation tax during the fiscal year ending March, 1910?
2.	How many entered under exemption from the tax?
3.	What was the chief reason advanced for exemption ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	1,614.
2.	688.
3. They were exempt under the Act as merchants and the wives and children of merchants.


TELEGRAPH LINES-ST. ALEXIS AND L'ANSE ST. JEAN.
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	What amount has the Minister of Pub-lio Works paid to Elzear Boivin for the construction of a telegraph line between St. Alexis and l'Anse St. Jean, and in what year?
2.	What amount did the same minister pay for reconstructing and repairing this telegraph line, and in what year?
3.	What is the total length of this line?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Total payment to Mr. Elzear Boivin was $2,003.13, in October, 1897, for the work of distributing poles for and construction of 40 1-16 miles of telegraph line, under contract No. 3,013, dated 2nd February, 1897, at $50 per mile.
2.	There was no reconstruction or special repairs called for; whatever general repairs were made in subsequent years were performed by the regular linemen employed to keep the lines in order.
3.	The length of line between St. Alexis and l'Anse St. Jean is reckoned as 40 miles


BUOYS ON LAKE ST. JOHN.
Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	What amounts has the Minister of Public Works paid, year by year, for the placing and maintenance of buoys on Lake St. John and the rivers emptying into it, between 1897 and 1904?
2.	To what companies or persons has he paid each year?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.
1896- 97	$ 500 00
1897-	98	
500	001898-	99	
250	001899-	00	
250	001900-	01	
250	001901-	02	
250	001902-	03	
250	001903- 01	
Nil.Total	$2,250 002.	Mr. B. A. Scott in each case.



OYAMEL COMPANY, ROBERVAL.

Mr. GIRARD:: Did the Oyamel Company of Roberval, or its manager, B. A. Scott, present for payment

in 1901 or 1902, to the Minister of Public Works, an account for tamarack wood sold for the sum of $105 or for any other amount ? If so, what has the minister done about this claim ?


William Pugsley: (a)	Yes.
(b)	It was paid.



TOLLS ON LOGS ON RIVER SAGUENAY.

Mr. GIRARD:: 1.	What amount was due by the Pulp Company of Chicoutimi, year by year since 1903, for tolls on logs passing into the booms on the River Saguenay, and for contribution to the maintenance of the said booms up to the 1st of January, 1910?
2.	What amount has it paid on its dues and on what date?
3.	If it has not paid its whole debt, does the government intend to oblige it to do so?


William Pugsley: 1 (a). Tolls.
1903		Nothing.
1904		 "
1905		 "
1906	$1,116	921907	
1,801	001908	
1,533	301909	
3,088	34	(Paid.)

(b)	Contribution to maintenance.
Amounts to be paid under consideration for adjustment.
2.	They have paid $3,088.34 on 12th March, 1910, being dues on tolls of 1909 in full at tariff rates.
3.	Under consideration.



MAIL CARRIAGE-BLAIRMORE STATION.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Has the contract been let for carrying the mail from Blairmore station to the post office? If so, what is the amount paid for said services and who received the contract?
2.	What was the amount paid for the former contract and who carried the mail?
3.	Does the postmaster at Blairmore receive all moneys paid for box rents and commission on money orders, and what is the total amount received by the postmaster from all sources? '


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	No.
2.	$100 per annum. H. E. Lyon.
3.	The postmaster receives all moneys paid for box rents and commissions on money orders. The total amount received from all sources for the year ending 31st March, 1910, including carrying the mails, was $858.29.



DREDGING AT MOUTH OF RED RIVER.

Mr. BRADBURY:: How many yards of sand or earth were moved last season by the government dredges at the mouth of the Red river, and what was the cost per yard for such work ?


Joseph Girard: 


William Pugsley: It being necessary to obtain this information from the resident engineer at Winnipeg, I would ask my hon. friend to allow the question to stand.



IMMIGRANTS ON THE BAY OF QUINTE RAILWAY.

Mr. URIAH WILSON:: 1.	How many immigrants were located during the past two fiscal years along the line of the Bay of Quinte railway between Deseronto and Bannockburn, and at what place was each immigrant located?
2.	How many were deported during the same two years from the above district?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	The government has no record, the destination of immigrants being recorded by provinces only.
2.	68.



WHARFAGE DUES AT BURK'S FALLS.

Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What amount of wharfage or other dues was collected at Burk's Falls during each of the years 1907, 1908 and 1909?
2.	What is the rate of wharfage and other dues?
3.	Who is the wharfinger, and what is his salary ?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.
Net
Gross. Revepue.
1907	
$18 46	$13 751908	
Nil	Nil1909	
77 47	58 132.	The general tariff rates for wharfage which applies to all wharfs administered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.3.	A. J. Collins, 25 per cent of collections.	[DOT]



IMMIGRANTS FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

Mr. LEWIS:: 1.	How many immigrants from Southern
Italy, Russia, Liberia, Russia in Asia, Turkey and Turkey in Asia, have entered Canada since January, 1, 1908?
2.	Has the government any advice or information of immigration of peasants into Canada from Southern Italy, Russia, Liberia, Russia in Asia, Turkey and Turkey in Asia during 1910?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	From Italy as a whole (no separate record being kept for southern Italy) 12,246; Russia, 16,751; Liberia, none; Russia in Asia, none; Turkey, 778; Turkey in Asia, 600; total, 30,375.
2.	No.



HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the following order be discharged:

Resolved, That the recommendation of the Honourable The Speaker of the House of Commons respecting the organization of the staff of the House of Commons, laid on the table of the House on Wednesday, the 6th day of April, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to and order discharged. SUBSIDIES TO RAILWAYS.
Wilfrid Laurier: In the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, I move that to-morrow the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution, and I may add that they have been submitted to His Excellency and he has approved of the same
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide as follows:-
1. The Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated) which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile, for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway, not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of fifty per cent on so much of the average cos! Sf the mileage subsidized as is in excess of $15,000 per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile:-
1.	For a line of railway from Tusket Wedge to a point on the Halifax and Southwestern railway at or near Riverdale station, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1. item 27; not exceeding 8 miles.
2.	To the Halifax and Southwestern railway Company, for a line of railway from Lunenburg to" Bridgewater via Upper LaHave. in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 28; not exceeding 12 miles.	,
3.	To the Inverness railway and Coal Company, for a line of railway from Cheticamp to a point on the line already built betw-een Broad Cove and Feint Tupper, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 17; not exceeding 37 miles.
4.	To the Margaree Coal and Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Orangedale, on the Intercolonial railway, thence by the east side of Lake Ainslie and Ste. Rosaj to Chimney Corner Cove, not exceeding 46 miles; and for a line of railway from a point on the Intercolonial railway between Orangedale and Point Tupper to Caribou Cove on Inhabitant's bay and river, not exceeding 4 miles; in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 18; not exceeding in all 50 miles.
5.	For a line of railway from a point on the Dominion Atlantic railway to the Government pier or wharf at Canning, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 40 of 1907; section 1, item 7; not exceeding 1 mile.
6.	For a line of railway from Brazil lake on the Dominion Atlantic railway to Kempt-ville, Nova Scotia, in lieu of subsidy granted
by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 16; not exceeding 11 miles.
7.	To the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company, for a line of railway from Centreville on the Dominion Atlantic railway, westerly to Weston, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 190S, section 1, item 30; not exceeding 15 miles.
8.	For a line of railway from a point on the
Intercolonial railway at or near Dartmouth, in the county of Halifax, to a point at or near Deans Settlement, in the county of Halifax, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 21; not exceeding 80 miles.	.
9.	For a line of railway from a point at or
near Deans Settlement, in the county of Halifax, to a point at or near Melrose, in the county of Guysborough, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 22; not exceeding 52 miles.	_
10.	For a line of railway from a point at or near New Glasgow, in the county of Pictou,
.to a point at or near Melrose, in the county of Guysborough, and from the said point at or near Melrose to Guysborough, in the county of Guysborough, with branch line to Country Harbour, in the county of Guysborough, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 23; not exceeding in all 116 miles.
11.	To the International Railway Company of New Brunswick, for 31 miles of its railway, being the distance which the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 15, is short of covering.
12.	For a line of railway from Grand Falls to St. John, in New Brunswick, in lieu of subsidies granted by chapter 40 of 1907, section 1, items 2, 3 and 10, respectively, and in lieu of subsidies granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 69; not exceeding 228 miles.
13.	For a line of railway from Connors, at the terminus of the Temiscouata railway, to a point on the boundary line between New Brunswick and Quebec, at the foot of Beau lake, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 40 of 1907, section 1, item 25; not exceeding 18 miles.
14.	To the York and Carleton Railway Company, for a line of railway from its present terminus to a point on the National Transcontinental railway, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 33; not exceeding 9 miles.
15.	For a line of railway from a point on the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Plaster Rock to Riley Brook, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63, of 1908, section 1, item 31; not exceeding 28 miles.
16.	To the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company, for a line of railway from Paspebiac to Gaspe, as near the shore as practicable, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 43 of ,1906, section 1, item 9, for a line between the points above mentioned; not exceeding 102 miles.
17.	To the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Arundel to a point in the municipality of the United Townships of Preston and Hartwell, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1998, section 1, item 11, for a line of railway between the points above mentioned; not exceeding 30 miles.

18.	For a line of railway from Robarval westward towards James bay, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 9; not exceeding 100 miles.
19.	To the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company, for the following lines of railway :-
(a)	from Valcartier station to St. Catherine,
not exceeding 3-8 miles;
(b)	from Valcartier station towards Gosford, not exceeding 51 miles;
(c)	from the end of the 35th mile of the
branch to La Tuque, on the River St.
Maurice, to La Tuque Falls, not exceeding 5 miles;
(d)	from La Tuque falls to the mouth of
the River Croche, not exceeding 5
miles;
(e)	from a point on the La Tuque branch to
the steamboat landing near La Tuque,
not exceeding 1-6 miles;
(f)	from Herbertville to St. Joseph d'Alma,
not exceeding 10 miles;
(g)	from Chicoutimi south or southeast, not
exceeding 5 miles;
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, items 43, 44 and 72, respectively; not exceeding 359 miles.
20.	To the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company, for a line of railway from Chaudiere Junction to a point at or near the International boundary, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 25; not exceeding 62 miles.
21.	To the Eastern Townships Railway Company, for a line of railway from the Intercolonial Railway at St. Leonard's Junction to Dudswell, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 41; not exceeding 36 miles.
22.	To the L'Avenir and Melbourne Railway Company, for a line of railway from Melbourne to Drummondville, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 71; not exceeding 28 miles.
23.	To the Lotbiniere and Megantic Railway Company, for a line of railway to extend its railway southerly from a point at or near Lyster, in Megantic county, to or towards a point at or near Lime Ridge, in the township of Dudswell, not exceeding 50 miles;
and for a line of railway from a point on its line in the township of Inverness, to a point at or near the bridge over the St. Lawrence river at or near Quebec; not exceeding 30 miles, in lieu of the subsidies granted bv chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 19; not exceeding in all 80 miles.
24.	For a line of railway from Joliette to or near Lake Manuan, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 57 of 1903, section 2, item 9, not exceeding 60 miles.
25.	For a line of railway from St. Joachim towards Seven Islands, including branches to Murray Bay and Baie St. Paul, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 11; not exceeding 170 miles.
26.	For a line of railway from a point at or near Ste. Agathe des Monts station, towards the township of Howard, in the county of Argenteuil, passing near Lake St. Joseph and St. Alary, in a southerly direction, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 26; not exceeding 15 miles.
27.	To the Ha Ha Bay Railway Company, Sir WILFRID LADRIER
for a line of railway from a point at or near Jonquieres Village, to Baie des Ha ha, via Laterrifere Village, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 24; not exceeding 24 miles.
28.	To the St. Mary's and Western Ontario Railway Company, for a line of railway from Embro to Exeter, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 60; not exceeding 36 miles.
29.	To the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company for the following lines of railway
(a)	from a point on the said company's line
of railway between Little Current and Sudbury, westerly towards the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay railway; not exceeding 76 miles;
(b)	from Little Current thence crossing the
Canadian Pacific railway, at or near Stanley, and thence to Sudbury; not exceeding 88 miles;
(c)	from a point at or near Sudbury,
northerly, not exceeding 30 miles; the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1. item 51, not exceeding in all 194 miles
30.	To the Aigoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:-
(a)	from Sault Ste. Marie to a point on the
Canadian Pacific railway between White River and Dalton stations in the district of Algoma, not exceeding 200 miles;
(b)	from Alichipicoten Harbour, Lake Superior, towards the main line of Hue Canadian Pacific railway, not exceeding 25 miles;
(c)	from a point on the Canadian Pacifio
railway, northerly towards the National Transcontinental railway, not exceeding 50 miles;
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 13 of 1906, section 1, item 2, and chapter 63, of 1908, section 1, item 61; not exceeding in all 275 miles.
31.	To the Bracebridge and Trading Lake Railway Company, for a line of railway from Bracebridge, in Muskoka, to a point at or near Baysville, Ontario, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 8; not exceeding 16 miles.
32.	To the Lac Seul, Rat "Portage and Keewa-tin Railway Company, for a lino of railway from a point at or near Kenora to the National Transcontinental railway, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 63, for 18 miles; not exceeding 22 miles.
33.	To the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company, for a line of railway from Montreal to Hawkesbury, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 48; not exceeding 65 miles.
31. To the Nipigon Railway Company for the following lines of railway;
(a)	from a point at or near Nipigon station on the line of the Canadian Pacific railway to Nipigon lake, not exceeding 30 miles;
(b)	from a point on Nipigon bay of Lake
Superior to a point on the west of Lake Helen on the line of the Nipigon railway, not exceeding 3J miles;

(c)	from a point on the line of the Nipigon
railway at or near the Crossing of the French River to a point on Lake Jesse, by way of Cameron's Falls, not exceeding 1$ miles;
(d)	from a point on the north shore of Lake
Nipigon, northerly; not exceeding 45 miles.
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 4; not exceeding in all 80 miles.
35.	To the Ontario, Northern and Timagami Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Sturgeon Falls, in a northwesterly direction, to a point on the westerly shore of Lake Timagami, in the district of Nipissing, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 6; not exceeding 50 miles.
36.	For a line of railway from Sharbot lake or Bathurst station, in the province of Ontario, or between these points, via Lanark village, to Carleton Place, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 3; not exceeding 41 miles.
37.	To the Brie, London and Tilsonburg Railway Company, for a line of railway from Port Burwell to London, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 29; not exceeding 35 miles.
38.	To the Toronto, Lindsay and Pembroke Railway Company, for a line of railway from Golden lake to Bancroft, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 41; not exceeding 51 miles.
39.	To the Kingston, Smith's Falls and T)t-tawa Railway Company, for a line of railway from Kingston to Ottawa, in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1906, section 1, item 19; not exceeding 101 miles.
40.	To the Pacific, Northern and Omineca Railway Company, for a line of railway from Edmonton, northwesterly, to or towards the Peace river, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 51; not exceeding 110 miles.
41.	To the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:-
(a)	from a point two miles of Pincher Station on the Crowsnest Pass branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, northeasterly, not exceeding 10 miles;
(b)	from a point two miles west of Pincher
station on the Crowsnest Pass branch of the Canadian Pacific railway, southwesterly, not exceeding 40 miles, the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 37; not exceeding in all 50 miles.
42.	To the Kettle River Valley Railway Company, for the following lines of railway:-
(a)	from Midway to a junction near Merritt
with the Nicola, Kamloops and Simil-kameen railway, not exceeding 250 miles;
(b)	from a point on the company's line of
railway near Coldwater river to a point on the Fraser river, not exceeding 50 miles.
the said subsidies being granted in lieu of the subsidies granted by chapter 40 of 1907, section 1, item 18, and chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, items 59 and 59, respectively; not exceeding in all 300 miles.
43.	To the Kootenay Central Railway Company, for a line of railway from Golden towards the International boundary line via Windermere and Fort Steele, thence crossing the Crowsnest Pass railway, at or near Elko, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 43 of 1908, section 1, item 31; not exceeding 186 miles.
44.	To the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point on its main line of railway, at or near Duncans to Cowichan lake, in lieu of subsidy granted by chapter 63 of 1908, section 1, item 67; not exceeding 24 miles.
2.	Unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon anjf bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of equipping the railway nor the cost of terminals nor the cost of the right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town; and such actual necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway.
3.	The subsidies hereby authorized towards the construction of - any railway shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, at the option of the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows:
(a)	upon the completion of the work subsidized ; or
(b)	by instalments, on the completion of
each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken; or
(c)	upon the progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than thirty thousand dollars; or
(d)	with respect to (b) and (c), part one
way, part the other.
4.	The subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to construct and complete the said railways, respectively; all the lines for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall be commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1910, and completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed four years from the said first day of

August, to tie fixed by the Governor in Council, and shall also be constructed according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report ,of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said minister, which contract the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make. The location also of such subsidized lines shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
5.	The granting of such subsidies and the receipt thereof by the respective companies shall be subject to the condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights as will afford to all railways connected with the railway 6o subsidized reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such nlnning power, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways; and the said board shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to he levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and bridges hereby subsidized: Provided always that any decision of the said board made under this section may bo at any time varied, changed or rescinded by the Governor in Council, as he deems just and proper.
6.	Every company so receiving a subsidy, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized under this Act, shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of the lines in respect of which it has received such subsidy, and, whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for siicli mail service; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the minister of the department of the government for which such service is being performed, and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement, then at such rates as are approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada; and in or towards payment for such charges the government of Canada shall be credited by the Company with a sum equal to three per cent per annum on the amount of the subsidy received by the company under this Act.
7.	As respects all railways for -which subsidies are granted by this Act, the company at any time owning or operating any of the railways shall, when required, produce and exhibit to the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers showing the cost of constructing the railway, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.
8.	The Governor in Council may make it a condition of the grant of the subsidies herein provided that the company shall lay the railway with new steel rails and fastenings made in Canada and shall purchase all materials and supplies required for the construction of the railway and bridges, and the rolling stock for the first equipment of the railway, from Canadian producers, if such rails, fastenings, materials, supplies and equipment are


Wilfrid Laurier: procurable in Canada of suitable quality and upon terms as favourable as elsewhere, of which the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be tjie judge.
9.	Whenever a contract has been duly entered into with a company for the construction of any line of railway hereby subsidized, the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the request of the company and upon the report of the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, and his certificate that he has made careful examination of'the surveys, plans and profile of the whole line so contracted for, and has duly considered the physical characteristics of the country to be traversed and the means of transport available for construction, naming the reasonable and probable cost of such construction, may, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, enter into a supplementary agreement, fixing definitely the maximum amount of the subsidy to he paid, based upon the said certificate of the chief engineer, and providing that the company shall be entitled to be paid, as the minimum, the ordinary subsidy of $3,200 per mile, together with sixty per cent of the difference between the amount so fixed and the said $3,200 per mile, if any; and the balance, forty per cent, shall be paid only on completion of the whole of the work subsidized, and in so far as the actual cost, as finally determined by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the _ report and certificate of the said chief engineer, entitles the company thereto: Provided always-
(a)	that the estimated cost, as certified, is
not less on the average than $18,000 per mile for the whole mileage subsidized ;
(b)	that no payment shall he made except
upon a certificate of the chief engineer that the work done is up to the standard specified in the company's contract ;	*
(c)	that in no case shall the subsidy exoeed
the sum of $6,400 per mile.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), also of the Speaker, to the fact that on Friday last several questions were asked by me of the Postmaster General and answered by him, which are not recorded in the ' Hansard.' I personally asked a question in regard to the establishment of a post office box at Watford, and the minister was good enough to give me an assurance that it would be allowed to be placed there. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) also put several questions that seem to be omitted from ' Hansard.' I do not say this in any harsh spirit, because I know the reporters are most efficient and this is the first time that I have ever noticed an omission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Whatever I stated to my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) or to the

hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) will be carried out. As to ' Hansard ' I am not responsible.	.


Mr. STAPLES.: While in committee on Friday night, now that the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has brought the matter to your attention, I asked the hon. Postmaster General (Mr Lemieux) across the floor of the House if he would establish postal boxes at Holland and Treherne. He assured me that he would. While he was on his feet he also stated to the Bouse that he would make my heart glad when he advised me that he was going to give a post office to the constituency of the hon. member himself. I looked in Hansard ' on the following morning and I must say that my gratification was somewhat blighted when I failed to find that statement. I have no doubt that it was an oversight of the reporters, but I still have hope, in fact, I feel confident that the minister still intends to give that post office.
, LEMIEUX. I am just looking at Hansard. I am sure that I stated what my hon. friend has just said, so much so that orders were given in the department Saturday morning. I am surprised if it is not in * Hansard.'



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 101) to provide for the investigation of
Lmes* monopolies, trusts and mergers which may enhance prices or restrict competition to the detriment of consumers.
On section 5; order for investigation.
Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour).: Mr. Chairman, I have some amendments to this section. It was pointed out that the wording * six or more persons without further definition might make investigation in some particulars too accessible, and I suggest to add after the words ' six or more persons ' the words British subjects resident in Canada and of full age.' In subsection 4 it is provided that the application shall be accompanied by a statutory declaration from each applicant declaring that the combine alleged, exists. I propose to (add the words ' and which operates to the detriment of the declarant as a consumer.' Therefore, the six persons who make the application must be British subjects resident in Canada, and each person must take his declaration that the facts set out in the statement which accompanies his application an t. 'vhioh allege a combine operating to the detriment of the public generally are correct and must also make the declaration that the alleged combine is operating as a detriment to the declarant as a consumer.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Put the word ' producer in as well as consumer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The main purpose of this measure is the protection of the consumer. Doubtless features of this measure may be applicable to a wider range of conditions, but as it is experimental legislation it might be las well to begin with one class, and in the event of our finding it the success that it is expected it will be, in another year we may include the word which is suggested.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Has section 2 been considered as passed P


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It seems to me that if we dealt with section 2 first, an amendment such as that suggested by the minister would be very much more intelligible and we could discuss it more satisfactorily.


Mr KING.: We might go back to section 2.
On section 2; interpretation.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Section 2 is, to some extent, the keynote of the whole Bill in that the definition of the word ' combine ' is there set forth and the basis of the subsequent provisions is laid down. I pointed out in the remarks I made on this Bill at a previous stage that the wording of subsection (c) of section 2 was so wide that it would cover every arrangement or understanding of a friendly character between men who were engaged in business whether it operated to the detriment of the public or not. I felt that parliament should not m any way provide the definition of the word combine * so as to include combinations or understandings which were eminently proper and in the public interest. I would like to suggest to the minister the wisdom of amending the section by inserting after the word ' thereof,' in the 17th line the woTds 'to the detriment of the consumers of such article of trade or commerce.' If these words were inserted there the definition combine * would be amended so as to cover only such organization agreements or arrangements as resulted from the increasing or fixing of prices to the detriment of consumers. I think it is only combinations of that kind that parliament ought to do with, and the definition should not be made any wider than is necessary to cover it. I would ask the minister to consider the advisability of such an amendment.
, M,r- KING. I think the point raised by the hon. member is a good one. The purpose of this measure as he has rightly stated is to legislate in regard to such combines only as may be to the detriment of the consumers. I have no objection whatever to adding the words he has suggested to subsection (c). I would


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Am I to understand from the minister that the insertion of these words will make it impossible to apply this Act to any class of persons who may be affected by combines except consumers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already pointed out that the measure is intended primarily for the protection of consumers against the possible advantage which may be taken of them by combines. It is not intended to go further than that at the present time.


Mr J.: 'D. TAYLOR. May I ask the minister if he has given any attention to the case of the natural producers? It seems to me that the producers, whose livelihood is menaced by those combines are even more entitled to protection than are the persons who vet their livelihood from that source and who will simply be called upon to pay a little more for the necessaries of life. As between the two, certain producing classes are in my opinion much more entitled to protection, and it is much more vital that they should receive protection than that we should confine ourselves to making an experiment to protect consumers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Producers may be affected as consumers, and to the exten o which a producer may be a consumer he is receiving protection under this Act As I pointed out a moment ago to the member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) this measure is experimental in its nature, and I think it desirable that we should confine it at the outset primarily to the protection of consumers. It practically covers every person in the country from one point of view, and if it is found after the statute has been on the books for a year or so that the producers are in the same need of pro tection, and that such protection is not given by the measure, then I think it would be a simple .matter for parliament to amend the measure and add words which would have that effect. it might be pointed out that producers at the present time, a very large number of them, all those engaged in industries protected bv the tariff, do receive from the state special protection. In consequence o. that protection, some of the consumers have thought that they are in need special protection to protect them against the possible advantages which producers who are now protected by the tariff may take to the disadvantage of the consumers, tor that reason, for the present, I think it is well to confine the measure to the protection of consumers as consumers, and to Mr. KING.
leave for further consideration at a later date the inclusion of other classes.


James Davis Taylor: I think the hon. minister who has this Bill in charge has not given consideration to it in all its bearings.
It seems to me he has altogether failed to consider the cases of certain producers on the Pacific coast who are being oppressed now by a combine created by the hon. gentleman himself, and that we are having a repetition of what we saw in the House the other day, namely, the government being exempted from the operation of a veLV benign law. I do not see why we should pass a Bill here interfering with private citizens in the conduct of their business and expresslv exempting -a combine fostered and maintained by the government of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where is the combine?


James Davis Taylor: The combine is the fishery combine.


Mr KING.: How does it operate?


James Davis Taylor: I have very much pleasure in explaining to the minister how ft operates, and I am sure the story wil excite his compassion, and cause him to make an amendment such as I have suggested. We have, as the minister knows, on the Pacific coast the sole source of sup-nlv for the sockeye salmon, that is tne salmon that is canned. We have a regula-lation of the Fisheries Department whereby no persons who are not already in the business of canning salmon are able to obtain salmon canning licenses, the theory upon which that prohibition is based being that there are already a sufficient number of persons engaged in that industry, and that to increase the number would affect the supply. We have the natural result that all persons in that industry have formed themselves into an absolutely tight combine, a combine ranging not only through Canada, but extending to the adjoining portions of the United States, where they catch the salmon in very considerable quantities. This government protects that combine so far as Canada is concerned by further enacting that no Canadian fisherman catching fish in Canada shall be allowed to export those fish. His market is restarted to the market offered by the canners in the combine on the Canadian side. He must sell to them. If he does not sell to them, he must destroy his fish. The operation of that last year, for instance, brought about this condition of affairs, that whilst the canners on the Canadian side and on the American side are buying the identical fish, canning bv the same process, at even cost, selling in the same market, under their combination which fixes the selling price both in Canada and the United States, our Canadian canners combined to make the price of fish in Canada 10 cents per fish, while a few miles away on the American

side, fish were selling at 20 cents a fish. Therefore, this combine operated to deprive the Canadian fishermen of half the earnings last summer to which they were entitled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to want a law put through which would compel the fishermen to sell the fish at double the price they are selling at the present time, a law to make fish dearer to every one who wants to purchase fish in British Columbia?


James Davis Taylor: The minister asks a question worthy of a tyro in public affairs. I do not think I am called upon to answer any question of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do not misunderstand my question. I understood the hon. gentleman to state that the effect of this combine in British Columbia was to keep down the price at which fish were sold.


Mr. HUGHES.: The price at which the poor fishermen are obliged to sell them.


James Davis Taylor: I may explain to the minister that this combine which he as a member of the government has assisted to create and is assisting to maintain, and which he could wipe out in five minutes by altering one or two orders in council, has *effect of cutting down the price at which the fish caught in the Fraser river would otherwise be saleable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not that an advantage to the consumer ?


Mr.   J D. TAYLOR@: No, it is not, because the consumer in eastern Canada Pi?^S *tlle [DOT] I)T:'ce	in conjunction with
x ji American canners, who on their side of "the line pay 20 cents per fish as against 10 cents on our side; so that the consumer is paying on the 20 cent basis.
If a certain combine is fixing the Price on this side of the line detrimental to the consumer, that combine can be proceeded against under this Bill.


James Davis Taylor: I think the hon. gentleman does not understand the working of his own combine. If he did, I think he would cause it to cease to exist. My complaint in this case is not on behalf of the consumer, although I think the consumer has a just cause of complaint. I am speaking as the member for New Westminster, where the producers of the fish work who are deprived of half the revenue to which they are entitled from the sale of those fish because of the operation of the canning combine, and I am asking the minister to include in this Bill a provision whereby we can set the machinery of the department in operation and prove beyond the possibility of cavil that the effect of the combine of the salmon canners is to reduce the price to the producers of fish to 250*
one-half of what they would otherwise get, while it does not benefit the consumers in any way. On the contrary, the consumers are charged as much for these fish as they are for the American fish for which double the price is paid. The minister can afford us relief in any one of three ways: he can give us a chance to come under the operation of this Act and allow any fishermen detrimentally affected to make application for investigation just as consumers can ; or he can persuade his colleagues to remove the prohibition of the export of fish; or he can persuade them to remove the prohibition of persons not now engaged in the canning industry to go into it, so that we may at least have competition on the part of capital. Not only are these fishermen deprived of half their livelihood on the fish they sell, but they are deprived of the right to sell a large portion of the fish they catch when the run is large; because when they go to the Canadian canneries after a night when they have caught say 400 fish to the boat, they find a notice put up by the canners that on account of the large run the canners will take only say 200 fish per boat. The result is that a man who has 400 fish to sell can sell only 200 of them, because this government prohibits him exporting them across the line, where the American canners would be glad to take them at a higher price; so that he is obliged either to dump them into the river, which also is against the law, or to go ashore and dig a great hole and bury them, which of course no one would do. If the minister is sincere in his effort to deal with combines in a way to bring undoubted benefit to the people of Canada"! he will not tell these poor fishermen that they must wait for another year or perhaps two years before he will give them relief.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: If my hon. friend had stated the whole case, my hon. colleague and the House would appreciate the situation betteT. To some extent it is true that the fishery regulations on the Pacific coast, as on the Atlantic coast, have created more or less of a combine; that is, the number of canners is limited and the number of fishing licenses is limited. The provincial government at the present moment is limiting the number of boats which may be licensed to fish, a certain number to each cannery. All this is done for the purpose of conserving the fish in the waters of British Columbia. The particular point to which my hon. friend refers is that the fishing on the bays or rivers of British Columbia is carried on by individual fishermen. Probably as many as 4,000 boats have licenses to fish in the Fraser river and estuary. Immediately south of the boundary line, not more than about 30 miles away are hundreds of American

traps for the supply of the American can-ners. There is very little gill netting as compared with trap fishing. Some years ago the cannery men on the Fraser river, when short of fish completed their packing operations for the dav or the week by bringing fish taken in traps south of the boundary line, and I can remember very well that the Canadian fishermen licensed to catch fish on the Fraser river objected to the free importation of fisfi from Washington State 30 or 40 miles away from the supply of the British Columbia canners. I do not know whether a duty was then put on fbh or not. I am not sure about that, but the department some years ago prohibited the bringing in of fish to be canned in the canneries. What for? In the interests of the cannery men? Not at all, but in the interests of the fishermen of the Fraser river. Necessarily that regulation had to be reciprocal, and fish foT the purpose of being canned were prohibited.
Now', if it were possible for the Canadian fishermen to sell their fish, not to the cannery men for whom they are catch. ing, hut to the United States cannery men, when the prices south of the line may be a little more than those north of the line, it would be the proper thing for the canners on the Fraser river to go down and buy fish taken in the American traps. But this has been prohibited, and I think it is in the interests of the fishermen of the Fraser river. The arrangement, I think, has worked fairly satisfactorily. I do not think the prices that my hon. friend speaks about are fairly stated. Ten cents a fish on the Fraser river, my hon. friend knows perfectly well, has been exceeded time and again; it goes up as high as 20 cents and 25 cents a fish, particularly when there is a scarcity. When there is a big run, which sometimes happens, when a fisherman may come_ m with 400 or 500 fish, and it is impossible for the canneries to take care of all the fish for the next twenty-four hours, half of them have to be thrown away. That seldom happens now, but it has happened, and as a result the price drops, and it might come down to even 10 cents. But to state to this House that the price paid by the Fraser river canneries is 10 cents a fish, and on the other side of the line 20 cents a fish, is not stating the case fairly or accurately. It is a reciprocal arrangement, initiated because the fishermen protested against the cannery men buying fish south of the line. It must be remembered also, as I stated a moment ago, that all the fish caught in the Fraser river, are caught by individual fishermen. There are no traps in the Fraser river. We have four or five times the number of fishermen engaged in catching fish that they have in the state of Washington, although the state Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
of Washington puts up more fish than we do. I believe this is not a matter for the Bill regulating combines. It is matter for the fishery regulations of the Marine and Fisheries Department. Any regulation made for the limitation of the number of canneries that may be erected must necessarily create more or less of a combine, a combine in the sense that the number is limited, that is all. The cannery men on the Fraser river, when fixing the price to be paid for fish during the season get together_ and agree as to how much they are going to pay, but as soon as the fish gets scarce, they have to increase their price. There is that arrangement I have referred to. in regard to the importation or exportation of fish, and it seems to me impossible to do anything in connection with that under this Bill.


James Davis Taylor: I think the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries, like the Minister of Labour, is speaking without knowledge of the subject. I would like to ask him in what form is the prohibition of the importation of fish, whether it is under the Customs Act or is part of the Fisheries regulations?


William Templeman: My recollection- Is that it is part of the Fisheries regulations, but I am not certain. It has been in force for some years, the issuing of licenses, for instance, to cannery men, has, I think, the stipulation that the fish caught under the license must be canned in Canada.


James Davis Taylor: I had a copy of the regulations here with which I think I could very easily confound the minister, but .unfortunately I have mislaid it, and in "the absence of the copy, I will not say anything as to a point on which I have at the moment no positive information. But I wish to say to the minister that he totally misunderstands the situation created by this combine. It is not a matter of chance, whether the fish shall be dear to-day or cheap to-morrow. As he ought to know, the cannery men at the beginning of the season, some weeks in advance of the opening, get together and lay down a definite price as they did last year. I do not hke the minister to stand up in this chirpy manner and tell the House that I have made a statement which is not correct. If there is one subject on which I am informed, having reference to the interests of my constituency, it is that of the salmon fishery, and when I made the statement as to that fishery, I made a statement that is absolutely and entirely correct, which conceals nothing, and upon the correctness of which I am prepared to stake my reputation. Now, I say that last year our Canadian canners met and fixed the prices at 10 cents per fish up to a certain time,

and a price of 12} cents per fish up to a certain time later.


William Templeman: I don't dispute that fact at all.


James Davis Taylor: That arrangement was not made casually, but was the result of long discussion, creating a great deal of heart-burning among the Canadian fishermen. As to the price on the American side, I have equally precise information, that while our men had to sell at 10 cents, the price to the same combine buying on the American side was 20 cents, and that while the Canadian fishermen had to sell at 12} cents, the combine on the other side was paying 25 cents. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but I have a statement from an American source showing those prices, paid for the enormous catch made on the American side. I am sure that the fishermen on the Fraser river will be greatly surprised and disappointed when they find that the minister, whom they regard as their special custodian, is opposed to the suggestion I have made here, or has advised his colleague not to do something in this Act to enable the fishermen on the Fraser river to get the prices they are entitled to.


William Templeman: It is absolutely unnecessary to suggest an amendment to this Act. If it is an improper thing to have this prohibition of Canadian fish from being canned on the other side, and the prohibition of the importation of American trap-caught salmon, to be canned on the Fraser river, it can be amended by repealing the regulation. I am not speaking by the book when I say that it is part of the fisheries regulations. I tried to explain the matter as I understood it from the knowledge I gained some six years ago. It has not been under discussion for some time, and I cannot even say I ever read the regulation. But I heard it explained at the time, and I think the prohibition referred to is part of the regulation. However, there is a prohibition of that kind, and there is no disputing the fact as to the price. I quite agree that the cannery men do get together and they do fix the price they are going to pay, it may be from 10 cents upwards, and they do negotiate with the fishermen, the fishermen, of course, wanting a higher price. A fair price so much depends on the run of fish, which nobody knows anything about until the fish actually come. Prices have sometimes started high and dropped, and they have started low and risen.


Mr. BURRELL.: Will the hon. minister permit me a question?


William Templeman: There can be no controversy as to this matter


Martin Burrell: If the hon. minister will permit me, I would like to ask him how the price can depend on the run of fish, if the canners fix it ahead of the coming of the fish?


William Templeman: That is one of the problematical things they must take into account in fixing the price-it is one of the uncertainties of the trade. The hon. member (Mr. Burrell) knows that we have about an average run of fish. When we used to have every fourth year a big year, the price was low.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I understood my hon. friend from New Westminster to say that the price was not regulated by an antecedent act of a combine, but regulated from time to time actually by the run of the fish.


Mr. SEALEY.: In connection with the suggestion of the hon. member for Pic-tou (Mr. MacDonald) to allow this Act to apply only to combines against consumers, and not against producers, I think the hon. member omits a very large class of the community-in fact, I think a larger class is affected by combines than the other, especially in agricultural produce. There is scarcely an agricultural product that must not be sold to a combine-in practice only a combine buys it. A combine of wheat buyers .buys the wheat; a combine of fruit buyers, buys the fruit; the dairy products are bought by a combine; and the same is true of beef, pofk, mutton, and other meats. I have looked forward to this Bill as being a very useful one for our community at (all events. I think, therefore, that, in the general interest, the hon. member for Pictou should withdraw his suggestion and allow the Bill to apply to combines against the producers as well as to combines against consumers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that, possibly, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sealey) does; not follow the effect of a combine quite far enough. If I understood him rightly, his contention is that certain products are bought by combines who buy at a low figure, that they may control the market. Surely, the resultant effect -would be shown upon those who purchase from the combine. It -certainly would affect the consumer of the article, and if it did, the Bill would apply. I think, that if the hon. member looks carefully at the law1, he will see that, in the last analysis-, the purchaser of the article in question must be affected, and if it affects the purchaser then this measure will applv. .


William Oscar Sealey: In connection with that, it does not seem that it will quite applv, or that it has applied in the past.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had not the law in the past.


William Oscar Sealey: But we have had the evil, although the law to remedy it has not toeen in existence. Take the matter of pork, for instance. On March 16, 1908, pork was sold at $4.90 per hundred weight, or practically five cents per pound, on foot, and the retail price of bacon here in the Ottawa stores was 22 cents. To-day, pork is $9.50 to $10 per hundred weight, on foot, and bacon is offered right here at 22 cents per pound. At present, the consumer is, perhaps, getting it _ at about a proper proportion to the price that the producer receives. But, two years ago, the producer was getting only half the money and the consumer did not get the product any cheaper. The producers in our country did make an effort to get the provincial government to act in order to prevent the combine paying an unfair price to the producer. But the matter was not even effectually started, because the provincial law seemed so difficult and complicated, and the officers in charge did not appear to be very persistent in pushing the matter. Therefore, as I have said, I have looked forward to this law as being of great assistance to the agricultural producers. If the consumer had then appealed against the unfair price he -was being charged, he could have succeeded to some extent, but he could not have completely succeeded as against the combines that were forcing prices down. At that time, they were working on this basis: Everybody knows that our neighbours to the south have a very large production of food products, and they have, on the exchange in 'Chicago, what they call a bull day and a bear day. The market is bulled up for twenty-five days in the month, and the other day the bears are on top. In that way, the packers' combine were able to buy at an average of about 'three cents less than the average market value. They could pay the two cents duty charged by the Canadian customs, sell in Canada and still be one cent ahead of the game. And everybody knows that, looking at it from the point of view of the producer when the hog is brought to about 200 pounds, he must be sold irrespective of price. So, they were able to keep the farmers down to hard pan, or even below, and still make a high charge to the consumer. As against the contention of the minister, the fact that the price of bacon to the consumer is the same as it was when the packers were allowing the producer only half the price seems to me to be conclusive. Many other instances might be given of agricultural products that are handled in the same way as pork. I think that it will be a great gain to Canada as a whole to pursue the combines from the producer's as Mr. SEALEY.
well as from the consumer's standpoint. However, it will be a great benefit and advantage to have them prevented -from wrongfully taking advantage of either class.


Mr. NESBITT.: Under this section, 'Combine' means any contract, &c., which has or is designed to have the effect of increasing or fixing the price or rental of any article of trade, cost of storage, &c., 'to the detriment of consumers'. Of course, any increase, reasonable or unreasonable, may be said to be to the detriment of consumers. I would suggest that the minister put in words to make it read 'which has or is designed to have the effect of unreasonably increasing or fixing the price', and, in the fifth line, 'or of unduly restricting competition'-insert the words 'unreasonably' and; 'unduly'.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) that this is simply a definition. The law itself applies rather to the effects of combines than to combines as such. I think it very desirable that the definition should be as broad as possible, so that all classes of combinations may be brought under the operation of the law. I quite agree that it would not be proper to have any one rendered liable simply for taking part in the formation of a combine as such. But, if when the combine formed unduly or unreasonably enhances prices, it is quite proper that the parties interested should be proceeded against under this measure. If the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) will look at section 7, he will find that, before an examination can be ordered, the judge must be satisfied that it is in the public interest that that investigation should take place, and that the combination that exists is injurious to trade or has operated to the detriment of consumers generally. I think it would be hardly wise to include debatable words in the definition. For that reason I would not care to add the words suggested to the definition. I have no objection to having the Act safeguard any applications to the judge so as to prevent parties being harassed in an unfair manner; but I do not think it would be wise to put debatable words into the definition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister tell us why he does not include the farmers as well as the consumers, in accordance with the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Wentworth (Mr. Sealey), so that ip may apply to combines which stand between the farmers and the consumers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have carefully considered that point. I think I have mentioned that any combination, if it is going to be a vital factor in the process at all, will in the last analysis reveal its effect in the prices

of the article as sold in the market, and in that way consumers would be affected by a combine. Further, I may point out that, as I have already said, this legislation is in some particulars a departure, and I think it is desirable that we should proceed perhaps not too rapidly at the outset. If, after the law has been on the statutes for a year, it is found that it works well to the extent to which it does apply, and that producers have a grievance which cannot be remedied under it as it stands at present, it would be easy to make the necessary amendments and to enlarge the scope of the Act. But I think it would be wise to see whether, in the first instance, the law as it is now framed is not broad enough to meet the case which has been suggested.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What kind of a position would the farmer be in? He is a producer, and he would not be able to make any complaints, he would have to wait until the consumer made the complaints.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The representations that have come to the government so far from different sources, have been almost wholly in regard to combines against consumers. The question of the effect of combines on producers is being raised now for the first time, that is to say, to any extent, I think all the communications that have been received and the representations that have been made to the government, have been in respect to consumers, not as respects producers. But, as my hon. friend will see while every farmer is a producer of one article, he is a consumer of a thousand or more. Looking at the matter from the point of view of his being a consumer of articles of food and clothing, and everything needed for his household and his farm generally, to all of which classes of articles this law applies particularly, it will be apparent that the farmer would be the man of all men who Will reap great advantage from this legislation. I might further point out that in the letter from the Master of the Grange, which I read on the second reading of the Bill, the writer stated the the Grange had carefully considered this Bill and that members of the Grange were enthusiastically in favour of the measure, and wished it to pass at the present session. But nothing was said in that communication in regard to enlarging the scope of the Bill in the manner which has been suggested.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister understands the position of the farmer. The farmer may sell his products to a combine m that line, land yet he has no recourse under this Act.


Mr. CROSBY.: After reading this Act and listening to the discussions upon it, I do not think it will have the desired effect,
either upon the consumer or the producer. The Minister of Labour said a few moments ago that there wa3 some protection given to the producer by way of a special tariff, but if the tariff is only a revenue tariff, I do not see how it can protect any one. I do not see how the tariff is going to protect the man who raises pigs on a farm or the man who raises beef, and I do not understand how it will protect the man who catches fish on the Atlantic coast. The Minister of Inland Revenue said a moment ago that the lessening of the number of licenses issued to canners would be a protection to the fishery. Did anybody ever _ hear that lessening the number of canning licenses was going to protect the fish in the sea, when you let the same number of people go out to catch them?


William Templeman: Surely the hon. gentleman understands that if you lessen the number of licensees who are authorized to catch fish, you are thereby lessening the number of fishermen?


Adam Brown Crosby: If I didn't know any more about fishing then the Minister of Inland Revenue, I wouldn't attempt to say anything about it. From what he has said, I have come to the conclusion that he knows very little about the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast, and probably on the Pacific coast either. In the east the only licenses we have are licenses to can lobsters, and those licenses have been limited. But the methods of catching lobsters have not been limited, nor has the numbeT of men going into lobster fishing been limited either. The number of boat3 has not been limited, but the number of canning licenses has been unduly limited. But the Fisheries Committee have taken that matter up, and have shown that they do not desire any such combination as that. But in all these matters we are speaking only of the consumers of the articles and not of the producers. Take my own province of Nova Scotia. We have there a large fresh fish industry, but by virtue of the cold storage system which has been established by the government, the fishermen are not getting fair play. The fisherman goes out and catches fresh fish, and in consequence of the cold storage system the price of fish has been greatly reduced. People engaged in the cold storage business make an arrangement by which they buy so much fish, and I am sorry to say, at a very small price, running from half a cent a pound to two cents a pound. You cannot buy fresh fish anywhere in the eastern part of Canada of the same class of fish for less than about 10 cents a pound. Now, who gets the difference, where does it go to? There should be some method by which these fishermen may call for an investigation to see whether they are getting a fair and reasonable price for their fish

that they have to sell from half a cent up to two cents a pound. Half a cent to two cents a pound is not a fair price for fresh fish retailing in the vicinity of ten cents a pound and upwards. I can understand the Minister, of Labour saying that we will try this Act for one year, and if it works well, we will enlarge it next year. This is something which has been going on for a long time, and if it is possible we should make some effort to deal with it. The minister says that everybody is a consumer and that consequently this Bill will help everybody. If a man cannot produce, he cannot consume, because he cannot find the money to buy. He has to produce first in order to get the wherewithal to buy. I would be very glad to have a law placed upon the statute-book that would provide a fair means of regulation as between the producer and the consumer. I am speaking more particularly on behalf of the men who produce the raw material. The man in the coal mines is not protected. He has no opportunity of saying how much per ton he shall get for the coal he mines, while the coal company is getting so much per ton at the pit head. I notice that under the Bill as it is proposed to be amended, the six persons who make application-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to confine himself to what is before the committee. It is the definition of the word ' combine.' The section that the hon. gentleman wishes to enter upon is section 5.


Adam Brown Crosby: If you rule that I cannot discuss that part of the clause I will defer what I have to say.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not wish to be arbitrary, but for the sake of regularity I think the hon. gentleman might wait until we go back to section 5.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to make the statement that he had received no representations from producers that certain combines were injuring them. In answer to that I might draw his attention to the fact that the small tanners, who are producers, applied to the government to intercede or do something which would enable them to sell their product without restraint. It was not from the consumers that the application came, but from the producers, the small tanners all over the country who were either compelled to enter into an agreement, that they 'would buy their supplies from certain firms or otherwise they could not sell any leather to these firms. The product which they had was thereby reduced in value, and the sale circumscribed very much on account of that arrangement.


Adam Brown Crosby: 


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to the hon. gentleman I would point out that the complaint was that the combination of certain tanners was in restraint of trade, and that it was operating to the detriment of the consumers. If it was really a combine maintained for the purpose of preventing people from buying their goods outside it would be covered by this Bill. Similarly, my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has been speaking of a combination in regard to fish. A ' combine/ as defined in this Bill, means a combination for restricting competition in or controlling the production of certain articles. The definition is pretty broad. If a combine controls the production of or restricts competition in any article by any kind of an agreement it will come within the definition of the word ' combine ' as herein set forth.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will the minister tell me how fishermen, who have been selling their fish to those who have cold storage facilities can bring about an investigation into the question of the price that they sell their fish at, as well as the price at which the purchasers resell the fish?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the persons interested in cold storage were restricting the supply' of fish in any way that would be a combine, and the effect of the restriction would be to the detriment of the consumer. _ If it were shown that there was a combination amongst cold storage men, or any other group who were operating in a manner to restrict trade, an investigation could be had under this Act. If it were shown that there was no such combination I do not see that the question of fixing the price on the part of the men who were selling the fish would actually come in because there would be absolute freedom of competition, and they could sell to whomsoever they wished as a result of that competition and freedom.	.


Adam Brown Crosby: There are a number of cold storage men who handle fresh fish. These men get together and say they will pay so much for fish to-day, and so much during the season. They do not restrict the production of fish at all; they take all the fish that the fishermen give them. When the fishermen get sufficient fish, and bring it into Canso, where there are two or three concerns who buy fish, they give them a certain price-from half a cent to two cents a pound-very seldom going to two cents a pound-and they resell that fish in Nova Scotia at not less than ten cents a pound. There should be some method by which the fishermen could show that they were not being treated fairly or reasonably, that these people pay a certain price and then resell to the consumer at a much higher price.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think we have any need to go any farther than the hon. gentleman's own statement. He alleges that this combination of cold storage dealers arrange prices, and that after paying a certain price they sell at another price in virtue of the combine which the hon. gentleman says exists.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am not worrying particularly about the price at which they sell to the public, hut what I am particularly worried about is the price that the fishermen get from the purchasers wlm have the cold storage facilities. These men have been assisted in providing these facilities by grants from the public treasury, and they have been put in a position to enable them to handle this fresh fish business. I have no doubt that the government intended also when assisting to provide these facilities that the fisherman should be helped. But help is not given to the fisherman because he simply has to sell his fish at the price offered him. The buyers take all the fish they can get; they do not curtail production at all. I do not know whether I have made myself clear to the minister.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I quite understand the contention of the hon. member (Mr. Crosby) although I have not heard very much complaint in that direction. His complaint appears to be that this is a combine to keep down prices.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am speaking of keeping down the price as far as purchasing from the fisherman is concerned, but when the fish goes into the hands of the merchant immediately the price goes up. I desire the fisherman to get a much better price or a chance to regulate it.


John Howard Sinclair: It is a combine to prevent the fishermen from getting a better price for his goods. If there is a combine of that kind and it can be prevented it would be a very proper thing to do. The fishermen in the district that I am best acquainted with have not made very many complaints of that kind to me. There are always a large number of buyers on the coast and if one will not buy another will. As the hon. gentleman has said that the cold storage places may have been to some extent oppressive, I think that would be a very proper subject of investigation when we are giving them a subsidy. There is no reason .why a cold storage concern which obtains a subsidy from this government should be allowed to oppress the fishermen with whom they deal. I do not say they have done so. There ought to be some way for the government to investigate a matter of that kind so as to see that the seller to these cold storage concerns subsidized by the government should get fair play. I understand that the hon. gentleman from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has complained about the recommendations made by the commission which inquired into the lobster industry.


Adam Brown Crosby: My only reference was to the limitation of canneries.


John Howard Sinclair: It has been stated that there was a certain combination among the canners along the coast of the maritime provinces in this way: That the number of licenses were limited, and the licenses were in the hands of a few companies, and in that way they could control the industry to a certain extent. It has been a grievance on the coast of the maritime provinces for some time past that the government have refused to grant any more licenses to new canneries, and that in that way they threw the industry into the hands of the people who had previously held licenses. That matter has been investigated by the Fisheries Committee, which has arrived at the conclusion that this policy was not a good policy, and that any person who can qualify himself to carry on a fish cannery in a proper way with the proper equipment should be given a license, and that the so called monopoly should be done away with.


Adam Brown Crosby: That is exactly what 1 said, only I did not say it as well as the hon. member for Guysboro has said it.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize that the minister has bestowed a great deal of time and attention on this subject, but he has not made perfectly clear and plain to me what his position is in respect to certain matters brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Blain) and others. From my limited investigation into such matters, I understand that the injurious effects of a combine may be roughly speaking divided into two classes; in the first place, an undue increase in the price to the consumer; and in the second place, an undue decrease of the price to the persons who produce the raw material, and which the combine works up into the finished article and places on sale. I understand the minister to say that this Bill has relation purely to the operations of the fiTst-class, and that under the Bill as at present framed he did not purpose affording any remedy as Tespects the operations of the second-class. I also understood the minister to state, in a' somewhat indefinite way, that possibly the operations of the second-class may be by some means brought within the scope of this Bill. I ask for information as to that. It seems to me perfectly clear that the operations of those who decrease the price to the purchaser may have no effect whatever on the price to the consumer. It has been suggested that decreasing by means

of a combination, the price to the purchaser, is really an advantage to the whole community as it will inevitably result in decreasing the price to the consumer. 1 do not understand it in that way. It is perfectly possible for la combine to decrease unduly the price to the purchaser and at the same time maintain a reasonable price to consumers, and I have no doubt that has been done.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If it did unduly increase the price to the consumer, would not the Act apply?


Robert Laird Borden: You could investigate the matter so far as theTe was an undue increase of price to the consumer, but apparently the producers who are obliged under certain conditions to sell their product for too low a price to that same combine have no opportunity for relief under this Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I wanted to know if this Bill would not cover that?


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I want to know also. I understand from the minister that that was not at present within the scope of the Bill, but that after the Bill had been in operation for a year and tested by experience, he might propose to amend it in that direction. Afterwards I understand the minister to intimate, though perhaps not very definitely, that there might be some remedy under the Bill, and I would like to know from him now under what terms of the Bill can operations of the second class to which I have referred be brought within the purview of the Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The price is either the result of free competition or the result of some monopolistic factor. If there is absolutely free competition in an article, neither purchaser nor consumer will be affected so far as this measure is concerned-


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is not answering my point and perhaps I have nri made myself clear. Take a case where the price charged to the consumer is a perfectly fair and reasonable price and where the consumer has absolutely nothing to complain of. But, although the price charged to the consumer is perfectly fair, there exists a combine by which the price paid to the purchaser of the raw material is unreasonably restricted, so that while the combine itself makes an enormous profit-out of fresh fish for example-the producer of the raw material in the first instance merely obtains the bare cost or perhaps less than the cost of production. Take that case, where the price to the consumer does not come in question at all, is that case covered by this Bill or is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Th!e price is either the result of the play of the law of supply Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
and demand under free competition, or the result of the supply being restricted by some element of a monopolistic nature.


Samuel Hughes: Or the demand being restricted, as in this case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any kind of restriction that interferes with the free play of the law of supply and demand in the market may affect the price. Any combination which would b*e sufficiently strong to control the price that could be offered to all producers of a particular article would be a complete monopoly. We cannot imagine such a combination the effect of which would not be reflected in the price the consumers would have to pay for the article. If you have a combination which controls the purchase of all th'e raw material, you have a combination *which stands between the producer and the consumer, not for the benefit of either but, primarily for the benefit of its own. If you have a combination strong enough to keep down the price at which a commodity can be purchased in the open market, it seems to me that you have a prima facie case of a combination standing between the producer and the consumer, and operating to the detriment of the consumer, and therefore coming under the operation of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I would rather have from the hon. minister a direct answer to my question than a lecture on political economy. I could imagine a case where the price paid to the producer is cut down, while the price charged to the consumer is not increased.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the hon. gentleman give such a'case?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not called upon to give one, but I could point to an instance of that in the most gigantic trust known in modern times, the Standard Oil Company. My view is that if such a case should arise, the producer whose price is cut down will have no remedy under this Bill. It may be that the hon. minister's great experience of the complexity of human affairs tells him that no such case could arise; but, with all deference to him, I would hardly be inclined to accept his view on that point. We know that in the complexity of modern conditions a great many things do arise *which are not foreseen, and it is not beyond the scope of my limited imagination to realize that there might be a case where the price is kept down to the consumer for the very good reason that the price of the raw material to the producer is also kept down to an unreasonable limit, so that the combination makes a very great profit, while the man who produces the raw mate-

rial makes little or no profit, and works very hard for the barest livelihood.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say frankly to my hon. friend that in introducing this legislation the government had not in view the me'eting of every possible evil that might grow out of combinations. The objection which we rather expected to be raised against this measure was that it was going too far. I am very glad to find hon. gentlemen opposite apparently sharing the view that it is a step in the right direction, and that if it has any limitations at all they are that it does not go quite far enough.. I think it meets all the apparent cases which have come to the attention of the government up to the present tim'e. If there are other cases which it * does not cover, time will reveal them, and when it does, I think we can deal with them mor'e to the advantage of the country than we could by making this measure too wide at the outset.


John Allister Currie: I refrained from making any remarks on this Bill at the beginning of the discussion, though I take considerable interest in it. Perhaps I am not deeply enough versed in political economy to size up the situation fully, but I have some idea of how such matters work out in practice. There are three categories into which trade naturally divides itself: there is first the producer; second, the manufacturer or dealer; and, third, the consumer. Combinations may exist in any of the thre'e categories, and if I wished to delay the House, I could give well-known examples of each class of combination. The hon. member for West-worth (Mr. Sealey), the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Taylor), spoke truly when they said that this Bill might not cover combinations that would restrict the prices paid to producers. If the minister inserted the word ' producer,' I think he would perhaps make the Bill cover the case exactly. There are combinations of farmers as well as combinations of dealers. For instance, the milk producers and the fruit producers have their little associations by which they endeavour to fix . prices. It seems that the first operation of a combination or trust of this kind is to seek to control the sources of production, because unless a trust can do so it is impossible for ^ to control the price to the consumer. There might be a combination of dealers or drov'ers that would reduce the price of hogs to the farmer, and the farmer under this Bill would have no redress. Three or four drovers might form such a combination among themselves and agree to pay only a certain price for hogs in a certain district. There is nothing in the Bill dealing with a case of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I admit that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent one or two drovers in a particular locality from fixing the prices they would pay. But if there were half a dozen or more who combined to control a particular area, and the farmers of that area were put in such a position that they could not sell their hogs, except at the price the combination fixed, I think you would have a combination that would be obviously detrimental to the consumer, because it would limit the supply.
Mr; J. A. CURRIE. It might not limit the supply. The sale of bacon and pork in this country is controlled broadly by two firms of retail dealers. They might not care a fig so far as that is concerned, and that is one point in which the Bill is lacking. For example, there is nothing to prevent a combination of^ grain buyers in the west fixing the price of grain in the west irrespective of the foreign market value of it. Everybody knows that the tendency is to form combinations so as to make, prices stable, in order that a man in any line of business will know what profit he is likely to make. If prices fluctuate such as they did in the old oil days-one day a barrel of oil would only be worth 10 cents, and the next day it would be worth $10-these fluctuations would give rise to gamblings and cause great injury to the consumer, and the producer, and everybody else. There is no doubt that combinations have tended to maintain prices at a set level. Suppose the grain dealers form a combination, and fix the price of wheat in the Northwest, what means would the Northwest farmer have to bring about an investigation? I am quite in sympathy with the Bill, but I think the insertion of the word ' producer ' would help out the situation, and make it better for all concerned.


William D. Staples: The minister stated that he had made provision under this Bill to deal with all classes of monopoly that have been brought to the attention of the government. I quite understand that the minister is young in the cabinet, but surely he knows that for many years the farming community of the west have come down here delegation after delegation, asking for the passage of legislation which would burst the grain combine. The agricultural organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba have been sending their representatives to Ottawa for years asking the government to deal with that question. They are producers, and if there is no provision under this Bill whereby they can break up that monopoly which they have strong evidence does exist, then the Bill falls very far short of what it should be. Can a combine of that kind be investigated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unquestionably, any combination of the kind mentioned by the hon-gentleman could be investigated. If you look at the definition of the word combine, the last sentence says:
And shall include what is known as a trust, monopoly or merger.
All the cases that have been cited affecting producers have been in the nature of monopolies. I think that is admitted. That being so they would come under that definition, and all such cases would be covered by the measure as it stands.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Yes, but the minister has excluded himself from contending that when he accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Pietou which says:
To the detriment of the consumers in such articles of trade and commerce.
The applicant has to show that he is injured as the consumer of the article.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first part of the definition is limited by the words the hon. gentleman has suggested, but in addition to that there are added the words:
And also includes ' a trust, monopoly and merger/
The word ' also ' is sufficient to show that if these last words are not in the definition itself there can be no doubt the definition was intended to bring them within the measure.


William Sora Middlebro: Would it not read:
And also includes what is known as a trust, monopoly or merger, which operates to the detriment of the consumers of such articles of trade and commerce.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all, I would object to adding these words to the last part of
the definition.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: The Minister of Labour. (Mr. King) did not make it very clear to me what effect this interpretation would have. We have combinations in the west in connection with wheat, in connection with beef, in connection with pork. What I would like to know is whether the producer in any of these lines in western Canada could have an investigation under this Bill ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That certainly was the intention, where the combination would have an effect upon prices. To make it perfectly clear, in view of the discussion that has taken place, I propose to make the definition include producers as -well as consumers. Then there can be no mistake. I would point out to the committee that the discussion really arose on the suggested Mr. STAPLES.	-
amendment of ' combine ' made by the hon. member from Pietou (Mt. Macdonald) whose object, as I understood it, was not to restrict the definition, but to make it clear that the combines affected by this law, must be detrimental to some one. Under the amendment already made, the words added axe ' to the detriment of consumers,' there is a desire that it should be made with equal clearness to apply to producers. My own feeling is that the kind of combinations affected by the law is sufficiently indicated by the final words of this section, ' trust, monopoly or merger,' whether such affect producers or consumers. But I would move that the section be amended so as to read, ' to the detriment of consumers or producers of such article of trade or commerce.'


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Is not the point sufficiently covered by the definition contained in the clause as printed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some hon. members thought that, possibly, combinations that were not detrimental to any class might be brought under the law by the definition as it' is in the printed Bill. If we add * to the detriment of consumers or producers ' that makes it clear that what we want to reach are only such combinations as are detrimental to some one.


John Graham Haggart: But it says ' fixing the price or rental of any article of trade or commerce, or the cost of the storage or transportation thereof,' and so on. That is the offence, and you limit considerably by the provision concerning its being detrimental to parties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not say that is the offence. The offence lies in a combination of the kind enhancing the price to consumers or lowering them to producers. A combine that does not operate to the detriment of either consumers or producers, what would be the necessity of including it ?	.


John Graham Haggart: But is not what the minister proposes to add-that it is detrimental to some one-implied in the very words of the section?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that what the hon. member (Mr. J. Haggart) says as to the definition as printed is quite right. The definition, as printed to#my mind, is sufficient. But some hon. members are inclined to be sensitive as to the words, and wish to make it clear that it is only a combine that is operating detrimentally to others that is to be dealt with by this legislation. The words do not take away anything or add anything, it seems to me. But they do no harm, and they meet the objection raised.


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.: It seems to me the addition of these words does not make a single bit of difference in the working of the Bill. The whole object is to prevent the operation of injurious combines. I do not see any great objection to the words, but I do not see that they add anything to the effect of the Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are desired by some lion, members of the House.


John Graham Haggart: That is no reason. The minister must be able to give some reasonable explanation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason seems to be quite clear. Some hon. members have desired these words to be inserted because they fear that otherwise the definition may be misread. A man might be afraid to enter into some agreement with his neighbour, fearing that, under this definition, the law would apply to him. By adding the words ' to the detriment of consumers or producers ' you make clear, in the opinion of the hon. members who have spoken, the purpose which it is intended to serve by the definition of ' combine.' If it helps to remove doubts, that is a good reason.


John Graham Haggart: But we are guided by fixed principles. What is meant by ' detrimental to the consumer?' If the judgment is left to the parties appointed under the Act, and no fixed principle is laid down for their guidance, it gives to these parties the power of constituting a crime. There is the objection to legislation of this sort; you make it a crime-[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, you do. For, if within a certain time after publication in ' the * Canada Gazette,' those whose conduct is investigated, do not cease to do what these parties have held is wrong for them to do, they may be fined $1,000 a day.'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is after it has been shown that an offence has been committed, namely, that prices have been unduly enhanced; and that, at common law, is crime to-day.


Mr. BLAIN.: Does the minister say that there are combines in existence that do not reduce the price of the raw material to the producer, or unduly advance the price of the article to the consumer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be such. I would not like to say that any combine does enhance the prices unduly or restrict competition unduly, until I had had a chance of looking into it.


Mr.   J.@: HAGGART I object to any such legislation as this. If we are to have crimes on the statute-book we want to define what the crime is. Under this section,
a party is accused of being guilty of a crime because he detrimentally enhances prices. What does enhancing prices mean? Surely we are entitled to a description or designation of 'enhancing prices,' to know whether we are guilty of a crime or not. But the minister takes the extraordinary position of leaving to a court of arbitration to decide what is meant by enhancing prices. After they come to a decision and publish it in the 'Canada Gazette,' then, after a certain time, it becomes a crime, and you are punished for it. Such a way of designating a crime I never heard of before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all due deference, I would like to point out that so far as this legislation puts any class of actions in the category of crimes, my hon. friend will find that in the Criminal Code already, precisely the same thing. If the hon. gentleman will look at section 498 of the Criminal Code, he will find that.
Every one is guilty of an. indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding $4,000 and not less than $200, or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company,-
(a)	To unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or,
(b)	To restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity ; or,
(c)	To unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof.
If I am not mistaken, the hon. member himself voted for that legislation.


John Graham Haggart: Are you sure of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so. I think the hon. member supported this legislation when it was introduced by the late Clarke Wallace.


John Graham Haggart: An amendment was introduced to the Criminal Code founded on the Bill that was introduced by Clarke Wallace.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the Bill that was introduced by Clarke Wallace.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly, the provisions of that Bill were embodied in the criminal law, and I remember Sir John Thompson saying that it did not alter the law, it made no changes in it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But did not the hon. gentleman support it?


John Graham Haggart: It made no change in the law, it was a harmless amendment. Is this amendment going to leave the law in the same position it was before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not the point we are discussing. The hon. gentleman is taking exception to my putting on the statutes legislation making a certain set of conditions a crime, when he himself has voted for legislation which does that very thing.


John Graham Haggart: You state that I voted for it, you must have authority for saying so. The possibilities are, as I was a member of the government when it was embodied in the Criminal Code, that I supported it. But I do not suppose there was a vote on the question at all, I suppose it was unanimously adopted by the House. The hon. gentleman has found out that the Act has just the effect that Sir John Thompson said it had, that it did not alter the law in any respect, that it was perfectly harmless, like ia chip in the porridge. The hon. gentleman intends to make the Act something different from what it was before, and that is what I am criticising. The hon. gentleman says it is the same. If it is the same, there is no use in introducing it; if it is different, I have a right to give my opinion on the difference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the same Bill. The first time the Act passed this House it did not contain the words ' unduly ' or ' unreasonably.' Those words were put in by the Senate, and when the Bill came back here, because of the lateness of the session, and because we knew that the Bill must drop entirely if this House did not accept the amendment made by the Senate, we accepted it. But afterwards, in 1899, I moved an amendment to strike those words out and did get them struck out in this House. The Bill then went to the Senate, and they introduced them again. The following year I introduced the Bill again, and got it through this House, and through the Senate, without those words ' unduly ' or ' unreasonably '. But the following year it was amended by the present government, those words were put back again, and I believe now, and always did believe that it was amended for that specific purpose, because when the original Bill was on the statutes, and it was submitted to Sir .Oliver Mowat, who, as Attorney General of Ontario, would be obliged to enforce the law, he said it was utterly useless, that no person could go before a court, and get a court to say what was ' unduly ' or ' unreasonably ' enhancing prices; but if these words were left out, then the Bill would be useful. The very next year the government amended the Criminal Code, and put these words back again, and I always believed that they put them back so as to make the Bill practically worthless.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


Mr. HERRON.: I want to say now that I am in favour of this legislation, if it will have the effect aimed at. There is a suspicion in our country that there is a restraint of trade to the extent that the farmers generally do not get full value for what they produce, and also that they pay more than they should pay, in many cases for what they consume. I hope the Bill is right, but as I am not a lawyer, I am not able to judge of the effect of certain sections.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I want to say a word upon this amendment. I understood that the minister's object was to benefit the consumer. But my opinion is that when the minister has amended the interpreta-i tion clause by including the word ' producer,' he entirely neutralizes the benefit of the Act to the consumer. If you have a combine, or a monopoly that increases the cost to the consumer by an investigation under this Act, you are not likely to benefit the producer. The one is adverse to the other. The producer of a certain article that is sold under a monopoly, shares in the benefit of that monopoly. In my opinion this section is decidedly better as 'it is. The object of the Bill is to benefit the consumer, and to the extent that you are benefiting the consumer by destroying monopoly you cannot at the same time benefit a particular producer who produces the article in question. You are very likely to reduce the return he gets from the production of that article. I certainly think that the interpretation section would be better without the word ' producer You do not help the consumer by trying to benefit the producer at the same time.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5, order for investigation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you not amend this to conform to the amendments made before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the words ' or producer,' should be added after the words ' consumers,' where they appear in lines 24, 34 and 44. I therefore, beg to move:
That the words ' or producers ' be inserted after the word ' consumers ' in lines 24, 35 and 45.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I propose that the section be amended by adding, after the word ' persons,' in the first line the words ' British subjects resident in Canada, and of full age.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I also propose that after the word ' that ' in line 42 paragraph 4, there be inserted the words ' the alleged combine operates to the detriment of the declarant as a consumer or producer.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would be the effect if an application were received under that section, and an investigation took place, and if three of the six were trying to prove that the producer was affected, and the other three were trying to prove that the consumer was affected?
_ Mr. KING. I think if they succeeded in proving that, there would he a double reason for going (ahead.


John Allister Currie: What is the meaning of the phrase ' injurious to trade? ' There have been a great many decisions defining the meaning of the phrase ' in restraint of trade.' A great many things are decided to be in restraint of trade, and there are a great many decisions as to what the expression means. But perhaps the meaning that the minister wishes to convey is a little different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the meaning is clear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you not under this Bill attack labour unions as well as combinations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I moved the second reading of the measure I stated that it was my intention to move in committee to add a clause to make it quite clear that this measure would not take away from trades organizations the rights secured to them under the existing law. I intend to move an amendment to this effect before the committee rise3.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It seems to me that the point taken by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is worthy of consideration. The phrase ' injurious to trade,' is a novel one in legislation of this character. I do not think it has been defined at all. I do not recollect 'any definition of any such phrase in decisions regarding legislation of this kind. I think that if the words ' in restraint of trade,' were used you would be going along a path where you had well recognized conditions, and where the bodies having to do with the operation of this statute would understand clearly where they were working, and with quite as good results. I think that the suggestion of the hon. member for North Simcoe as to what the word ' injurious ' means is very pertinent to the discussion. What it does mean, from a legal standpoint, in working out this Bill, is something that I do not think anybody could venture a very strong opinion on with a view of arriving at exactitude with reference to it; whereas, the words * in restraint of trade,' have had a usage, and definition for centuries. Their significance is well _ understood. I think that the language is more apt apart from the legal standpoint.


John Allister Currie: The idea of the minister is to express the same thing, and
that is why I thought that using the old word would make it more clear instead of having the courts give a definition of what injurious ' is. The courts have decided hundreds of times what ' restraint of trade ' is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In my opinion the words are quite plain, and I think they had better be left as they are.
On section II-members of board.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: You have here the words:	'Being one of the parties to the
investigation.' Would that be taken to mean that the party to be appointed should be one of the persons who had applied?	1


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There can only be two parties to the investigation, the party complaining and the party complained against.
ivir. j. a. (JUKKIE. These words were evidently inserted parenthetically to make it clear what the effect is. They would seem to infer that one of the parties who should be on the board would be one of the applicants, while it was evidently the intention of the minister that the parties who asked for the investigation and the parties who were named in the complaint should each select a representative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What would the hon. gentleman suggest?


John Allister Currie: This drafting in the Bill is according to the usual phraseology, but I should prefer that the statement should be more direct, so that nobody could mistake it. Why not say: The . parties who have applied for this investigation shall name one of the members of the board; the parties complained against shall name another member, and these two members of the board shall appoint a third?


Murdo Young McLean: I do not know much about the^ legal effect of this language, but I think I know what words mean, and I do not see how any words could make it more clear than those used in the Bill. It states that one member of the board shall be appointed on the recommendation of the persons on whose application the order is granted.


John Allister Currie: Read on.


Murdo Young McLean: Then it says: Being one of the parties to the investigation. Well, I do not see why these words should be there at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If these words obscure the meaning w'e can strike them out. I am quite agreeable to have that done.
(The words ' being one of the parties- to the investigation ' were stricken from the Bill.)

On section 13,
No person shall act as a member of the board who has any direct pecuniary interest in the alleged combine that is the subject of investigation by such board, or who is not a British subject.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It seems to me that no person should be a member of the board who is one of the applicants for the investigation. If there is to be a public advantage derived from the Bill, it will be only had if the board is absolutely impartial and unprejudiced, as far as that is possible. I would like to suggest to the minister the advisability of inserting after the word ' who ' in the first line the words ' is one of the applicants for the board.'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will be very glad to accept the suggestion of the hon. membeT for Pictou.


John Allister Currie: I would also suggest after the woTd ' direct ' the addition of the words ' or indirect.' I may say that I am very much disappointed that the hon. Minister of Labour has not the Minister of Justice sitting beside him while this Bill is being considered. It is a very important measure, liable to affect the interests of a great many people, we are all trying to make it as perfect as possible, arid 1 think it is a matter worthy of comment that the Minister of Justice is not in his place in the House to assist the Minister of Labour in the phraseology of the Bill, because he will be concerned to a large extent in carrying it out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that the Minister of Justice has already gone over the Bill, as it was drafted by the Department of Justice.


Murdo Young McLean: It seems to me that we are all indirectly interested in these investigations, and consequently the insertion of the words ' or indirectly ' would defeat the whole object of the Bill.
Amendment suggested by Mr. E. M. Macdonald agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-oath of office-


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It seems to me that this section should be amended to provide that the members of the board shall make an affidavit negativing any interest in the application or the result of the investigation. Otherwise you might have the parties who have applied for an investigation choosing as their representative on the board, somebody who is as much interested in the application or in the result of the investigation as they are. The result of the working out of this Act can only be ascertained by having it worked out by a board that is absolutely impartial and that has no interest in the result of the investigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


Mr. PARDEE.: That is hardly possible, because the one thing provided for is the interest of the whole public in the result of the investigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the point raised is covered by the first clause of the oath: ' I will truly, faithfully and impartially perform my duties as a member of the board.'


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am afraid the minister's logic is hardly good enough in regard to that, because if so we should omit the third clause as to whether they are interested pecuniarily. Language like this might be used, and I think it is only fair that it should be used, that the investigating member should be prepared to make an affidavit that ' I am not injuriously or otherwise affected by the alleged combine.'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is a combine adversely affecting the public, he could not take such an affidavit.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I think I could show you readily how he could. In the first place, combines that form the subject of investigation are not merely combines that have ramifications all over the Dominion of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They might have.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: They might have, but at the same time if they might have, there is just as much room for saying that there are numbers of people who are not directly pecuniarily affected. Cases in which you have combinations with wide ramifications are very few. The majority of instances in which this Act will have to be applied will be cases affecting particular localities. Thus in western Ontario you might have combinations there that injuriously affect certain consumers in that locality. Well, there is no reason why you should be compelled to accept as one of the investigators some one who lives in that locality and who would be undoubtedly chosen by the parties making the application, because they would think he was in sympathy with them. But go to the central portion of Ontario, and you would get a man absolutely independent and who would not be affected by the results in any way whatever. It seems to me that this business of having investigating boards composed of men who are interested in the result is only going to have consequences that will have no value to us. That a party who is going to act as judge should not be in a position to say that he is entirely disinterested would be an anomalous position of affairs, and I do think that any man who sits on a board of this kind ought to be so disinterested that he should be able to say he is or is not in-* juriously or otherwise affected by the alleged combine.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: With all deference to my hon. friend, I do not agree with him. He

is endeavouring to make fish of one and flesh of another. There may be combines that only affect certain individuals. Ori the other hand, there may be combines that affect the country generally. Now, you cannot possibly have a man take an affidavit in one case and not in another. We must make the whole Act apply in a general way, otherwise the Act will be absolutely nullified. Even supposing you were to endeavour to do something in that way in the case of smaller combines which do not affect every person, I do not see how a man in that case could take it, becausa there can be no question about it that any great production in respect to which an inquiry is asked by reason of an alleged' combine, must in some way or other direct-# ly or indirectly affect the applicants. I cannot possibly see how you could do that. In passing legislation of this kind, you must have simply a general oath such as this and let it work out the best way. I cannot see any other way possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We provide as well that the parties who sign the application should make a declaration. That affects themselves, and if it affects themselves to any extent, they must have some pecuniary interest in it.
Mr.	McLEAN. (Suppose it is a sugar
combine, every man in the country would be interested in that, every person who uses sugar would be. Or suppose we had a grocers' combine, as we were supposed to have a short time ago, everybody in the country is interested pecuniary in that. Consequently the contention of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) is hardly sound.


John Allister Currie: I think the common, ordinary criminal procedure is that a juryman has to take a pretty stiff oath. In several countries the man who enters the jury box to decide between a criminal and the law has virtually to swear that he knows nothing about the case that he has heard nothing about the case that he is not interested in it, and that he has not made up his mind on it one way or the other. There is no doubt that this Act partakes of a similar character. I think the sentence proposed is: 'I am not miuriously affected', but a man could be affected without being injuriously affected. For instance a man might be affected by a sugar combine, but he might be a rich man, and it would not matter to him perhaps five cents a year.


Murdo Young McLean: It would affect him all the same.


John Allister Currie: There is no doubt that this law as it stands is going to make criminal prosecutions, and these arbitrators will stand in the same position as jurymen at an ordinary inquest. 13 do not 251
see why they should not be compelled to take the same oath, so as to prevent any miscarriage of justice one way or the other. I think it is the only fair way, and I 'think the minister should consider the redrafting of this declaration so as to cover all the points raised. It would be very unfair for a man to take an oath that he is not. interested in the combine, when he might be a purchaser from that combine and therefore very strongly interested in soaking the combine. There are two sides to it, and I think we should meet the case thoroughly.
. Mr. BLAIN. This Bill, I understand, from the hon. minister has been submitted to the Justice Department, and has been the subject of consideration on the part of the present _ government for a great many months, if not years. The government, as the minister has pointed out, has been aware and is still aware of combines existing in this 'country, that at least affect the consumer, and I have no doubt, particularly in the west the beef combine affects the producer as well. I do not know that it is important that all those details should be looked into. I believe the minister and the department should take the full responsibility. After a year goes by, we will expect that the minister will be able to come forward and state to this House and to the country that these great evils have been driven out by this legislation. I hope we will not be disappointed. If we are, the minister will have to answer to parliament and to the country for the disappointment. It seems to me the government after giving this careful consideration has presented this perfected Bill. Whether it is perfect or not I cannot say. I do not know whether the minister himself would say that it is'a perfect Bill. It was rather suggested that after a year had passed by it would be found that some people in Canada had not been reached by this Bill and that there might foe an opportunity to amend it. I have my own opinion as to whether it will be effective legislation or not, but it is not my business to say whether it is or is not. I think the minister having taken the full responsibility, having by the introduction of this Bill told the people of Canada that there are evils in the shape of combines affecting the country generally, the producer and the consumer in some cases. I think the minister should take the full responsibility. For myself, I am willing to leave it on the shoulders of the minister and on the shoulders of the government. Thev have been thirteen or fourteen vears looking this matter up, and the delays have greatly disappointed the people of Canada. These gentlemen, before they came into power, talked of combinations, particularly my good friend the Minister of



Customs (Mr. Paterson). He saw combines everywhere when he was in opposition, but he has sat quietly by while in government and has 'contented himself with spending enormous amounts of money. Now, after all these years have passed, he comes forward, with his new friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), and 'proposes legislation 1 to check the evils that have been going on all this time. I think we ought to give these lion, gentlemen an opportunity to deal with these questions, and, for my part, I propose to give them that opportunity. After a year goes by, we may have something to say as to their legislation, and the way it has been carried out.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My suggestion is that no person should act on the board who is prejudiced. Those who are prejudiced should be barred as much as those who are interested. I have not thought out the wording, but some words should be added to cover that idea.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every man of the board must swear that he will perform his duties 'truly, faithfully and impartially.' If he cannot be bound by an oath of that kind. I do not know that any form of words will help particularly.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I feel very strongly with regard to this matter. No tribunal should be constituted by tnis or any other legislature, the effect of whose decision is to fix criminal liability upon individuals unless the impartiality of the tribunal by whom the facts are to be investigated is ensured. To that proposition, I think, no one will raise objection. Under the Act, as it stands, you prevent any person who initiates the proceedings from being a member of the board. At the same time there is no reason why you should not have the partner of one of these applicants sitting as a member of the board and deciding the result. The business competitors of a man might initiate these procedings and then have a friendly business associate interested in the same matter, sitting on the board and using all the powers given by the Act to secure information, not for the benefit of the public, but to gratify some feeling or benefit a competitor in the business.


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald), who is making valuable suggestions, believe that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice have considered all these matters?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am one of those who do not yield my judgment and conscience to the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Justice, or anybody else. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) may be prepared to do that in the case of the leaders of his party, but I am not. I hold Mr BLAIN.
myself free to discuss freely any matter that comes before this House. And I have, an opinion of my own in legal matters which I do not yield to anybody, while I respect the opinion of others. My contention is that there should be a clause providing that those who sit on this board shall not be interested in the application, connected with the trade or business directly affected by the application. Under the Conciliation Act, we have had cases where it has brought about a very satisfactory result, and where its intent and theory have been worked out. But we have had other cases where members of the board have had their opinion absolutely fixed and settled before the investigation was begun, should be constituted by this or any result. Why should we give a black eye to this Bill at its very inception by permitting parties who are directly interested in the business directly affected, to sit in judgment on these matters? There should be as complete a guarantee as possible of impartiality in these important matters.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Suppose an application were made by six farmers relating to a matter of which the Grange and farmers associations had made a particular study, and one that affects their industry, would my hon friend (Mr. Macdonald) provide that no farmer should be a member of the boards to investigate the matter? Every farmer would be interested to some slight degree in the business directly affected. To make such a provision would be to nullify the whole Act.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I can suppose a great many cases in which you would have a board which -would include persons directly interested in learning the business of the parties charged with forming a combine. The prosecution might be a mere effort to wreak vengeance or spite or to obtain business secrets, and not an effort for the good of the country. If the case my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) speaks of arose in Lambton, the farmers of that county, who have been accustomed_ to look to my hon. friend to guard their interests in legal matters, could well ask to have him as their representative on the board, and he would do the work as well as one of themselves,


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I would be getting votes, and so would be directly interested.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: No, I am sure my hon. friend would not do that. All I contend is that the Bill should be so amended as to cover the principle that interested parties shall not be members of the board so that the impartiality of the board should be assured.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those against whom the charge is made under this Bill might well prefer that some person having knowledge

of the business should be a member of the board. Suppose that a certain line of manufacture is alleged to be under a combine. The people concerned would feel it decidedly in their interest to have a manufacturer on the board who would understand the conditions of their business. It seems to me that the provision of the Bill that no person shall act as a member of the board who has a direct pecuniary interest in the alleged combine is as far as we ought to go.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is quite correct to say that there is nobody so capable of judging these matters as one who has some knowledge of the business affected, but, as I understand the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) he seeks to prevent the rivals of a business concern from using this law to pry into the affairs of that concern. It would be very easy to get six men to swear out affidavits and start an investigation for the very purpose of prying into a rival's business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A man of that sort would have a pecuniary interest in the combine -he would be interested in getting hold of the business of the combine-and, as such, he could not swear that he was not interested.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I do not- see how it would be possible to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). I think the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) put the case correctly. [DOT] For instance, suppose that six farmers in the west believe that there is a combine among the grain buyers to keep down the price of wheat, and they apply for an investigation. When those six have made application it seems to me the suggestion of the member for Pictou would prevent any farmer in the west from being on the board of arbitration. I do not see how it would be possible to carry out the suggestion of my learned friend, who certainly understands the law better than I do. But looking at it in that practical way, there would have to be some farmer on that arbitration board in order that there may not be any increase in the price of wheat.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Will the minister be good enough to let that clause stand till we can consider it more fully?
On section 20, publication of reports.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to oppose this Bill in any way, but sinpe three members are provided for on this commission, why should there be a minority report? What effect will a minority report have? If a certain trade or interest is represented, then this confirms the idea of the member for Pictou, that there is some one person on the board to represent a cer-
251J
tain specific interest, and when the other two have decided what is to be done, the third shall have the privilege of filing in any kind of report he wishes. I hold there should be only one report. You put a prejudiced man on this board, and he will send in a minority report that may be untruthful, and very damaging to the party investigated, and that minority report is given just as much currency as" the majority report. I would ask the minister to consider whether it would not be better to take that clause out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason for permitting a minority report is precisely the same "as the reason for permitting a dissenting judgment where you have several judges sitting on a case. When one judge dissents from the other, it is customary to give the same publicity to his dissenting judgment as to the judgment of the majority of the court.


John Allister Currie: There are some members in this House who do not hold that there should be any minority judgment. I think there should be only one judgment, and we would have far fewer appeals if only one judgment were published.
On section 21, reduction of customs duties to secure reasonable competition.


Richard Blain: Is there not legislation of this kind already?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section is already on the statutes., with the difference that the present section includes the finding of the board. This section should be read along with section 47 which repeals section 12 of the Customs Act.
On section 22, revocation of patent in certain cases.


John Allister Currie: That is in the Patent Act also, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. The Patent Act relates to the selling of the patented article at a reasonable price, but it does not cover the cases of persons holding a patented article, and, before selling it, requiring the purchaser to enter into an agreement to purchase other things as well from the patent owner, and from him to the exclusion of ail others. This section is intended to prevent cases of that kind.


John Graham Haggart: The use of a patented article is unduly to enhance or lessen competition. Supposing a patented article is used in another article that is beinsr manufactured, the effect of it is to lessen competition, or increase the price to a larger extent than the value of the patent itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The law specially refers to that particular form of monopoly and doe; so for reasons of public policy, and to

that extent patents are perhaps more favoured by the general law with reference to enhancing prices than they otherwise would be.


John Graham Haggart: The general law affects them, but I think the effect of this clause is to alter the general law to the extent that it gives jurisdiction to the Exchequer Court, on the recommendation of this board, to cancel a patent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I think I pointed out, the present law in regard to patents sets forth the conditions on which a patented article can be sold as to the matter of price. Section 22 does not affect the existing law in that particular in one way or the other. What it relates to is the seller of a patented article making use of the patent to enforce upon persons desiring to use (the patented articlei some contract which limits his power to purchase articles elsewhere than from the patentee himself. That is a different thing altogether.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask a question with respect to that clause of the Customs law that allows the government to reduce or strike off the duty if it finds that a combine exists in Canada which is unduly enhancing the pric'e to the consumer? Has that clause been applied against any combine other than the news print paper combine?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I understand that is the only case that has been investigated.


Richard Blain: How long has it been on the statute-book?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the Act was passed in 1897, but apparently there have not been many representations to the government as to the necessity for conducting investigations under that section.


Richard Blain: This has been on the statute-book since 1897, and there has only been one case. If the government were aware that combines existed in Canada to unduly enhance the price of articles, and if they were empowered to strike off or reduce th'e duty, one would think that, if there were a necessity for legislation of this kind, the government would have put into operation the legislation that they have on the statute-book at th'e present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government would hardly be justified in removing duties or commencing investigations unless very full representations were made in the first instance, as to the need of such investigation, and I understand that such representations have not been made under the law as it stands at the present time. One of the reasons given, I believe, in certain quarters, is that the fear of expense in the matter of an inquiry under the existing law has det'er-Mr. KING.
red many persons who believe that combines were existing, from putting in any representations under that section. This measure is doing away with the cost on the part of consumers who ask for an inquiry.


Richard Blain: I would hav'e thought that a department, such as that upon which my hon. friend has been spending a large amount of money, which has been gathering information of this kind, and which has taken the opportunity from time to time of impressing upon the Canadian people that there are combines in Canada that are unduly enhancing prices to the consumer, would have suggested that it would be a good thing to put into force some of the legislation the government have rather than introduce further legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that this legislation is in part the result of investigations which have been made by the Department of Labour. I mentioned these investigations on the second reading of the Bill, investigations which go to show that the cost of living has very materially increased the last few years and which have pointed directly to the need of such legislation as this.


John Allister Currie: This clause, I understand, covers the case of shoe machinery largely. It is intended, I take it, to meet the United Shoe Machinery Company's case. They are manufacturers of a complete line of machinery, but they will not sell; they will simply lease. There are other manufacturers of shoe ' machinery, but they do not make a full line, and if you want to make shoes, you have to get the United Shoe Machinery Company's full line or otherwise you cannot get a complete line at all. This clause will meet such a case, will it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is hoped that this section will meet possible combinations of that sort.
On section 23, combines _ restricting manufacture, trade or competition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you cannot go before a court and establish the meaning of the words ' unduly and unreasonably,' how are you going to do it before this board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The board will have opportunities of getting very full information from a variety of sources and of making comparisons. I would think that the board will not have much difficulty in making up its mind as to the meaning of the word ' unreasonably.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So have the courts such opportunities. Each side will take good care that all information that will sustain one side or the other will be brought before the court. If the court cannot decide what the word * unduly ' means-and this

board becomes in reality a court for the time being-I do not understand how thisi board is going to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The courts have in some cases decided that the enhancement has been unreasonable and undue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not remember any case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was the Brantford coal combine case, and there was also the case of the lumber combine at Edmonton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There was a prosecution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, a prosecution in which the parties were convicted of an undue enhancement of the price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was not that very trouble the cause of the failure in a grocer's case? There was one case entered at Brantford; it is a good while since, but my memory of it is that it was dropped because of the impossibility of successfully proving that prices were unduly enhanced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I remember the judgment in the grocer's case, it did not relate to the question of undue or unreasonable enhancement. It found rather that the Grocers' Guild was not a combination in restraint of trade at all. The question of the undue enhancement or unreasonableness of the price was not mentioned in the judgment.


Robert Laird Borden: What are you going to do in this trial? What will be necessary in order to convict a person upon such a trial?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If a person is found guilty ' of unduly limiting the facilities for transportation, producing, manufacturing, sup-lying, storing, or


Robert Laird Borden: I know what the words of the Bill are; I can Tead them, but I was asking whether the whole investigation will have to be gone through with again, or whether you will put in the proceedings of the board and convict the person in question upon the report of the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to criminal proceedings, I should think it would be necessary to prove the parties guilty under the criminal law and to give them all the rights in the matter of protection which criminal procedure would secure to them. The procedure before the board is not necessarily the procedure to be adopted in a criminal court, and much evidence may be admitted in the general investigation before the board which would not be admitted in a criminal court. For that reason, I think the parties before they are convicted criminally should receive such protection as the criminal procedure and rules of evidence afford.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, according to what the minister says, when a party is interested in the criminal court it will be necessary to make out a case against him exactly as if there had been no investigation before the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With this difference between that situation and the law as it stands at the present time, that the evidence already before the board would be available. It could not be submitted of course as prima facie evidence, but the facts gathered in that way could be used before the criminal court.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister mean that the evidence taken before the board could be put in as evidence under the indictment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, but the examination before the board would reveal certain facts which any one would be at liberty to use.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister means that the evidence would be a soTt of brief in the hands of the prosecuting counsel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might serve as that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the extent to which it would be useful?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At present it is plain that the Criminal Code is really of little value in these cases, because of the difficulty of obtaining data upon which to proceed. These examining boards would disclose the fact whether there was a combination or not that should. be proceeded against under the Criminal Code. .


John Graham Haggart: I thought at first that the Bill was a sort of guillotine, and that when the party accused had passed through the investigating board he would have his toilet made and his boots cleaned ready for the criminal court to award the punishment. It seems now that all this investigation before the board amounts to nothing and that if you are to punish the party found guilty you must have a retrial in the criminal court.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman allows nothing for the effect of publicity and the influence which public opinion is likely to have. If the result of the investigation was a report that a combination existed injurious to trade and harmful to the consumer there would be very strong reason to suspect that that combination if it were to continue a course of conduct reported as detrimental to the public would be proceeded against criminally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If public opinion has anything to do with this Bill it will have a very poor opinion of it. I fancy that a prosecution launched in this way would run on for generations like the celebrated [DOT] case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce.


John Allister Currie: The minister evidently does not know his own Bill. It says: ' any person reported by this board to have been guilty,' etc.-then on line 40: 'is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $1,000,' etc. I take it that after the board has found a man guilty of an indictable offence all you have to do is to take him before a judge to have him sentenced. If the evidence says he is found guilty of an indictable offence, why, the jury would not leave the box; they would say: Yes, he has been tried and found guilty of an indictable offence. Can a man be indicted twice for the same offence?


Mr. R. SMITH.: It says that he must
continue to offend.


John Allister Currie: It does not, I understand the English language as well as the hon. member.


Robert Smith: I don't profess to know very much about the English language, but I think that is the meaning of the
clause.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He may be found guilty of the offence by the board, but he does not become liable to any penalty unless he continues to so offend.


John Allister Currie: I cannot see it that way. I think you had better amend the Bill so as to make this one Act do the whole business instead of holding a doublebarrelled shot gun over everybody.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the meaning of it perhaps is that you have to prove that he was guilty at some time in the past and that he is also guilty at the present time. You have to prove that he is guilty twice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You certainly would have to prove that he continued to offend. If after the 'boaTd reported the conditions changed, as probably in nine case out of ten they would, through the force of public opinion, there would be no necessity for seeking to recover a penalty. If the party continued to offend he would be liable to a penalty. "


Robert Laird Borden: If public opinion does not get in its work then it is necessary to show that he has been guilty at some particular period in the past and that he has continued and is guilty at the present time.


William Sora Middlebro: If the board finds he has been guilty, how aTe you going to determine that he has continued to offend?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At that point the criminal law comes into play and he becomes criminally liable and would be proceeded acainst in the criminal courts in the regular manner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The question is: what is the real effect of the finding of the board so far as the crime is concerned? Apparently the first element of the proof, once the criminal proceeding was initiated, would be to prove that there was a report of the board that the person had been guilty of these different offences, or some one of them, and with that report counsel trying the case would take the first step. Is that report prima facie evidence of the fact that the party has been guilty or has it any value whatever except as being just an elementary proposition in the course of the case. The fact that the report has been made may be evidence of the guilt of the party accused so far as the past transaction is concerned, or it may not. It may be that the absence of the words: ' such report shall be prima facie evidence of the fact that a combination had existed at a certain time,' renders it necessary for the prosecutor to go all through the thing again and to show the facts which the board deemed sufficient to found the report upon. If the report is to have the effect and it is to be of itself evidence of a combination having existed at a certain time, then there ought to be some procedure by which that report can be set aside if it was erroneous, so that the party found guilty could get to an appellate tribunal. It may be that certiorari would apply. If it does not, there ought to be an appeal from the decision of the board. It seems to me jt ought to be made fairly clear what the value of that report is. The finding of a tribunal constituted as this tribunal is, ought not to be taken as absolute or conclusive proof of the guilt of anybody without the party having the right to appeal from it. I am aware that this clause is open to the construction that a party prosecuting would need to show three things: first, the fact that a report had been made; secondly, that over and above the report, the accused was guilty of combining to the detriment of consumers or producers as the case may be, within the meaning of the Act; thirdly, that after the report of the board finding him guilty of combining to the detriment of consumers, he still continues to offend. If a certificate of the report is to be taken as ample evidence to warrant the conviction of the accused, it ought to be open to the parties to have an appeal, or to have the report reviewed even before it forms prima facie evidence against them in a criminal proceding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The view of the Minister of Justice on this section is that if the parties were indicted criminally it would be necessary to prove their guilt in the regular manner. The evidence taken before one of these boards would undoubtedly be of service to the prosecuting counsel in the case, but the report itself would not be prima

facie evidence. The guilt of the parties would have to be proven in the regular way, allowing them the benefits of such procedure as the criminal law provides.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for Pietou must observe that the hon. minister intends to make the procedure as simple as possible, and not to play into the hands of legal gentlemen in Nova Scotia or elsewhere, and thus burden the affair with costs.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: My hon. friend from Lanark will agree with me in one thing, that the gentlemen accused of combinations will have to come to the legal profession to get the affair properly worked out. I take it that the opinion of the Minister of Justice, as given us by the hon. Minister of Labour, is practically this, that the production of the certificate of the report of the board before the court dealing with the criminal charge is only evidence of the fact that the report was made, and that it is necessary for the prosecutor to show, entirely apart from the report, that the accused is guilty of a criminal combination against the Act, and that he continues to offend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that Is the opinion of the Minister of Justice.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I would like the minister to consider the advisability of inserting in this section an amendment which would give the parties charged the same right that is now given under section 498 of the Criminal Code to parties charged with unduly limiting competition or unreasonably increasing the price. They have a right after the preliminary investigation to have their case determined by a judge of a Superior Court or a judge of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, without a jury. It seems to me that this principle applied in the Criminal Code to a case of a much greater offence ought to be applied to this case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That point has been raised in one or two communications that I have received, and it has been considered. The hon. member will notice that in the proceedings under the Criminal Code there had not been any prior investigation, any finding against the parties, and they have not had an opportunity of changing their course of conduct before any further action is taken. In view of the fact that the parties are specially protected in that way, and that they are given ten days in which to change their course of conduct which is deemed detrimental to the public interest, the necessity of taking the precaution which the hon. gentleman has suggested is removed.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Let us see how that will work out. It is presumed that public
opinion is against everything in the nature of combines. Proceedings have been initiated, and a case has got to the final trial before a judge and jury. The prosecutor may show that evidence taken before the investigation established tne fact that at some time there was a combination which is an offence against this Act. Suppose he goes along so far, and he has very little evidence. In fact the weight of evidence may be the other way; he may have very little evidence that the accused has continued to offend. Now there might be some evidence with which to go to a jury, and the result would be that recognizing the existence of this public opinion, though the parties had if not absolutely, the weight of evidence in their favour to show that they had ceased to offend, that conviction would be had against them, 'whereas I do not think that it would be had so readily if you had a judge to weigh the evidence. I do not think that men engaged in business, and committing those novel crimes that my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), thinks are so peculiar, should be treated so arbitrarily. It seems to me that the question of determining whether or not there has been a continuation of the offence, should be determined by a judge, because it is a matter of weighing evidence which a judge can do far better than a jury. In that way I think it is extending this legislation to an unwarrantable extent to take away from the parties in business who happen to have an arrangement, but who have ceased operating under it, those rights now accorded to them under the Criminal Code.


John Graham Haggart: If those proceedings are to be worth anything at all they must be as simple as possible. What does my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) intend to do? There is an investigation in the first place by a judge as to whether there is a prima facie case or not; then there is a referendum to this board of arbitration to find out whether the prices have been unduly enhanced or not, and still before this finding can take any effect it is suggested that the party have a right to an investigation or a retrial be-for a judge. A case of this kind would put the celebrated Jarndyce into oblivion in the number of courts and appeals and trials for the purpose of finding out whether a party is guilty of unduly enhancing prices or not. Now, in the interests I represent, the farming interests, what is wanted is simplicity in our legislation. One beauty of this court is that it is not going to cost the litigants anything; the country is to pay the costs. That may be something of an argument in favour of the proposition of the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) but on the general principle I think we ought to limit

the appeals from the different courts. We are legislating in the interests of the country, and as we are paying the expenses of all this inquiry it should be as short as possible. I am in favour of the minister's principle, that instead of lengthening those inquiries they should be shortened as much as possible.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is one thing I would like to suggest. It might be that ten days would be rather a short time to enable some of those concerns to so rearrange matters as to come within the order of the board. I would make the suggestion to the committee that perhaps after the word 'day' you might add these words, or words with the same meaning: ' Or such further extension of time as in the opinion of the board may be necessary'. I think it should be in the option of the board to make a longer period if they think fit.


Robert Laird Borden: What line would that be in?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: In the forty-third line after the word 'day'.


William Sora Middlebro: What penalty is now imposed under the Criminal Code for a combine?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not exceeding $4,000 and not less than $200, or two years imprisonment. In the case of a corporation it is not exceeding $10,000, and not less than $1,000.


William Sora Middlebro: Is it intended that these penalties should be cumulative, that you shall also impose that $10,000 in addition to the penalty in the Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For each day that they continue.


William Sora Middlebro: If they are found guilty of continuing then the penalty under the Code would not only be exacted, but the penalty under this Act as well; otherwise this clause is meaningless.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The parties would state, I presume, under which section they were bringing their action, and if they brought their action under this section, the penalties provided here would be applicable.


William Sora Middlebro: But the minister said there is no provision exacting any penalty unless there is a continuation of the offence, and in order to insure that you will have to have recourse to the Criminal God.e. In that case would the party be liable to the penalties under the Criminal Code only, or also to the penalties in this Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This clause would constitute an addition to the Criminal law. You are making a new offence here which becomes part of the Criminal law.


John Graham Haggart: 


John Allister Currie: I believe with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that in legislation of this kind we should have simplicity. As I understand it, after a man has gone through this investigation, and has been found guilty, it does not end with his ceasing to be a party to a combine. Any person, those who originally entered the prosecution against him, could turn round and indict him for a previous offence, and indict him under the Code. Or does this legislation block any indictment under the Code?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly not.


John Allister Currie: Then this is a double barrelled gun?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should it not be?


John Allister Currie: I think the minister should simply add some clause that when parties are found guilty of combining under this section, the board should inflict a fine not exceeding a certain amount of money, and let it go at that. Then if the party continued for a certain length of time, he could be indicted under the Code. I think that would be the sensible way. As it is it subjects the parties to three distinct separate and parallel prosecutions for the same Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The general opinion to-day in regard to combines that violate the law is that the present penalties are not severe or numerous enough. I am glad that my hon. friends think that this legislation is making the penalties more severe and adding to the number, because some other hon. members on the same side rather indicated that this law did not go far enough.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this section cover the case of a combine which has resulted in unduly increasing the price to the producer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member was not in the House, I think, when I added to the definition of the word ' combine ' the. words ' or producer ' in order to meet what I think was the wish of the hon. member, and other members of the House, that it should be made quite clear the law would be applicable to that kind of a case.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I was in the House then, but the particular offences within the scope of this section seemed to be set out here in distinct terms, and not by a reference to the interpretation clause. Therefore, the interpretation clause, even although it has been amended by the hon. minister, does not seem to be of very much assistance in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly I can explain how the difficulty arose. The clause as originally drafted did not contain


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that. I am not talking about that, but about this section. Is th'ere any reference here to the interpretation clause? Perhaps I have overlooked that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section, as it stands, is broad enough to cover any kind of an agreement in restraint of trade. It would include restraint against producers as well as against consumers.


John Howard Sinclair: It struck m'e that it did not cover the case of fixing prices which were not enhanced. For example, the millers might say:	We will give the
farm'ers 70 cents a bushel for their wheat this season. That would be fixing the price, and, according to the interpretation clause as I understand it, it would be against the law. But it would not be enhancing the price, and this section provides, as to prices, only against unreasonably enhancing them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It provides against * unduly restraining or injuring trade or commerce in relation to any such article.' That covers the fixing of prices if fixing has that effect.


William Sora Middlebro: I think the minister has not understood my question. I understand him to say that under this section there is no liability to a fine unless the party has been found guilty by the board and subsequently convicted "under the Criminal Code.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what I could have said to convey that impression. Parties are liable, if found guilty under this section, and if they continue to offend, to a penalty not exceeding $1,000 a day and costs. The Criminal Code stands as at present._ As soon as th'ere has been an investigation into an alleged combine and a board has reported that a combine exists, parties may, if they wish, proceed under this section to recover the penalty of so much a day for the length of time the combine continues to operate in a way detrimental to the public, or they may take proceedings for conspiracy in restraint of trade under the Criminal Code.


William Sora Middlebro: Is there anything to prevent them taking both proceedings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the event of the board finding the parties guilty and the parties continuing in business, if they are indicted under the Criminal Code and convicted, would ther'e be an appeal from that conviction?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not familiar with the matter of appeals under the Criminal Code. But whatever the provisions of the criminal law may be as to appeals, they would continue to apply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One would have thought that the Minister of Justice or som'e one else would have been at hand to instruct us on such a point as that, for it is very important. If a case has to run all the ordinary appeals of the courts up to the Supreme Court, how long would it take to get a conviction and reach a finality? It would be a long process.
On s'ection 25,
The proceedings of the board shall be conducted in public, but the board may order that any portion of the proceedings shall be conducted in private.


John Allister Currie: I think that clause should be eliminated. If you are going to have a public body examining evidence in the public interest, that examination should be held in public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The board does sit in public.


John Allister Currie: But it may order that any portion of the proceedings shall be conducted in private. I think that ought to be amended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is apparent that it will require two members of the board to, give that decision. There may be cases where it is desirable to examine certain books, the contents of which it is not advisable to make public. I think that the board should be allowed some discretion in that matter. It is complain'ed that possibly this legislation may open the door to people prying into the business of others. I think that the chairman and one member of the board should have the power to order part of the inquiry to be made in private if they think necessary.


John Allister Currie: The answer may seem very apropos. But I do not think this country is Russia yet. We cannot advance the public interest by having secret trials. If there is to be a sweat-box, if manufacturers are to be given the third degree, let it be done in public. It shows very bad faith on the part of the department to wish to hold an investigation of this kind, at any stage, in private. Public trials, from the time of Magna Charta, 1 understand, have been held in public. And I think that is a good rule to hold by.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would point out that this is a board of inquiry. After a party is found guilty, it might be right to give the evidence to the public, but, suppose that there is no guilt, why should a man who has done no wrong have the facts of his business made public? I do not think the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie) should apply any fine theories to this question. It seems to me that the minister is quite fair in this matter. Until the parties are

found guilty, there are many things that should be kept quiet.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) may think so, but I do not think so, and I believe the public will agree with me rather than with him. I believe that the public will say that if a trial of a public character is to be held, it should be held openly. I think the day has gone by when we can adopt Eussian methods, hold courts in camera, hold a gun to the head of people to gain information from them unfairly-in other words, third degree, the thumbscrew and the boot; the use of methods that dare not be used in public. The interest of parties- on trial are far more secure in a public court than in a private inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. member (Mr. J, A. Currie) is giving an interpretation to the section that it hardly deserves. Precisely the same section exists in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.


John Allister Currie: And it is wrong.
Mr. KING Boards of investigation are appointed similar to those under this Act, and it is found advantageous in many cases to allow the board to make private inquiry. I do* not think it is to be presumed, particularly when the chairman of the board is a judge of the court, one who is accustomed to administer the law, that he will, by his -own volition, go out of his way to see that a part of the proceedings are conducted in private unless it is very much in the public interest that they should be so conducted.
1 Mr. J. A. CUEEIE. I did not know that the chairman of the board should be 'a judge.
1 Mr. KING. Then the hon. gentleman has not read the Act. That is in section 12, that we have already enacted.


John Allister Currie: I still hold that the provision is unjust and unfair, and gives the minister and his department a *weapon, and a screw, and a means of squeezing everybody in this country that is in any kind of business. The thing is unjust, unfair and unBritish. If you are going to hold an inquest of any kind, hold it in public; don't be afraid, don't go into a hole and comer with it. The farming community will want to know what is at the bottom of these things; so don't let us adopt any of these Bus-sian methods. For my part I don't approve of them.


Murdo Young McLean: It seems to me the remarks- of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) are entirely uncalled for. I do not think there is anything Eussian in the proposed investigation. On the whole. I think the methods proposed will be in the Mr. NESBITT.
interest of the combinations of which the hon. gentleman seems to be the chief guardian here to-day. If there is any. combination whose affairs are being inquired into, it might be necessary to look into their books in order to find whether a combination existed, and it would not be just, or fair, or right to have their private affairs spread broadcast throughout the country. But if the investigation were allowed to take place in private, then the officials of the company or interest, with the books of the firm could be brought before the judge. There is no court in this land but permits a private investigation of that kind, and the results are not published. Why should it not be so in this case?


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman knows that under the Industrial Disputes Act there has never been any inquiry of this kind held.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, out of the eighty inquiries several of them have been held in private.


John Allister Currie: I object to this clause as distinctly unBritish. It just shows the intent of this whole thing, which is to pry into private affairs, in the dark, to get down into the cellar, to dig things up, and make inquiries that the men on this board would not have courage to make in an open court. If you want justice you can always get it in open court, there is the place to get it. A court in camera as here proposed, an investigation in secret of this kind, to my mind, savors of Eussian methods, I have no hesitation in stating that to the minister. If this is a just provision, if any man can stand up and defend this Act, he should be able to defend it openly, as a machine that will work in the open, as an Act that can be defended at any stage, that this court is to be an open and just court, instead of a court held in the darkness, where the screws can be applied to people, and questions asked by the judges that they would not dare to ask in open court, and as I said before, apply detective methods to the accused, in other words, what is known as the third degree. That is what this Act intends, and unless the minister withdraws that provision I do not think he will receive very much credit from the public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The remarks of the hon. gentleman are primarily a reflection upon the judiciary of this country


John Allister Currie: I fail to see it.
Mr. KING

because in each case two
members of the board must request that part of the proceedings should be held in private. Now the judge has to be a consenting party. As long as the judge is not a consenting party, the only alterna-

tive is that both the representative of the combine and the representative of the people who are preferring the complaint, must agree that part of the proceedings shall be in private. If they mutually agree that the public interest can be best served by carrying on part of the proceedings in private, then those proceedings would be held in private; if otherwise, the party desiring privacy would have to get the consent of the judge before that privacy could be observed; consequently the onus falls upon the judge, and hence the remarks of the hon. gentleman with regard to Russian methods constitute a reflection on the judiciary of this country which he is not entitled to make.


John Allister Currie: I object to the hon. minister trying to argue that my criticism constitutes a reflection on the judiciary. The clause says in effect that two members can order the court to be held in private. Now the two members, of whom the judge is not one, can order that court to be held in private. Is that not so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned that.


John Allister Currie: Then why argue that I am insulting the judiciary when I am not? Two members who are not the judge can compel the court to be held in private against the will of the judge. So the argument of the minister falls completely to the ground. I have not cast any reflection on the judiciary, because the minister has acknowledged that any two members can order this court to be held in private without the consent of the judge. I claim there is no necessity for that whatever, and I will never sit silent and allow legislation to be passed here where any trial of any kind can be held in private. I think the more light there is thrown on any investigation of this kind, the better for the public, and the better for the people under control.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister, in explaining this Bill said that one of its important features was publicity. But the very first sentence of this clause says:
The proceedings of the board should be conducted in public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That clearly is the intention of the measure. But authority is given to the board to conduct a portion of the proceedings in private; that does not mean the whole proceedings, it simply give3 discretion to the board to hold a certain part of the proceedings in private. There can be only the alternatives for such privacy, either both the parties complaining and the party complained against must agree that it is best to conduct part of the investigation in private, and surely in that case it would be proper to have that part of the inquiry private. The other alternative is when one or both the representatives agree with the judge that part ought to be in private. It seems to me that in view of the nature of the questions that are being investigated, this provision in the Act is not open to criticism.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the minister was explaining his Bill to the House, he said that one of the important features was publicity. Now he does not pretend to secure publicity when the case is being tried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out that, supposing you had the whole proceedings absolutely private, the finding of the board is always made public, and that is what will affect public opinion. The thing the public are interested in is to know whether certain men are combining, and whether they have done anytihng which affects the public interest detrimentally. The particular parts of the evidence upon which they base their judgment would certainly be given; the details of a man's business are a secondary consideration with the public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Huron (Mr. McLean) said it was necessary to hold the inquiry in private in order that the books of the firm might be examined. 1 see that section 37 provides that the board may employ competent experts to examine books or official reports, but the information obtained therefrom should not be made public. Therefore there could be no object in holding this investigation in private when the board have already the right to use the information which they get from these experts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 37 relates to an investigation made through experts, not to the investigation made by the board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am referring to the argument- of the hon. member for Huron (Mr. M. Y. McLean), that it would be necessary that that should be done in private, because it would involve the examination of books and records.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the members of a board themselves might wish to examine those records. The section that he quotes refers to the examination by experts. That is a different thing. The board themselves may wish to examine some of the books, and they might wish to do that in private. If they wish to do it in private I think they should have the right to do so.


Mr.   .J. A. CURRIE@: It- is within the recollection of people who are not very old, that there was a charge made of a combination amongst school-book manufacturers in Ontario, and a royal commission was appointed to investigate. It was permitted to hold its meetings in private. It held its meetings in private and reported that there was no combine amongst the manu-

facturers of school-books.. There was a change of government, another commission was appointed to investigate, it made its investigation in public and reported that there was a combination. I am strongly of the opinion that these investigations should be made in public. The minister cannot show any reason why there should be a dark lantern tribunal to carry on investigations of this kind.
On section 34, party may be compelled to give evidence.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is not the word ' compelled,' a little strong?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If you take it out it may^ be impossible to get evidence from parties. That section is already a part of the Industrial Disputes Act, and it has not been found to work any injustice. A man might say:	I will refuse to answer any questions, and you could not proceed with the investigation.
On section 44, allowances determined by minister.


John Graham Haggart: The clerk and others employed by the board will not be permanent? They will only be for the investigation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Mr. BEST.: Will this provision with respect to allowances include the six persons making the complaint? They would certainly be at a loss of time and expense, and I think they should be remunerated in some way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a section which allows the judge power to make disbursements, and under that section he would have the power to reimburse the six persons if he thought they were put to expense.
On section 48,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to move as section 48 the following:
This Act shall not be construed to repeal or amend or in any way affect the Trades Union Act, chapter 125, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
To make plain the purpose of this section, I shall read the following letter which I have received from the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress:
Office of Secretary Treasurer,
Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
Ottawa, Ont., March 14, 1910. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G.,
Minister of Labour,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Regarding Bill (No. 101) of this session, the Combines Investigation Act, introduced by you on January 18, we, the Executive Council of the Trades and Labour Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
Congress of Canada, representing various trade and labour organizations throughout Canada in re legislative enactments, have had the said Bill under careful consideration.
From the title of the Bill we gather that it is intended to apply only to such combines, monopolies and mergers as may enhance prices or restrict competition to the detriment of consumers. As the working classes compose the largest body of consumers we believe that they more than any other class in the community are likely to suffer the most through the enhancement of prices or anything that may prove of general detriment to consumers, and consequently they may be expected to view with favour any legislation which may result in the betterment of their conditions.
We realize that trusts and monopolies may become not merely a serious menace to consumers through the methods which they have sometimes employed to enhance prices, but that these powerful aggregations of capital may also become a serious menace to labour by their power where they have control of industrial establishments, to force unfavourable conditions upon workingmen, as well as producers and consumers, through the closing up of establishments or by other arbitrary methods of procedure, and we therefore feel that any measure which will secure publicity where such unfair methods are resorted to, cannot be other than of service to all classes in the community.
We are most anxious, therefore, that any legislation calculated to improve the condition of the working classes of this country should receive the support of parliament. At the same time we feel it most important that care should be taken to see that any rights and privileges secured to the working classes by past legislation should in no way be impaired. The Trades Union Act of 1872 which forms chapter 125 of the Revised Statutes of Canada was passed to secure to workingmen certain rights as members of trade unions. We do not think it is the intention of your Bill to, in any way, take away any rights already secured to labour by legislation. As, however, some doubt has been expressed on the possible effect of the measure in this respect, we think the intention of parliament in this particular should be made plain, and would, therefore, suggest the insertion of the following clause:-
This Act shall not be construed to repeal, amend, or in any way affect chapter 125 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, intituled:	' An
Act respecting Trade Unions.'
You will see that the insertion of such a clause gives to trade unions no new rights or privileges, but merely guarantees to them the enjoyment of rights which they have had by statute for some thirty-eight years.
Similarly, we will say that we do not think your Bill contemplates depriving organizations of capital of any rights which they may enjoy by statute, at the present time, nor do we think it should. Labour does not ask more than it is prepared to give.
Should, therefore, parliament see well to insert the safeguard herein suggested, we do not hesitate to say that the Bill would have the hearty endorsation of the organizations which we represent, and which are some 628

in number, and hare a total membership of 40,738.
Yours very respectfully,
(Ssd.) WM. GLOCKLING,
-	" GTJS. FRANCO,



&quot; P. M. DRAPER,

[Stage Direction]
Executive Council,
Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
The request seems to be a perfectly reasonable one, and I, therefore, beg to have the section I have moved added as one of the sections of the Bill.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Referring for a moment to a clause which has been passed already, I see you are proposing to amend the Tariff Act by this Bill. Can we properly amend the Tariff Act without the House being in Committee of Ways and Means?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All we are doing here is transferring one section of the Tariff Act from an existing Act to this legislation. We are not adding to it one way or the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You say in this Bill that one section of the Tariff Act is repealed, and in doing so you amend the Tariff Act. Can that be done without the House being in Committee of Ways and Means?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You cannot impose taxes without the House being in Committee of Ways and Means, but I suppose the House is at liberty to repeal taxes without that procedure. Is not the significance of the House going into Committee of Ways and Means that you are imposing taxes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that contention is right, then you could put a clause in this Bill repealing the whole of the Tariff Act, and no one would seriously pretend you could do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point of the hon. gentleman might be of some importance in the matter of procedure providing we were attempting by this legislation 'to change materially the existing tariff in any part. We are not doing that at all. We are repealing one section of the tariff and inserting it in another part of this measure with the net result that the tariff stands in precisely the same position that it does to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question I ask is whether we can repeal a portion of the Tariff Act without going into Committee of Ways and Means.


Wilfrid Laurier: This section 12 which we are now repealing, though it is in the Tariff Act, might have been placed in any other Act. It is no part of the tariff; it is simply an adjunct of it. It does not levy any taxes or decrease any taxes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose it is found that there is a combination in restraint of trade with respect to an article on which there
is a duty, and for that reason the duty is taken off, does not that affect the revenue?


Wilfrid Laurier: It does not put any taxation on the people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It takes taxation off.


Richard Blain: The point is whether in a Bill introduced for the purpose of providing for the investigation of combines and-monopolies, any clauses can be placed repealing a clause in another Act, the Tariff Act. I think it is a good point, and one that ought to be considered.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 15-oath of office,


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I have drawn an amendment which I think is eminently fair, and I hope it will meet with the approval of the minister. It is to add to the oath the following words:
That I am not associated in business with any of the parties applying for this investigation, and that I am mot acting in collusion with any person herein.
The effect of that is to prevent any business associates of the parties applying for a hearing from acting as one of the judges, and to prevent collusion between the party selected as the representative of any class and those he may represent, in the interest of a fair and unprejudiced hearing, to which all men are entitled in an investigation.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does that mean men engaged in the same business?


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: It means any person who is a business partner of the applicants, or who is interested in the same company in such a way as to prevent a fair judgment. All I want to obtain by this proposition is to have some reasonable guarantee that the board is not going to have on it some one who goes there prejudiced against a fair hearing.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I quite understand what the hon. gentleman means; but if this Bill goes the length that we believe it does, and if a number of men in the west combine and say that they will pay only 90 cents a bushel for wheat, and six farmers request that an investigation be held, it seems to me that that amendment would prevent any farmer in the west being appointed on that board, because he would be engaged in the same business. If it would prevent any member of the Grain Growers' Association from being a member of that board, I do not see how the Act would be applicable to the west.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I do not think the amendment is open to any such interpretation. I think it means that a man must have some business connection with the

applicants, and not that they are merely members of the same organization. I am willing to substitute the word ' connected ' for the word ' associated


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The word ' associated ' is a pretty broad term. ' Associated in business ' might mean a good many things. I would suggest the words ' business partner


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The relations of men in businesss are not confined to partnerships. I would like the language to be broad enough to cover the disqualification of cases in which the men are interested, not merely as partners, but in some other relation recognized by law.


Samuel Hughes: A man may be associated and not be a partner.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Six men outside of the relation of partners could put their counsel on the board. There is no reason why six men could not be grouped together and put their lawyer on the board, and that is why I want the language to be broad enough to prevent that. If we are going to have any public opinion as the result of this Act, you must have a fair and impartial body, and I submit that the amendment is reasonable, that * I am not connected in business with any of the parties applying for this investigation, and I am not acting in collusion with any person herein.'


Mr. CONMEE.: I fear the amendment would go too far. The last sentence of clause 15 reads ' that I have not received, nor will I accept either directly or indirectly, any perquisite, gift, fee or gratuity, from any person in any way interested in any matter or thing to be investigated by the board.' That is pretty stringent as it stands. If the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) is put in the Bill, and we could always have him to interpret it, no doubt it would be all Tight, but the courts and the judges, the regular tribunals would interpret the statute as a whole. It looks to me as if the amendment would exclude the grain growers association, and I do not think it ought to do so, because I think they are parties who would be if not directly, indirectly interested, and yet nevertheless they are engaged in an industry that requires to be protected which I assume is one of the objects of this very enactment. I do not think they should be precluded from acting on the board.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am afraid that the amendment would interfere with the case I referred to this morning. We have in the province of Nova Scotia, fishermen's union. These men are all associated and we might find it very difficult to obtain men who are not connected with the fish-Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
ermen's unions. They might be associated as partners and come under this amendment. I see no reason why section 15 should be altered at all. I have no legal training, but if we changed it and made it read as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) suggests, it strikes me it would cut away from undeT our feet the very thing wre put in the Act this morning. Therefore, I do not agree to have it put in that way. If the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) could show that it will not apply to men in the unions or associations, that would be a different thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the consent of the committee, I would suggest the introduction of the word ' immediately.' The amendment would then read ' that I am not immediately connected in business with any of the parties applying for this investigation and I am not acting in collusion with any person herein.'


Samuel Hughes: Refer to the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the meaning of that is perfectly clear, and I am quite agreeable to introducing that clause. We all know what is meant by being immediately connected in business. That would certainly not refer to membership in an association or a union or anything of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 have a schedule here based on the features of the Bill which I would like to have added. It is simply to make the procedure uniform under the Act.
Bill as amended, reported.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



THE INSURANCE ACT.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 166) respecting insurance. He said: The House will remember that, at the last session of parliament, w'e had before us, and gave very much attention to, a Bill to revise and amend the Insurance Act. After the usual preliminary considerations, the Bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, where public hearings were held and an opportunity afforded to all parties interested to present their views. Then, a sub-committee of the Banking and Commerce Committee was appointed, and the matter was taken up in detail and with great care by that subcommittee. The Bill in due course was reported to the committee and came before the House, where it was fully considered and then sent to the Senate. At that time,

the session was very far advanced, and the hon. gentlemen of the Senate, not unreasonably, thought that they ought to have further time for consideration of the measure, and so it was left over. In the present session the Bill was re-introduced in the Senate in substantially the form in which it had left the House of Commons last year. The S'enate has given it very great consideration-I think it not too much to say more than ordinary consideration, the hon. members for the Banking and Commerce Committee of the Senate having taken great interest in it. The Bill was passed with some amendments and is now before this House. Inasmuch as the House gave the measure such full consideration last session, I think I shall be right in saying that there will be no desire to go through the matter in detail again. But, if there is any need, attention may be called to important amendments made by the Senate. Some of the amendments, though useful, are not very important, but several of them are important. There was a clause in the Bill last year as it left this House, providing for what is called a gain and loss ^exhibit to be included in the annual statements of the companies. The Senate has made an amendment the effect of which is that that gain and loss exhibit shall not be required in the annual statement, but the Superintendent of Insurance shall have power to call for such statement whenever he thinks the affairs of the company render It necessary. Another amendment was on the question of bonuses to agents. The effect of the Bill as it left this House was to prevent the granting of bonuses. Tire Senate has amended the Bill so as to provide that bonuses shall not be forbidden, but they must be a matter of agreement. If bonuses are not agreed on in advance as part of the remuneration of the agent they may not b'e allowed. Another amendment is with respect to the policyholders' directors. Certain companies already provided for their policy-holders, as well as their stock-holders, having votes. It was proposed in the Bill that policyholders generally should be permitted to vote, and by proxy. The Senate has made an amendment in which they have recognized the right of policy-holders to vote, but they have denied the proxy vote to policy-holders.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Does that apply to fire insurance as well as life?


William Stevens Fielding: To life insurance. The changes are chiefly in the matter of life insurance. There was a provision respecting the annual election of directors, and it is proposed that a company may elect directors for one, two or three years, according to the by-laws of the company.
Perhaps the most important question
that was considered by the Senate was with respect to fire insurance-the insurance of property in unlicensed companies. The general purpose of the Act, of course, was to require that the insurance business of the country should be done in companies licensed under the Insurance Act. But it was claimed that a too rigid adherence to that principle would operate harshly upon some of the great property owners of the country. It was alleged that the existing companies in Canada were not able to handle all the insurance offered to them, and that sometimes the volume of insurance desired could not be obtained, apart altogether from the question of rates. It was further alleged that our Canadian companies had not adapted themselves to some sp'ecial forms of insurance which had been established in the United States. We compromised that matter in our Bill of a year ago by providing that insurance might be taken in unlicensed companies, provided that a record of such insurance was reported and a small tax paid on the business. There was a good deal of contention over that point, but I think that the Bill as it left the House was regarded, in that respect, as something of a compromise. However, that question was fully considered in the Senate. That House has made an amendment the substance of which is that business may be done with these unlicensed companies at the risk of the party who takes the insurance, but that the foreign companies which engage in that business, though they have the right to make these contracts abroad, shall not establish agencies in Canada, and shall not solicit the business. If a party in Canada desires to get insurance of that kind, he may send his order for it to the United States, may make his contract in the United States, at whatever risk is involved, but there shall be no penalty. But the company shall not be permitted to seek the insurance. If they send agents, or open agencies, or do anything to bring them into competition with the companies licensed in Canada, they will come under the provisions of the law which will forbid that business.
These are the chief amendments made by the Senate. So far as I am concerned, I am disposed to accept the position that the conclusions of the Senate in the matter have been reached after wise consideration. While I am willing to consider any amendment proposed by any hon. member, I am prepared to accept the Bill as it has come from the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. DANIEL.: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) just now stated that these

unlicensed companies with head offices in the United States were not permitted to seek business in Canada by the use of agents. Is there anything to prevent them sending circulars for business all over this country?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is no special reference to that. It is represented to us that these companies, as a rule, do not seek business. They are mutual companies that accept the business that comes to them, and I think their general practice is- not to solicit business. It is not a business that is done for profit. It is a mutual affair in which the insurance is carried at what proves to be the ultimate cost. I think I am correct in saying that it is not their practice to seek business and that the business comes to them, but the question of circulars is not particularly mentioned in the Bill.
On section 1; short title.


Richard Blain: 'Could the minister state the amount of insurance that is now in force in Canada of the kind he refers to?


William Stevens Fielding: I am advised by one of my officers that the fire insurance _ in Canada amounts to two thousand million dollars.


Richard Blain: Is it increasing year by year?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the business is increasing and our companies are gradually adapting themselves to that special class of busines to which I refer, and I have no doubt that they will in the future do a larger share of it.
On section 2, interpretation.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the italics throughout the Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill as it was parsed by the Senate had some italics in it just as the Bill had last session to call attention to the proposed changes, but the Bill as finally passed and sent down to the House, I am advised, did not have the italics, because it had been before the House a year ago. But the explanation is that the italics were those portions which were new, and which this House considered at the last session.


Richard Blain: Some hon. gentlemen are suggesting that there was some mistake in the answer that the Minister if Finance gave to my question. May I repeat it? My question was: What amount of insurance is in force in Canada now held by the American companies?


William Stevens Fielding: I did not understand my hon. friend's question. I thought it had reference to the volume of fire insurance in Canada. We have no records _ of the amount held by unlicensed companies, Mr. DANIEL.
as there have hitherto been no records of insurance of that character.


Richard Blain: Was there no estimate given?


William Stevens Fielding: In the course of the discussion it was stated that the amount was about a hundred million dollars, but we have no official records on that subject.
On section 2, paragraph (w); guarantee insurance.
Mr. FIELDING, moved to amend the section by striking out the letter 'r' in the word 'officer' in the fourth line of paragraph (w).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 2, paragraph (bb); sickness insurance.
Mr. WORTHINGTON.: I would like to ask the minister whether _ there is any provision in this Bill permitting companies to charge a war rate against members of [DOT] the active militia in the event of their being called out on active service, and if so, whether there is a fixed rate in excess of the premium charged?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a matter left to the company. We do not attempt to regulate it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I asked the question because during the South African war I knew the case of a man who held a $3,000 insurance policy in the North American Insurance Company for 13 years, and he was charged $75 per thousand war rate in excess of the premium, which was far more than new insurance with the war rate included could have been had for. There should be some restriction in this Act so as to prevent excessive charges of that kind.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be a matter of contract between the companies and the policy-holders.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Some companies charge a war rate of $75 per thousand, some charge $50 per thousand, and some charge no war rate at all. There should be some uniformity.


William Stevens Fielding: One would think that the insurance agents, who are very zealous, could easily explain that feature of a policy and that competition would regulate it.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: Yes, but if a man is insured for many years in a company, that company should be prevented from charging him an excessive war rate.


William Stevens Fielding: It is a matter of contract.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: They seem to be able to put on whatever war rate they like.


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose the policy contains a provision that they may do so


George Taylor: In the case referred to_ the man was insured and on the eve of going to South Africa he was charged $75 per thousand war rate, whereas if he went to a new company he could get the war insurance practically for nothing.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid it would have to be left to the terms of the contract between the policy-holder and the company; I do not think it could be regulated by this Act.
. Mr. J- A. CURRIE. You could regulate it by preventing undue discrimination. The contract with the company is so worded that in cases of emergency the rates can be increased by the company without the consent of the party insured. If a man has held an insurance policy for twenty years and is called on active service when that policy has been in force for eighteen years, and the policy has two years to run before it is paid up, he is, as it were, forced to pay an excessive war rate if it is demanded from him. These companies are under a certain amount of obligation to this country which gives them charters and protects^ them and they should make some return in the shape of a fair war rate to the men who go to serve their country in the field. 1^ think these companies would raise no objection if the minister should say that all companies doing business in this country shall not increase the premium on civilians in the active militia who are called to serve their country.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it would be fair to say that a contract made with a man engaged in the arts of peace should be on the same terms as in the case of a man who goes to war. The risks of active service are of course greater. It is unfortunate that the man who is patriotic enough to serve his country in the field has to pay a larger premium, but it is a business transaction, and I do not think we can say to the companies that they should not charge anything for the extra risk.


John Allister Currie: The minister knows that he could make this amendment in the Act if he so desired.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but then


Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE If that is the case the Minister of Finance will find that the country will not support hi min his contention.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: I recognize that the life of a soldier is a more hazardous risk, but at the same time I think the company should be prevented from charging an excessive war rate. I will cite an instance.
I know a man who had an insurance policy
for $3,000 in the North American Life Insurance Company for thirteen years, and on the eve of going to South Africa he was charged a war rate of $75 a thousand, or $225 in all. This was far more than treble his premium, and it was practically prohibitive. He had to throw aside his policy, and thirteen years older than when he entered the other company he got a policy for $5,000 from the Sun Life, war risk included, for less than the $225 war rate alone that the North American Life wanted to charge him. iSuch a thing as that should not be allowed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That man could have taken a paid-up policy in the North American Life, and he could have gone to any other company he liked which wanted to give him a cheaper rate. Competition will regulate the rate. The North American Life would lose far more business by such a case as the hon. gentleman cites than it would gain by the extra premium, because that fact would be advertised abroad. There is no doubt that competition will regulate this, and I do not see how the minister could set a fixed rate in the Bill.


Mr. GOODEVE.: It appears to me that the objection raised by the hon. member could be met somewhat in this way. Under our new Act against usury, it i3 provided that the interest stipulated in a mortgage should be set forth in a certain sized type across the face of the mortgage, and could you not add a subclause here stipulating that every policy should set forth in large type across the face of the policies the premium rate of the war contract, so that immediately on a man making application for insurance and receiving his policy his attention would be called to the matter and he would know the rate. I agree with the Minister of Finance that it is impossible to interfere with private contracts of this kind. I believe that competition will regulate the rate. If every company was compelled to set forth in large type on the face of each policy the rate that would be charged in case of war, then the competition would do the rest, and the companies would be careful not to charge an exorbitant rate, because no company would want to get the name of charging more than the others. It seems to me you could get over the difficulty in that way.


William Stevens Fielding: That suggestion seems meritorious, but I would point out that although this Bill has been before both Houses of parliament for two yeaTs, no complaint has ever been made about an excessive rate being charged for war risks, so far as my memory goes. We will consider the matter before the Bill finally leaves committee, and meanwhile I will discuss the matter with the superintendent of insurance.


Mr. THOBURN.: In the case of plate glass insurance, if you have plate glass broken by fire the plate glass insurance companies refuse to pay the insurance. I had a case of that kind myself last fall. If you put plate glass instead of ordinary glass in front of a store, the insurance company does not want to increase your insurance on account of the plate glass, and they tell you to go to the plate glass insurance company. Then, if you insure with the plate glass insurance company, and if your plate glass is lost on account of fire, neither company will pay.


William Stevens Fielding: If you lose it by fire,
I suppose it is a fire risk.


William Thoburn: It is not included in the fire risk. If it is broken by fire, why should not the plate glass company pay for it?


William Stevens Fielding: It is all a question of what is in the contract. I should think that a fire insurance company would insure damage to plate glass by fire. However, a man can only get what he contracts to have.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The fire insurance people will insure against damage caused by fire.


William Thoburn: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They certainly do.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: All the contracts of the plate glass companies have a special clause clearly and distinctly setting forth that they will not insure your glass when broken by fire, but any insurance company doing a fire insurance business would insure the plate glass for you in the cost of your building. It is merely neglect that you do not have it inserted in your policy, and if you do not do so you fall between two stools, because you have made a faulty contract. It is not the fault of the company contracting.


David Henderson: May I ask the minister if what are called New England mutual companies are really insurance companies? As I understand it they are a number of men mutuallly agreeing with each other that in the event of loss^ they will make good the loss. Are they incorporated?


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed they are incorporated.
On section 3, application of Act.


John Allister Currie: As I understand, there are two kinds of marine insurance-ocean marine, and inland marine. Why is ocean marine insurance struck out of this Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: This Act has not applied to ocean marine insurance, and it is now proposed that it shall not apply to in-Mr. FIELDING.
IcLIlLl max I lie uiOLuauuc.	xu	aw	

there is not much business done by Canadian companies in this class of insurance.


John Allister Currie: The government, by the regulations it imposes on Canadian companies, is sending all the inland marine insurance business to companies^ of very indifferent character in the United States. These companies will take a risk of say $5,000 or $10,000 on a vessel on the lakes, and place the balance of the contract with Lloyds. Our government demands a very high guarantee from our companies that take marine risks, and this prevents them doing the same thing that the American companies are doing.


William Stevens Fielding: I am advised that we havaHiad no complaints of that nature. The^DusineS'S has not been a profitable one, and our companies have not engaged in it.


John Allister Currie: I know that very small companies in Cleveland and New York do this business. They take a risk of say $5,000 on a vessel, and place the balance with Lloyds, and they get all the profit of the commission which Lloyds pay on these risks. Our companies say they do not wish to go into this business, because they will have to put up a large guarantee with the department in order to do a marine business.


William Stevens Fielding: In connection with ocean marine business, there has been no deposit. In connection with inland marine business there has been a deposit. I am advised that companies have not complained of the stringency of our regulations. That has not been the cause of the difficulty so far as we are informed.


John Allister Currie: The companies are not complaining, but the marine risks are complaining, because their business is now in the hands of a monopoly in the United States. American vessels on the inland lakes have an easier inspection than Canadian vessels. Our Marine Department exercises a very rigid inspection, and therefore a Canadian risk is very much better than an American; but our shipowners are compelled, through the working of the Act, ta place their insurance with agencies in Cleveland and New York. These agencies control the marine insuraxice on the Great Lakes. They carry hardly any of it; it is nearly all carried in London, England, but they control the placing of it. The result is that our shipowners have to pay the same rates on the inland lakes as the Americans have to pay on poorer ships, and on a lower class of inspection.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course, if our companies are not doing the business, an<J do not wish to do it, I do not see how we are to help the matter. Surely if it is a profit-

able business, there will be companies found to do it.
On section 7, form of license.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This Act does not apply to any fraternal societies?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are they under any inspection at all?
meantime that question would be decided in the courts.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the action challenges the validity of a particular Act that was passed within a recent session of parliament. I do not think there is anything in this Bill that will affect it one wav or another, and I think it would be a pity to delay the Bill on that account.


William Stevens Fielding: Several of them are registered in the Insurance Department as assessment companies, and come under the observation of the department.
On section 8, license not granted for life and other insurance to same company.


John Allister Currie: I had an idea that the licensing power for any business done in the country was vested entirely in the provincial _ governments. There is a suit being carried on at the present time upon this very question. Has that suit come to trial or has it been decided?


William Stevens Fielding: No. There has been always more or less contention as to the relative powers of the federal and the provincial authorities in relation to this subject. We have merely acted on the best legal advice we could obtain. There is no present litigation in which the government is concerned, but my impression is that a reference will shortly be made to the Supreme Court in which that question will be included.
Mr.	CURRIE. I understand that
the Privy Council in the Scott Act or the McCarthy Act case, decided that the provinces alone had the power of licensing anybody or corporation to do business in the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the decision was as broad as that. I do not think there is any decision that the parliament of Canada cannot legislate with respect to licenses. We do issue licenses for various purposes, such as the export of electricity, to insurance companies, to ferries, to fishermen.


John Allister Currie: Would it not be better to call that registration? Then you might avoid a controversy.


William Stevens Fielding: There has never been any controversy on that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there is a suit now pending in Toronto in, connection with the Canada Life, involving the question whether or not the federal government is the proper authority to incorporate these companies, and I am told that it will be carried to the Privy Council. I thought that probably for that reason the government would leave this Bill over for the present session, and in the


John Allister Currie: I have a communication from a man carrying on the suit that it does challenge the validity of this Act, and I understand he has written to other members of this House to the same effect.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be a pity after all the time that has been given to the Bill if we were not to press it to a conclusion. Whatever might be the results of that suit, we must abide by them, but I do not think there is anything in this Act that has particular reference to the suit. The question raised may be of the class of question which can be raised generally, but the House has given a great deal of attention to this matter, and I do not think it would be wise on such a flimsy ground not to press it to a conclusion-for no matter how the decision may go, we will still need an Insurance Act. '


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking from memory, but I think we provide for the division of profits.


William Stevens Fielding: The suit arises over a special Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know. The suit arises over the Canada Life, and I think in this Bill we deal with the same question, if I understand it rightly, and my understanding is that it gives authority to companies to do as the Canada Life has done The contention is that the Canada Life has not the authority to do it because the right of contract is something that belongs to the provincial legislature, and not to the federal authorities. If the same question is dealt with in this Act, and the authority is given to companies generally to divide profits in the way that the Canada Lite divided them, the same question would arise.
Mr. FIELDING, the same principle.
_ Mr. SPROULE. is in this Bill.
That is correct. It is Yes, the same principle


John Allister Currie: The courts have held that no matter what this Act says the provincial Act says that if a contract is in a certain way, the contract will be -considered m that way.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the only decision which has been given along the line suggested by my hon. friend (Mr, Currie)

was given by an estimable judge in Montreal who, however, has not a very high jurisdiction.


John Allister Currie: It was an Act of the provincial legislature which decided that a certain thing had to be read a certain way, and then there was a lawsuit which went to the Supreme Court I think.
On section 9, license not granted where charter authorizes excess of classes.


Mr. BARKER.: I think we all desire to know what sections have been altered in the Bill which we had before us last year.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I have called attention to several sections already. Subsection 2 of section 9 contains a provision to which I shall call attention. Its effect is that subsidiary companies of companies licensed in Canada and the _ contracts of which are guaranteed by a licensed company may receive a license. They _ are treated as virtually one company, that is to say, where one company guarantees the contracts of another, they are treated as^ one company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If a company in Canada should reinsure, for instance, _ with some American company, what position would that American company be in? Would it be entitled to have an office in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Companies have always been free to reinsure in the manner described.	;


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not aware of any insurance being done in that way, but I suppose it must be done, or this provision would not be made.


William Stevens Fielding: There are several companies which have carried on their business in that way, one company guaranteeing the other, and this clause is intended to cover a case of that kind. It is not very general, but there are several^ companies doing business in that way.
On section 10-deposit of assets to be in excess as fixed by treasury board; amount of excess.


John Allister Currie: I understand that a good many foreign companies deposit with the government here securities of foreign corporations, some of them of doubtful value. I think it would be wise to insert a clause here that any securities deposited with this government should be the securities of some Canadian corporation. You cannot go into the United States and deposit with them Canadian securities-they demand their own. A provision such as I speak of would make a better market for Canadian securities and would be only carrying out the principle adopted by other countries. I noticed, in looking over the list of the assets of the companies several Mr. FIELDING.
years ago, that securities of San Francisco companies and others of that kind were deposited here as security for insurance.


William Stevens Fielding: 
John Allister Currie: The insurance companies are the great market for bonds and the better class of securities. It is to the interest of the country that the securities demanded by this government should be of Canadian corporations. Municipal corporations, for instance, have bonds, the chief market, for . which is the insurance companies. Why should we allow foreign companies to come in here, and by depositing foreign securities, help to make a market for these securities when, by the res-striction that I propose, we should make a larger market for our own securities? In doing so we should only be carrying out the principle adopted by many states of the union as well as by other countries. For instance, my recollection is that Germany compelled the American companies to get rid of their American securities held for the safety of German policy-holders and buy German securities.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest that when we come to section 15 which deals with the question of deposits, we should be better able to discuss the question.
On section 11, license to provincial companies.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is it the intention of the government to grant a license for two ot more provinces, but not for the whole Dominion, and, for that purpose to accept a smaller deposit than for a license for the whole Dominion?


William Stevens Fielding: A clause of the Bill soon to be taken up touches on that point.
On section 14, deposits of securities with minister; in case of foreign company; in case of limited license.


Mr. MILLER.: My attention has just been called, by one of the Toronto fire insurance companies, to this section, and, if the minister will allow it, I would like to have the section stand until I have an opportunity of speaking to him about it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Consideration of section 14, postponed. [DOT]
On section 15, securities permissible; valuation.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no change in that, but it touches the point referred to by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie).


John Allister Currie: This section provides that the deposits shall be
(a)	in securities of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada, or in securities of or guaranteed by any province of Canada; or in securities of or guaranteed by the United Kingdom or any British colony.
I do not know that the other colonies offer us any privileges in this respect.
(b)	If such company is incorporated in any foreign country in securities of or guaranteed by the government of such country.
I think that ought to be cut out. There is no reason why foreign government securities should be received as deposits. There are plenty of Canadian securities.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member may be mistaken in thinking that we have plenty of Canadian securities. There are times when the insurance companies have difficulty in obtaining satisfactory securities. To-day the whole tendency is to purchase government and municipal securities. They are very largely used. The percentage of foreign securities used is not great, but to provide that we shall not receive such securities would not be a wise step.
Mr. DANIEL, J notice that ordinary municipal debentures are not considered to be sufficiently safeguarded to be accepted as deposits.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) will read the next section he will see that there is provision for accepting other securities if the treasury board is satisfied of their value.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Subsection 2 of section 16 refers to a fall in the value of these securities. What means is there for determining their value from time to time?


William Stevens Fielding: The officials of the department keep track of the quotations
of these securities and wherever there is depreciation they see that the amount is made good by calling for further deposits.


John Allister Currie: The hon. minister said that only these securities are to be-used. But section 16 leaves the door wide open. The government may take the securities of the United States Steel 'Corporation as deposits if the treasury board say so. I am a good Canadian, and I believe that we should let charity begin at home in this matter. We have plenty of corporations growing up in the west with not too great a market for their securities. It is better for us to lend money to ourselves than to lend it to foreigners who come in here and hang up deposits of their sechrity, and crowd us into the foreign market to sell ours. I think the point I have taken is a good Canadian point, and that we ought to stick to it.


William Stevens Fielding: The only foreign securities we accept are those of the highest value either government or national. The securities that are taken under that clause are all of the very highest character.


John Allister Currie: Have you a list of them here?


William Stevens Fielding: I can get them.


John Allister Currie: Better let that clause stand until we get the list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While foreign securities might be accepted there are many other securities than those mentioned in this Act that would be regarded as valuable securities, and which might be accepted by the treasury board.


William Stevens Fielding: The bulk of the securities will be Canadian government or municipal securities, and provincial securities; when they are available. But there are not many of these. It is largely a question of British government securities, and Canadian municipal securities. I might bring down a list to my hon. friend, and he may be assured that this class of securities are of the very best.


John Allister Currie: It has been suggested to me that many of these companies refrain from purchasing Ontario government securities just because there happened to be a little excitement over the Hydro-Electric Commission. If these companies were compelled to buy only Canadian securities, and place only Canadian securities on deposit, there will always be a good market at home, and the interest will be paid into our own country. If our own securities are displaced by foreign securities the interest is paid into a foreign country to build up a foreign country at the expense of ours. I think that clause ought to stand until we have a little further explanation.


William Stevens Fielding: I will be glad at the next stage of the Bill to Dring down a list of the class of securities we have accepted under this clause, and my hon. friend will find they are the best class of securities. With regard to Ontario government securities there is no question in our department; we have several deposits of Ontario government securities, and are very happy to receive them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would you receive
municipal securities as well? Take a large and rich county where the securities are guaranteed by the council.


William Stevens Fielding: We do receive that
class of securities, and have great quantities of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Subsection 2 would give you that power, but it does not include municipal securities.


William Stevens Fielding: Section 16 gives that power.


John Allister Currie: I may say for the information of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), that municipal securities are deposited. They are bought from municipalities by commission agents at 94 and 95, and they are hung up on deposit in this department at cost.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend, I am advised, is mistaken. These securities are accepted by us at their fair market value, and as a rule with a safe margin. There is no such thing, as my hon. friend thinks, of our accepting securities at a higher value. The great trouble is that the companies think we are rather too severe in our valuation and do not give them a high enough quotation.
On section 25, duplicates to be filed in office of a superior court.


William Thoburn: What do these agencies mean? I understood that foreign companies were not to have agencies for Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Foreign companies on being duly licensed may have agencies in Canada. What I said has reference .to these unlicensed companies which are permitted to do business under exceptional circumstances as previously mentioned; but ordinary foreigners taking out a license may do business like Canadian companies.


John Allister Currie: Supposing a company has its chief agency in Montreal, and a suit is brought in the province of Ontario : has the service to be made in Montreal, and would the suit have to be tried in Montreal or in the province of Ontario?


John Allister Currie: 


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed the suit might still be brought in Ontario and be subject to Ontario laws.
On section 28, notice of ceasing of business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The giving of notice shall be a condition precedent to the release of a company's deposit, but you release the deposit before they have fulfilled their contracts.


William Stevens Fielding: No, provision is made further on. The company's deposit will not be released until its liabilities in Canada have been met.
On section 31, paragraph (9), form of statements during 1910.


William Stevens Fielding: There i3 a slight change. The Bill as passed before provided that certain changes made by the superintendent in the annual statement might be subject to alteration by the minister. That has been changed. The statements as prepared by the superintendent shall be final and the minister shall not alter them. I think it is the better form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It says in subclause 8 of section 31 ' the minister or superintendent ' may make changes. Either may do it.


John Allister Currie: ___I think the minister
should be responsible for those changes. He is the responsible party, and the superintendent acts under the minister. I do not see any necessity^ for the superintendent being empowered to make changes without consultation with the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not important. These are really technical matters, and it means that the minister would only initial what is recommended by the superintendent. So that if you have the superintendent's signature in the matter you have all that is of real value. If you had the minister's initials added, it would not add much to the value.


John Allister Currie: If the minister does something wrong, he is responsible to the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I will have to promise that I will not.	1


Samuel Barker: I understood from the minister that it was changed so as to place the responsibility entirely on the superintendent. That is not the alteration as it is printed here.


William Stevens Fielding: In the Bill as it passed the House it was provided that ' any 3uch change made by the superintendent shall be subject to alteration or cancellation by the minister.' These last "words have been stricken out; so that as it stands now it

is the superintendent's view and not the minister's which prevails.
Mr BARKER, Either can dc it.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but in the event of the superintendent doing it and the minister being dissatisfied he had the right to change it. The Senate have stricken that out. I do not think it makes much difference. It is a technical matter, and the superintendent is the qualified officer to deal with it.
On section 36, time up to which annual statements are. made.


William Stevens Fielding: It was from section 36 that the provision with respect to gain and loss exhibit was stricken out, to which I have already called attention.
On section 37, superintendent and his duties.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not making any change here; we are simply filling in the salary of the superintendent as it exists under the law to-day. That could not be done in the Senate. We propose to fill the blank with the words 'five thousand dollars per annum,' so that it shall read ' not exceeding five thousand dollars per annum.'


John Allister Currie: That would come under the Civil Service Act?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, deputy ministers, in a sense, do come under that in a special way. The superintendent of insurance has the rank of a deputy and is appointed under the same conditions.


John Allister Currie: I mean his retiring allowance and all that sort of thing; they would be considered under the Civil Service Act?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the Civil Service Act provide what the salary of a deputy is? You appear to have authority here to change that by order in council.


William Stevens Fielding: No, it says, 'not exceeding.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But this gives you power to change that.


William Stevens Fielding: It has always been fixed in the Insurance Act, and the salary is that of a deputy. At the time this was fixed the deputies were paid a less sum. It is, in effect, the same thing; the superintendent is receiving the salary of a deputy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the Civil Service Act?


William Stevens Fielding: It has always been fixed under the Insurance Act. Does my
hon. friend mean that we can make it less than $5,000?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, but either one or the other authority should prevail. If he comes under the Civil Service Act, and if the Civil Service Act provides that a deputy shall get a certain amount, why should vou take authority to change that amount? I am not objecting to the amount.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not affect the present officer. If we were appointing a new officer and desired to do so we could give a less salary than $5,000, but he has by the Act the rank and position of a deputy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much does the Civil Service Act provide as the minimum amount that a deputy may receive?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, the Civil Service Act provides $5,000 as the minimum?


William Stevens Fielding: It is a fixed sum, not a minimum. The two Acts differ to this extent that we could appoint a superintendent of insurance at less than $5,000, and he could have a gradual rise to $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the Civil Service Act cover all deputy heads under the government?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then if it does, and if it says that a deputy head shall get so much, I do not see how you can take authority by order in council to change the words of the statute, because it is a statute.


Samuel Barker: This section gives them the authority.


John Allister Currie: I think the minister should allow the law with relation to the Civil Service to stand as it is and not take power to fix the salary at less than that provided for by the Civil Service Act. I do not think it is well for us to start, so soon after passing the Civil Service Act, to make changes. These things should work automatically.


William Stevens Fielding: We are not making changes. This is following the Insurance Act as it' has always been.


John Allister Currie: But we have initiated a new system under the Civil Service Act, and this is not a special service. Why should there be any change? We establish a bad precedent, because whenever a Bill comes un there will be changes made in some way or somebody will be demanding changes.


William Stevens Fielding: There is an apparent clash between the two Acts. This permits us to appoint a superintendent of insurance

at a less sum than $5,000 and then to raise it to $5,000. On the -other hand, the superintendent of insurance is a technical officer, and if the present officer were to retire, I do not think it would hurt very much to have the right to appoint another officer at a lower rate and let him go up in a year or two. At all events, it is on the side of economy.
On section 41, report when assets become insufficient; Governor in Council may suspend license of company; effect of suspension.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a change here providing that in the case of a company's license being cancelled a modified or additional license may be issued for the purpose of protecting the policy-holders of the company.


John Allister Currie: Should there not be a special arrangement whereby a special officer of the government should be put in charge to liquidate these assets; instead of sending it to the courts of big expense?


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, I don't think we want to take that upon ourselves.


Mr. PERLEY.: Do I understand that the superintendent can grant this modified or additional license and not the minister?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: There must be a mistake there; I do not think the superintendent should have that power. It seems to me it is the minister who should grant the license.


William Stevens Fielding: That amendment was put in by the Senate, but I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Perley) is- right in saying that the minister should grant the license. We had better change that.
On section 42, basis of valuation-deduction from value of policies.
.Mr. PERLEY. This is a highly technical matter, and I would like to know if the clause as it has passed the Senate is practically the same as that passed by the House last session?


William Stevens Fielding: Substantially it is. There has been some change in the wording, but it is not material.


John Allister Currie: I would like the minister to explain subsection 2 as to the basis of valuation.


William Stevens Fielding: I will have to let my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) take that on trust. That is a technical matter, and the only explanation I could give would be to read the clause and my hon. friend would not be any better off then.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Allister Currie: The government through its officials fix the amount of the bonus or addition, under the British tables. Will these tables govern the companies apart altogether from the contract?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This simply deals with the guarantee each company has to put up and it is fixed in the British life tables.


Mr. HARTY.: You mean the reserve.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, the reserve or guarantee, that is absolute in the policy. The profits are estimated by the company and in this Act we do not deal with profits at all.


Samuel Barker: Was this provision the outcome of a proposition by the insurance companies or is it the idea of the deputy minister for the protection of the public?


William Stevens Fielding: There has been a change in the tables accepted as the standard,- but otherwise this is a continuation of what has been in the Insurance Act for years. The change in the tables has been suggested by the department because it is a more modem table and deemed to be a better basis of computation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you provide that all policies after 1900 shall be on this basis and that policies before 1900 would be on whatever basis the company had followed previously?


William Stevens Fielding: The basis is the same, the variation is only in the rate of interest.


John Allister Currie: The minister and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) have failed to catch the point. The superintendent of insurance goes into the office of the insurance company and says:	You are charging too low a premium; you must chaTge a certain premium; and that becomes law-the company has to charge that. He goes to value the policies -of the company, and he finds that it has been paying too much in the way of bonus or addition out of profits, and he says: That is contrary to this table; this is the amount you must fix as the amount of your bonus to policy-holders. By this clause it appears to me that the government is taking upon itself, through its superintendent, to fix the amount of bonus that the companies shall pay. I grant that it is a matter of contract, but the superintendent-having such wide powers enabling him virtually to vary contracts so far as premiums are concerned, will this clause be construed as enabling him to vary the profits or bonuses payable to policy-holders?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the bonus is not determined by the superintendent. He has

*to take what the company establishes as the bonus, but that becomes an element in the valuation. The superintendent has nothing to do with establishing what the bonus or the amount of the profits shall be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the minister is right in saying that the rate of interest shall be the basis of the valuation. There are the two elements-the rate of interest at 34 per cent and these tables; that is, in regard to all policies issued after 1900. Policies issued before that may have been on a different basis.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They were on a different interest basis. The British life table is simply an experience table, and the companies put up so much yearly of an absolute guarantee and add 34 per cent of interest to that. Previous to 1900 it was 4 per cent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Upon what basis was the valuation?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It may have been on the healthy male table. The guarantee is absolute.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a party were dropping out of the company. He must be settled with on some basis, and the company is earning profits. On what basis will these profits be declared? On the British offices life tables of 1893, or on what basis? I take it that this clause would disturb contracts which have been entered into with the Canada Life Company, and to that extent probably interfere with the litigation that is going on at the present time. Would or would not this clause interfere with the rights of policy-holders which might be determined under that litigation?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This would not interfere, because the higher the guarantee the less the profit. The Canada Life, like all other companies, was forced after 1900 to guarantee on a higher basis.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The profits the companies earned before that time were higher than they have been since, and they have robbed the policy-holders of those profits.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the Act provides a standard policy.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a clause that every policy shall contain certain conditions but that comes later in the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that this subsection would mean that where there is
any departure from the standard in issuing a policy it will be a violation.
On section 47, contributions of certain companies towards office expenses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a company refuses to do what is provided for here, what can you do, except cancel its license?


William Stevens Fielding: That is all we can do, suspend its license to do business in Canada. There is no other penalty.
On section 52, change of head office and date of annual meeting.


William Stevens Fielding: This is a somewhat lengthy clause. It provides machinery for amalgamation and transfer. Some changes have been made. I will read the memorandum.
This section was originally drafted along the lines of the corresponding section in the English Companies Act. In the Act passed at the last session of the imperial parliament, however, a few changes were made, and these changes have also been made in this section.
The changes are to correspond with those made in the English Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What are the changes?


William Stevens Fielding: A few words here and there. Paragraph 3, subsection, as amended, requires that in a case of reinsurance or amalgamation, notice of the transfer shall be served on the shareholders and policyholders of both companies, instead of on the shareholders and policy-holders of the re-insured company alone as originally provided.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose that the treasury board do not agree to it, can the government compel that company to go into liquidation and use the money forwarded to them for distribution among the policyholders.


William Stevens Fielding: The government would have to refuse the license and that would force the company into liquidation.


John Allister Currie: That would be a very grave step.


William Stevens Fielding: It would not be done unless there is a strong need for it.
On section 54, advances to agents.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Might I ask the minister whether they did not change that somewhat?


William Stevens Fielding: This section has been amended by removing the restriction of advances on first year's tpremiums and providing that advances may be made without restriction, but that such advances shall not be allowed as assets in the superintendent's report. In subsection 2, exempt-

ing industrial companies from the provision of the section, has also been struck out, as the amendment in subsection 1, rendered this exemption unnecessary.
On section 55, salaries of officers and agents.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister explain what change there is in this?


William Stevens Fielding: In substance I am told there is no change, though there has been redrafting. As the section, as amended, stands, it affects only contracts to be entered into hereafter.
On section 56, salary agreement, for not more than five years.


William Stevens Fielding: This has been changed to provide that the time for which an agreement between a company and its officers or trustees may be made shall not exceed five years instead of ten years, as in the old section.


John Allister Currie: Does that affect the contracts made with agents? I understand that a great many agents have contracts with the companies made years ago under which they were to receive a certain portion of the annual premium. These men worked hard for years and got a large business for their companies, land have retired expecting that these renewal commissions will be paid them. Does this affect them?


William Stevens Fielding: This Bill will not interfere with that.
On section 57-commissions to agents only: pension fund may be created.


John Allister Currie: Who gets that pension? It is spoken of as a ( staff pension fund.' Who are the ' staff'? Do they include the directors or the agents, or does this mean the office staff?


William Stevens Fielding: I would take it to mean the head office staff.


John Allister Currie: I am not raising objection, but I think that should be defined in such a way that there may be no misconstruction.


Samuel Barker: It might include the president.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, he would be the head of the office staff.


Samuel Barker: Is that intended?


William Stevens Fielding: The scheme must be submitted to the general meeting of the members. If they approve it, I do not see why we should prevent it.
On section 59, investment of company's funds.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: Several amendments have been made in the investments section. Under subsection (a) of section 1 is added ' or guarantee by any municipal corporation in Canada.' Paragraph 3 of subsection (b) has been amended so as to provide that the stocks of a company guaranteed by a company which has paid regular dividends upon its preferred or common stock for not less than five years will be accepted for investment. This puts the stock of the company that is guaranteed on the same footing as that of the guaranteeing company. It accepts the guarantee as equivalent to the original stock.


John Allister Currie: This opens a very-wide door. A company with a capital stock of $10,000 on which it has paid dividends might guarantee the stock of a half million dollar company, and thus make that stock eligible.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be an abuse of the Act. I would ask that that section be allowed to stand for further consideration of paragraph 3-not the whole. We will think of the point raised by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie).


George Halsey Perley: It is right to let it stand, but the minister ought to promise us that the matter shall be set right, for it might come up when we are not here and pass without being amended. A ten-thousand dollar company should not be allowed to guarantee a million dollars of another company's stock.


William Stevens Fielding: We will consider that. The hon. member (Mr. Perley) knows the spirit in which the Bill has been dealt with, and may feel sure that the matter will receive full consideration.


John Allister Currie: And the minister will improve it?


William Stevens Fielding: Either that or attention will be called to it in the House. Whatever decision we reach will be conveyed to the House. In paragraph 4 of subsection (b) the provision was that not more than twenty per cent of the common stocks and not more than twenty per cent of the total issu'e of the stock of any company shall be purchased by any life insurance company. That has been changed to thirty per cent. It was pointed out that, as the field of stock investment is very limited in Canada, the companies should not be so much restricted. It was pointed out that there is no danger of the control passing to the investing company when only thirty per cent of the stock is permitted to be purchased.
Subsection 3 is replaced with a new subsection, to 'enable a company to obtain the securities of a company for reorganiza-

tion if the securities of that company were previously owned by the insurance company.


Samuel Barker: In connection with the matter of guarantee to which we have b'een alluding, the Minister of Finance might consider whether such investments might not be subject to the approval of the Treasury Board instead of being as large as they are.


William Stevens Fielding: I promise to look into that.


George Halsey Perley: This subsection 3 allows the Treasury Board to authorize the
acceptance by a company of securities not fulfilling the foregoing requirements of the section in payment or part payment for securities sol'd by the company. If the securities they receive are not such as are authorized by the Act, I suppose they would have to sell them within five years under the previous section.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, if unauthorized, they would have to be sold within five years.


George Halsey Perley: Even those that the Treasury Board allowed them to take under this subsection?


William Stevens Fielding: If we accept them they would become good.


George Halsey Perley: That is exactly the point I am making. Under subsection 3, the Treasury Board may authorize the acceptance of thes'e securities in payment or part payment for securities held by the company. That is, securities they are not allowed to take under this x\ct might be authorized by the Treasury Board. They ought to be obliged to sell them within a reasonable time. If the Treasury Board allowed them to take these securities which they could not get in any other way, that should not allow them to keep them for ever.


William Stevens Fielding: They would still be subject to the clause that they must be sold within a reasonable time.
On section 60, deposits outside of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: In subsection 1 the words ' and securities ' have been inserted after the word ' funds,' in order to make it clear that a company might deposit securities outside of Canada. It was considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse permission for the temporary removal of securities from Canada.


George Halsey Perley: That is a proper change; but I object to the word ' person,' being used in the last line. It seems to me in these days when we have trust companies and banks, that a person should not be
authorized to receive these securities for purposes of exchange.


William Stevens Fielding: A person would include a corporation.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think any individual should be allowed to do it.


William Stevens Fielding: That is one of the Senate's new clauses, and that may also stand. Of course it would not prevent us using a bank or trust company for the purpose, but it would allow an individual. We will look into that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the trust company not charge a commission, and an individual might do it without commission?


George Halsey Perley: An insurance company would have to pay any charges of that kind. If the word ' person ' were changed to a responsible bank or trust company, it would answer my objection.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is it at all likely that the department would put them in with a person that is not responsible? It says ' a responsible person.' I think the clause is good as it stands.
On section 67, holding of real estate.


William Stevens Fielding: An amendment has been made to this section providing that a company may acquire and hold such real estate in the United Kingdom as is necessary for the maintenance of its branches there, provided that the consent of the treasury board to the acquisition has been obtained. This amendment was supported by the argument that it would increase the companies' standing in the eyes of the British insurance public.
On section 76, voting by proxy, companies other than life.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the Independent Order of Foresters counted an assessment company?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. There is a change in section 76, as it passed this House, when subsection 4 provided that a proxy shall not be valid unless it is executed within three months prior to the meeting in which the same is to be used. I have a memorandum stating that subsection 4, requiring that a proxy of the mutual companies must be executed within three months, is struck out, since policy-holders' proxies have been abolished in section 98, and there seems no reason for imposing this limitation on mutual companies.


George Halsey Perley: Then the proxy is good for ever?


William Stevens Fielding: It is good until revoked. The policy-holders have no proxy.
On section 77, investments, annual report.


William Stevens Fielding: This section has been amended. It empowers the superintendent to disallow such investments as he considers unauthorized by the Act, and provides for an appeal to the Exchequer Court against his decision. The companies claimed that pending the result of such appeal, the superintendent's ruling should be suspended, and an amendment has been made to subsection 4, providing that if the company gives notice of its intention to appeal within fifteen days of being notified of the superintendent's ruling, and within fifteen days thereafter files its appeal with the registrar of the Exchequer Court, the superintendent's ruling shall be suspended until the judgment of the Exchequer Court has been rendered. This will give the company thirty days within which to file its appeal. The section has also been amended to provide for its coming into force on January 1, 1911.
On section 79, reduction and subsequent increase of capital.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the provision with respect to the reduction of capital the same as in the old Bill?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


John Allister Currie: The question raised by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is a pertinent one. Could a company whose capital is not all paid up, when trouble is apprehended, write off its stock and release its shareholders from liability?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the liability remains.


Samuel Barker: It is paid up capital that it has power to reduce under section 79.


William Stevens Fielding: Read subsection 4.
On section 80, increase of capital.


William Stevens Fielding: The first line of section 80 has been amended by providing that only that portion of the profits of the company which belongs to the shareholders shall be used for increasing the capital stock.


John Allister Currie: Is there a clause which provides that the list of securities held by a company shall be at the Department of Finance?


William Stevens Fielding: That comes in the annual statement submitted by the company to the department.
On section 87, rebates, discrimination, etc., forbidden.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a change in 87, but it is not material.


George Halsey Perley: 87 has been altered?
Mr,. FIELDING. The alterations are only verbal.


William Stevens Fielding: -Mr. NESBITT. I would like to ask the minister that subsection 2 of section 87, should stand.


William Stevens Fielding: All right.
Subsection 2 of section 87 allowed to stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the provision in section 85, that the agent of the company is not to be the agent of the insured apply to fraternal companies as well?


William Stevens Fielding: No.
On section 90, surplus under deferred dividend policies.


John Allister Currie: I notice that the figures are to be taken every fifth year with regard to a deferred policy. Would it not he better for each company to have a set time for reckoning the profits on such policies, having the company's year instead of the policy's year?


William Stevens Fielding: This is the clause as we passed it before, and I think no question was raised as to its suitability.


Samuel Barker: On this question of the quinquennial payments, would it not be possible to have company periods. Could not it be worked out on a five years' computation. I think every company should have its quinquennial period to suit itself, with adjustments made for five years, and not to have each policy made up every five years.


William Stevens Fielding: All the policies would be valued at the same time?


Samuel Barker: Yes, and to meet the intermediate policies there could be an adjustment.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is done now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My impression is that that is now done by the companies.


John Allister Currie: It is the net profit that is divided, and to my mind the only, way to work that out from an actuarial-standpoint would be to have a five year company period. The company has its great clearing house every five years and makes an adjustment on the policies accordingly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what they do now.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that what my hon. friend from Hamilton suggests is the rule of practice now.


Samuel Barker: That is probably what the Act seem3 to contemplate.


John Allister Currie: But it is not so expressed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Each company has its quinquennial period, and if any policy

falls in between the periods they give them their proportion.


John Allister Currie: This section <ioe3 not contemplate that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think it does.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it means what the hon. gentleman desires.


John Allister Currie: Yes, but it does not set forth what it means.
On section 95, form of policy to be approved-days of grace for payment of premiums-incontestability after two years- policy and endorsement to be entire contract-age understated-lapsed policies- loan on policy-table of surrender and loan values-table of instalments-renewal of policy-exceptions.


George Halsey Perley: Is there a change in this section?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. In paragraph (g) the Bill as introduced provided that all loan agreements on policies must be made on a fixed form. Several of the companies pointed out this would cause great inconvenience to the companies, and it was decided that the company's own form should be allowed to be used, subject to the approval of the superintendent. An amendment has been made in accordance with this suggestion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you make it compulsory under clause 94 for the party to get the acquiescence of the superintendent to institute a suit?


William Stevens Fielding: His individual right to bring suit against the company would remain, but in the case of the Attorney General being applied to to bring a suit for some public interest, the superintendent should be applied to.


John Allister Currie: I cannot see that the companies can give any reasonable excuse why they should not use the government forms.	*


William Stevens Fielding: If an approved form is used, the public interest is protected.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am glad to know these forms have to be submitted to the superintendent, because the companies have had a grievance wdth reference to these company forms.


Samuel Barker: Colonel Worthington made a reference to the war risks on militiamen. What- is to be done about that?


William Stevens Fielding: Deserving as the object is, I do not see how we can legislate in such a matter.


John Allister Currie: I think an amendment could be inserted in subclause (b)
stating that the amount of that extra war' payment should be printed on the contract.


William Stevens Fielding: There are big wars and little wars, and I think the company would desire to have an opportunity of varying the rates,in accordance with the risks that may arise. We have not had any representation that there has been any difficulty under the existing law7 in that Tespect.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) suggested an amendment to subsection (b) of section 95, which I would like the minister to take under advisement, holding this subsection over.


William Stevens Fielding: Very good.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The companies all have in their policies now the amount additional they charge for war risks.


George Halsey Perley: If they have, it might as well be put in the Act.


William Stevens Fielding: I have the impression that war risks may vary in their quality and character.
On section 96, separate accounts of participating and non-participating business.


John Allister Currie: What is the idea of having separate accounts for participating and non-participating policies? The companies limit the profits for participating policy-holders to the participating business, while the profits on the non-participating business I suppose go to the shareholders. This is one of the grievances that were up before. A man who takes out a participating policy understands that he participates m all the profits of the company in a certain proportion along with the share-holders. Most of the companies as a matter of fact only allow to the participating policyholder the profits that accrue from participating policies. The keeping of these two accounts separate makes it all the more easy for the companies to do this.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The companies issue nonparticipating policies at a very much lower premium than participating policies; and this clause has been inserted for the purpose of enabling the companies to withdraw from the participating policy-holders a sufficient amount to make up for the lack of premiums paid by the non-participating policy-holders.
On section 98, shareholders' and policyholders' directors.


William Stevens Fielding: There have been some changes made in this section. It is one to which the committee of the Senate gave very much time. The decision of the committee with respect to the representation of policy-holders on the board of directors may be summarized as follows:

1.	Policy-holder are to be allowed to have representation on the board.
2.	The total number of directors is to be not less than nine nor more than fifteen (the original section had nine and sixteen).
3.	The policy-holders5 directors must be. at
least one-third of the board (last year's section had two-fifths).	*
1. The directors of both classes may be elected for one, two, or three years.
5.	If elected for two or three years they may according as determined by the company's by-laws-
(a)	hold office continuously for the full term, or
(b)	a certain proportion retire annually.
6. Policy-holders are not allowed to vote by proxy.
7.	The qualifications for policy-holders voting and acting as directors have been left the same as in last year's Bill.
An amendment has been made to subsection 7, providing that a policy-holder as a member of a company shall not in case of liquidation be liable to be placed op the list of contributories, or to share in the distribution of assets. Subsection 11 has been changed to provide that the date of the holding of the annual meeting shall be printed on every renewal receipt issued by the company, instead of the company being obliged to serve every policy-holder with a special notice of the annual meeting. Subsections 13 and 14 have been consolidated into a new subsection 13. These in general terms are the different proposals from the Senate.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister whether a point which was much discussed last year has been dealt with,
that is, whether a shareholder can sit as a policy-holder's director?


William Stevens Fielding: No, as proposed now, he cannot.


Samuel Barker: The policy-holder's director must be interested simply as a policyholder?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Why should not a policyholder vote by proxy as well as a shareholder?


William Stevens Fielding: I was one of those who thought he should; but in this matter I am willing to accept the judgment of the Senate rather than delay the Bill.


John Allister Currie: I agree with the minister that the policy-holders should elect their own directors. I do not see why they should not have the same privilege in that respect as the shareholders. Apparently there is a clear line of cleavage between the director who represents the shareholders and the director who is to represent the policy-holders. The policyholders should have the same freedom of electing their director as the shareholders.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the judgment of this House would sustain the minister on that point.


William Stevens Fielding: I believe that one of the arguments that influenced the Senate was the expense that would be involved. Of course, there are an immense number of policy-holders, and the cost of issuing proxies to those would be very large. However, rather than delay the Bill, I am willing to accept the Senate's compromise.


George Halsey Perley: I do not see why the date of the annual meeting should not be put on the policy, unless it is left in this way because they might want to change the date.


William Stevens Fielding: They might want to change it.
On section 102, companies ceasing to do business.


John Allister Currie: There are some companies which formerly did business in this country and whose business is not yet wound up. Is there any change in this clause that would affect them?


William Stevens Fielding: This is the same clause as was in the Bill of last year. There is no change. It is the same as the existing law I am advised.
On section 102, companies ceasing to do business-winding up old business,


George Halsey Perley: I would like to ask whether the public has the right to see the list of securities held by the government on deposit for these insurance companies?


William Stevens Fielding: You mean the deposits held by the department?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no objection at any time to anybody obtaining that information who desires it.


John Allister Currie: A friend of mine is interested in this winding up, and he has been harshly dealt with, by the New York Mutual Company.


William Stevens Fielding: Mutual reserve, you mean?


John Allister Currie: Yes, the Alutual Reserve. The procedure in those cases is this:	The government holds a certain
amount of security and deposits. As I understand the securities held by the government in the case of insurance companies are for the benefit of the parties who hold the insurance and for the purpose of renewing their insurance, that is their unearned premiums. Now in the case of this company, the moment their trouble arose, a Canadian gentleman, who is very active in assignee work applied to the courts to be appointed the assignee. About the same time an American assignee applied to be

assignee of the company in New York, and there was a conflict between them. The Canadian issued notices asking the policy-holders to send their policies and payments to him and the American did likewise. Some of the Canadians paid their premiums to the Canadian official before he was finally appointed by the courts, and it appears that some of those who paid to this Canadian official before his final appointment, have been deprived of the benefits to which they are entitled under this Act. In the case of those who paid to the American liquidator, their payments held good and their policies were not cancelled, while one or two who paid to the Canadian liquidator were cast out and have no redress. I think the minister should take that matter under advisement. I would like to know from the minister before this Bill passes, what amount of money on deposit in the department has been used for the payment of legal expenses and assignees' expenses in this matter, because if I know anything about these assignees, and especially about the gentleman in question, about one-third of the money held by the government will be swallowed up in expenses before the matter is settled.


William Stevens Fielding: I have some reason for feeling interested in that company, but I am afraid the trouble was that my hon. friend's friend had a worthless policy, and was sad because he could not get something out of it.


John Allister Currie: You are absolutely wrong. It was nothing of the kind.


William Stevens Fielding: There were so many like that that I naturally thought my friend's case was in that position. However, we have no record of the amount that was expended for legal expenses, but no doubt that will come to us later. The department did not undertake to distribute this money at all. It is purely a matter for the courts, and whatever money was in the hands of the government has been paid over to the liquidator by order of the court.


John Allister Currie: How long ago?


William Stevens Fielding: In August, 1908.


John Allister Currie: And this liquidator has deliberately dragged the settlement of that company's affairs along all this time and the minister allows it. The liquidator will not report for three or four years until he has eaten up all the money, i think there should be a limit to these matters and I intend to bring up the question again.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a matter for the court, not for the department.


John Allister Currie: There ought to be something in this Act that would prevent anything of that kind. It should provide that when a company has to go into liquidation an inspector from the department should supervise it, the same as is done in connection with the banks in the United States, and the insurance companies there.


William Stevens Fielding: The department has enough to do without taking that on its shoulders. The hon. member's faith in the department is very acceptable to me, but I would rather trust the courts.


John Allister Currie: The liquidator would be an official of the court, but an outside man who has nothing to do with the company can now apply to a high count judge who is possibly also his friend and get the high court judge to say that he is to be the liquidator. He is appointed liquidator and he demands the money deposited with the government and applies it to his own private business as a trust fund or applies it as he likes. There should be some method whereby an official of the government could act as liquidator, of course, under the jurisdiction of the court; but an assignee who can get somebody to go on his bond has a right under this law to apply for a winding up order, to get all this money which the stockholders had deposited in the hands of the minister, have it paid to his own credit, and then his account is not settled for three or four years. I think it is time in the interests of the public and the policy-holders that something should be done in the way of appointing a supervisor.


William Stevens Fielding: This assignee cannot get this money out of the hands of the government; the only people who can get it is the court, and if an order of the court requires us to give the money to the assignee, then the court is responsible.


John Allister Currie: Well, the minister will ascertain what the figures are and let me know what the cost of this liquidation has been.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is any record of it,


John Allister Currie: The minister has the money.


William Stevens Fielding: The court has the money; we have not.


John Allister Currie: I thought the minister said that the court came to the minister and got it dollar by dollar as it was needed. As a matter of fact if the court gave an order this man could draw half a million dollars.


William Stevens Fielding: The court directed that whatever moneys were in the hands of the government should be paid over to the

assignee. The official was so paid and so far as we are concerned that was the end of it.


John Allister Currie: A moment ago the minister suggested that this money was paid out on the application of the assignee.


William Stevens Fielding: Nothing of the sort.


John Allister Currie: I say that an irresponsible assignee can come and get all the moneys here on deposit at the department, and hang up the settlement for four or five years.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member is mistaken. An irresponsible assignee cannot get a penny of the money. An order of the court only can get the money.


John Allister Currie: What is the use of begging the question? All the court does is to instruct the assignee to go and get the money.


William Stevens Fielding: If the court instructs the Minister of Finance to pay over the money, as we are good citizens and try to obey the orders of the court, we deliver the goods.
On section 109, reserves.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to have that section stand, please.
On section 110, profits from participating policies to be kept distinct from other profits-rights of participating policy-holders to profits.


John Allister Currie: I would ask the minister to allow that section to stand.


William Stevens Fielding: Very good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have spent a long day, and I think it would be well that we should rise.


William Stevens Fielding: Very well.


George Halsey Perley: Can the minister tell us when it is likely that this Insurance Bill will come up again?


William Stevens Fielding: Not to-morrow. I can hardly say more than that. I want the superintendent of insurance and his officers to look over the various suggestions that have been made before we take the Bill up again.
Progress reported.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 218) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 219) to incorporate the Edmonton, Peace River and Eastern Railway Company.-W. M. Martin.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: First, the Bills on the order paper, those standing in the names of the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-in fact, almost any of these Bills we would like to take up as they may be reached.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the tariff be taken
up?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it has not assumed 'the form of a Bill yet; it is in the form of a resolution. If we finish the Bill I have referred to, Supply will be taken up, when the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of the Interior will resume their estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 26, 1910.