1919-07-03

THE LATE LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE HAROLD BAKER, M.P.


[Stage Direction]
Sir HERBERT AMES (St. Antoine), presented the report from the Special Committee of this House appointed to confer and act with the committee of the Senate and House of Commons who have in charge the building and arrangement of the new Parliament Building, in order that there may be erected therein a suitable memorial to the late Lieut.-Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., for Brome, presented their first report as follows:
Your Committee have had several meetings with a like Committee of the Senate, and have conferred with the Committee of Parliament who have in charge the arrangement of the new Parliament Building, and also with the Architect, Mr. John A. Pearson, and now beg to recommend:-
1.	That a memorial to the late Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, M.P., in the form of a bas-relief or tablet, be placed' in the alcove to the right of the stairway in the House of Commons entrance.
2.	That pending a definite decision of your Committee and of the. Committee of the House of Commons, as to the form of the memorial and the inscription to be placed thereon, the location selected by your Committee be reserved for the said memorial.
On motion of Sir Herbert Ames, the recommendation contained in the special report of the Baker Memorial Committee was concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1920, wais presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.
Sir THOMAS WHITE:: I beg to state, in connection with the Supplementary Estimates which have just been presented, that there will be a further Estimate, probably to-morrow, dealing with the matter of salaries of civil servants.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: With respect to numbers 15 and 16 of Government Orders, I move that rule -50 of the House be suspended with re-

lation thereto in order that these Bills may be gone on with without resolution. The Bills as amended will contain no proviso that, under the law aside from the rules of this House, requires a resolution, but inasmuch as they affect trade and commerce, by rule 50 a resolution is required. In order that time may be saved and that we may proceed with the'consideration of these Bills on the call of Government Orders today, it is necessary that rule 50 be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion requires, of course, unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. John A. Currie (Simcoe North), the recommendation contained in the third report of the joint committee on printing was concurred in.

Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) moved:: That the recommendation contained in the second report of the special committee appointed to consider the matter of the development in Canada of scientific research be concurred in.
He said: In moving concurrence in this report, I desire to make a few remarks upon a subject which, in the opinion of the committee, is a very vital factor in the future welfare and progress of Canada. I am well aware that, at this stage of a lengthy and protracted session, the members will not suffer gladly any extended oration, so that I shall endeavour to compress my remarks into the briefest possible compass. Indeed, I do not pretend to attempt anything like an oration, and I should welcome questions from hon. members if the statements I make do not appear clear to them.
As the report has already been read to the House, it is unnecessary to again repeat it on this occasion. It expresses the unanimous belief of the committee that federal aid to scientific research in Canada should be forthcoming, and that we are bound to take action along this line if we desire our country to maintain its place among other nations of the world, that place won for us by the gallantry of our men overseas.
The report further recommends for the consideration of the Government the establishment of a bureau of standards similar to that bureau which has been in existence in the United States for nearly twenty years past. Later on, I shall hope to give some explanation of the functions of such a bureau, in order that the recommendation of the committee in this respect may be appreciated.
While the committee was urgent in its belief of the importance of scientific research and the need of Dominion assistance thereto, no conclusion was reached as to the best method of affording the necessary support, and the reasons for failing to reach a conclusion are stated in the report. The report therefore goes on to recommend the re-appointment of a similar committee at the next session, when it is hoped that with the material already gathered, extensive as it is, and with such other evidence as the new committee may see fit to consider a definite decision may be reached for the consideration of this House and the Government.
In view of this report, and recalling, as some hon. members will, the inspiring address which Professor McLennan, that noted Canadian scientist, and now advisor to the British Admiralty, delivered in this Chamber a few weeks ago, it seems futile [DOT] for me to attempt to make any general -statement on the importance of scientific research, but I feel I should do so, and I would urge as patient a hearing as can he given on a day such as this to what will be brief and to the point.
(Science is the instrument which more than any other has enabled man in his never ending struggle with nature to force that stern mother to disclose and yield up a larger share of her bounties. We admire the patient progress of our progenitors; we are the heirs of all the ages, and thus the beneficiaries of discoveries so hardly won, but we now recognize that the ancient, tedious and wasteful principle of "Trial and error" must be eliminated, and, that trained scientific reasoning be substituted for the empiricism of earlier epochs.
We have read and heard much of late regarding the importance to the state of what are termed "Key" industries. Is not science, which is the "Master Key" to the treasury vaults of the entire globe, at least of equal importance?
The history and.results of the war have brought to most of us a realization of the powers of science, and for that reason, if for no other, the feeling is general that the alliance between science and industry should be of the closest nature; and by industry I desire to include all the leading pursuits upon which Canada's prosperity

the Department of Mines and the Department of Agriculture, the amount of progress made in this direction 1s almost negligible. Nor should this condition be a matter of surprise. Outside of a-few corporations our industries are comparatively small and it would be impossible for them to establish and maintain on a useful scale the laboratories and staff required for the purpose. After careful inquiry we are told that less than two per cent of Canadian industries engage in industrial research, while only about ten per cent possess routine laboratories.
What have we done so far to remedy this state of affairs? I should like to be permitted, for the benefit of those members who, like myself, were not in the House when the move for scientific industrial research had its origin briefly to trace that movement from its inception down to the present time.
In the session of 1917 a measure was enacted under the title of " The Research Council Act." By its provisions an Honorary Advisory 'Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was authorized, consisting of not more than eleven members to be appointed on the recommendation of a sub-committee of the Privy Council. The duties of the Advisory Council were to have charge of all matters affecting scientific - and industrial research in Canada assigned to it by the sub-committee, and to advise such committee on questions of scientific and technical methods affecting the expansion of Canadian industries or which might aid in the development of the natural resources of Canada.
The Administrative Chairman of the Advisory Council was to be the only member to receive pay; the other members acting in a purely honorary capacity. The Council was enabled toy means of an annual appropriation granted by Parliament or from moneys otherwise received to expend such sums on the above work as might be approved by the sub-committee. The Act contains the usual clauses as to annual audit and reports to Parliament.
On the second reading of the Bill, the proposal met with the general approval of members on both sides of the House, including that of the right honourable the leader of the Opposition. If we except the time honoured objection to multiplicity of commissions, the only criticism raised was that the plan did not go far enough. The present member for -South Perth in speaking to the motion ended his remarks with what I hope may prove to be a prophetic utterance:

''I trust that in the near future we shall have in this country under the control of the Government a vast institute for industrial and scientific research. There is plenty of work for such an institute to do -work that would toe of vast advantage, not only to the manufacturing and industrial interests of the -country, but to the nation at large."
Under this Act an Advisory Council was formed, the present members being, Professor A. B. Macalluim, Administrative Chairman; Professor F. B. Adams, McGill University; Sir George Garneau, Quebec; Professor Goodwin, Queen's University; Robert Hobson, Hamilton; Professor A. S. Mackenzie of Dalhousie University; President W. C. Murray, of the University of Saskatchewan; R. A. Ross, Montreal; Professor R. F. Ruttan, McGill University; and Arthur Surveyer, Montreal.
The above council subsequently associated with itself honorary committees in chemistry, mining, -metallurgy, and Forestry, while an Advisory Committee in British Columbia was as well named. I -shall not delay the House to give the fifty odd names making up these committees; my assurance may be accepted that they comprise men eminent in their particular lines throughout Canada.
Since its formation, the council has held some 25 meetings, each meeting lasting from two to four days, while the associate committees have as1 well met to discuss the particular measures in which they are interested.
The work of the council is set forth in the reports of the chairman, one published last year and now available to members, and the other laid upon the table of the House a few days ago. I do, not enlarge further upon these reports, which speak for themeselves, but I do urge that the members should find time before the next session to peruse the same, and to consider the strong recommendations made therein, particularly those to be found between pagesi 22 and 28 of the report first mentioned.
I would .ask the House to .remember that .this Advisory Council has been in existence for something like two years, that it has covered the field in an exhaustive way, and that these recommendations are entitled to the most serious consideration.
I do not propose on this occasion to go into the vi-ews expressed and the evidence given as to the best method of -aiding scientific and industrial research in Canada. To do so, would be to -assume the duties of the committee, which I hope may be

appointed at the next session of Parliament. It might besides anticipate or perhaps prejudice the finding of that committee. I do, however, feel free in closing to reiterate in the strongest terms my belief in the importance of scientific research and the duty of the Dominion Government to contribute to its support. I am not identified with industrial life nor have the companies with which I am. connected investments in manufacturing concerns-I entered upon an inquiry into this subject with less knowledge regarding it 'than- is probably possessed by many other hon. members. I strove to consider it from an unprejudiced point of view, and to hold an open mind throughout the entire inquiry. If the testimony of one individual can be of any value, I wish to put myself on record as being convinced of the vital part which scientific research plays in modem civilization; no country can hope to make full use of its opportunities unless the add of science is invoked to the fullest extent. In Canada, more than in older and fully occupied countries, this need is imperative. We would discover how vast are our riches if we could but turn the searchlight of science upon our far-flung Dominion.
I am, Sir, as I have previously stated, an enthusiastic believer in the future of our country, and my prayer, therefore, is that not only may our outlook be broad and sane, but that we may possess the courage and pre-vision to boldly adopt any measure which will add to the national well being. I beg to move the adoption of the report.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Am I at liberty to say a word on this subject?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: I heartily endorse the line that has been laid down by the mover of this resolution. Years ago I proposed myself that some similar body should 'be formed at Ottawa, but from my experience I may add a word of caution with respect to the formation of the organization now proposed, and I will do it by giving a practical illustration. During the war it was my privilege to meet man after man who came to me with inventions, and in very many instances I sent the men over to the Mather Country to endeavour to get their ideas adopted and carried out. One of these persons, Mr. Fessenden, of Boston, is an old Canadian and a former Hamilton boy, coming from a city from which
a great many good things have come. He waited upon me with a device for detecting the presence of submarines, and submitted it for my opinion and the opinion of some of the burning and .shining lights of the department at that time. On the same occasion he also showed me how he could locate enemy batteries. I sent him over to the United Kingdom and it took him three years to get that invention adopted by Britain. Italy took the invention up and France also, but Britain delayed doing so until 1917. It was not until Lord Moulton interested himself in the matter over there that anything was done. Fessenden was treated as an outlaw, he was not allowed to experiment with his own invention in any sense whatever. In consequence of that rule, Fessenden was kept dodging around from month to month without anything being done. It was the invention of another man I sent over, viz., Ross, of Washington, which resulted in bringing down the first Zeppelin over Belgium for which the flier got the V.C. Fessenden, as I say, was not allowed to carry on his own work, but the experiments had to be handed over to so-called experts over there and nothing was done. The point I want to make is this: In addition to having a research committee opportunity should be given to a man who has ideas to come to Ottawa, or to some place in Canada, and practically work out those. ideas at the Government's cost. That, in short, is my idea.


Robert Laird Borden: That is, do research work here.


Samuel Hughes: Yes. Give the man a chance of doing that work himself.


Mr. MORPHY:: Was the invention to which the hon. member refers any good?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, it worked splendidly -in gunnery operations, and the submarine idea proved most effective also.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: How did it work out?


Samuel Hughes: There is not a
gunner at the front who did not use Fessenden's idea for locating the enemy guns during the last years of the war, and the invention could have been used much earlier. Before his idea came into use when the enemy artillery were firing, you could not tell where the guns were located; but by his system of signal posts and registering the sound by photographs, within a very short time enemy guns could be located and destroyed. It was the same thing in regard to a device .for the detection of sub-



marines which was adopted in 1917 by the British Government but should have been taken up much earlier. I sent him over in 1914. (My desire in speaking on this subject is to throw out a word of caution, that not only should there be a research committee but the man who has genius should be encouraged to develop his ideas and not hand them over to some other person who will manipulate and probably appropriate them for himself. The same experience was encountered by Ross of Washington.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I should like
to be permitted in a sentence to express my very high appreciation, which, I am sure, is shared by the whole House, of the very admirable address which has been given by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn). I take the opportunity of saying that there were some sentences in his address which might be calculated to mislead us as to the frequently asserted before the war pre-eminence of Germany in scientific matters. I do not know that my hon. friend asserted that, although he seemed to indicate that there was good ground for an opinion in that direction. I read not long ago a book by a German- an enlightened German who was in Switzerland during the war-the title of the book, I think, was "When Blood Was Their Argument " and Hueffer was the name of the author. He pointed out that the world, and even Germans up to the Emperor himself, had been misled in this way.
He produced figures to show that in scientific discoveries of first value in the years immediately preceding the war Britain was far ahead of Germany in the actual number of such discoveries, and that France also had1 the lead of Germany. I give the title of the book and the name of the author, and I quote the facts for what they are worth. He Went on to state that such discoveries as Germany did make were in a spirit the very opposite to that of the true 'scientist, and that they were given ito the Emperor by the leaders of science in that country for a kind of flamboyant announcement at certain periods of the year. One can easily see in the false *thought that existed in the world and in the Germans themselves a source of very great peril to humanity-the peril that we should be invaded by anything but the scientific spirit. If people are fed up in that way on what is not true, they very easily become supermen. I am sure that the address of my hon. friend is calculated to warn us against such dangers, and we

should all rather cultivate the truly scientific spirit of Sir Isaac Newton, who, when approaching the end of his wonderful career, said, as the House will well remember, that he felt after all his attainments and all his acquirements like a child picking up pebbles upon the sea shore.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: Before this motion is put, Mr. Speaker, and specifically in answer to some observations which have dropped from the lips of my ' hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), I might be permitted to say that there is just such an organization in view in connection with this Bureau of Standards and institute of research as he has in mind. The suggestion is to create an organization which shall have charge of:
(a)	The investigation and determination of standards of length, volume, weight, mass, capacity, energy, and time, and of the fundamental properties of matter.
(b)	The standardization of the scientific and technical apparatus and instruments for Government service and for use in the industries of Canada and of the materials used in the construction of public works.
(c)	The investigation and standardization of the materials which are or may be used in the industries, and of the products of the industries.
(d)	Researches undertaken with the object of improving the technical processes and methods used in the industries and of discovering new processes and methods which may promote the expansion of the existing industries or the development of new Canadian industries,
(e)	Researches undertaken to promote the utilization of the natural resources of Canada.
That, Sir, would be one side of this proposed organization's activities. We have nothing in Canada at the present time which meets the conditions outlined in these paragraphs. The committee discovered during its investigations that although our universities from time to time do turn out men who achieve a very considerable degree of success in scientific research, there is no opportunity in .this country to employ these men, and they have to go abroad, and to-day many of them are in the United States occupying lucrative positions. It seems if we are to realize on our natural resources we must have an opportunity to employ these men who qualify themselves in the higher realms of science. So it is suggested that side by side with this Bureau of Standards the Government shall establish in Ottawa or in some other city an institute of science where these men who spend years of their time and energy in qualifying themselves for the higher development of science may have an opportunity of pursuing their particular trend of thought or their life work in our

own country for the development of our own natural resources. I shall not labour the point or argue it at further length. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak at all in seconding this motion, but I thought I must point that out. in answer to the observations my hon. friend made.
This is no hole-in-the-wall suggestion. It has been considered by three very important bodies in Canada:	one, the Canadian
Manufacturers' Association, which has endorsed it; the Royal Canadian Institute, which met here a few weeks ago and endorsed it; the Trades and Labour Council, which met not long ago and also endorsed it. I have the reports of these three bodies under my hand, but I shall not weary the House by further referring to them. These three important organizations believe that we should have suh an institute as I have outlined. But before this thing is finally settled some one will have to come to this Parliament and ask for the money that is necessary to provide the building* the equipment, and the salaries for the staff. Thalt may give rise to the question: What is the use of all this ; will it pay? Well, Mr.'Speaker, in anticipation of that question, I shall just refer to ithe results of the research of one man in France during the last century-and now I am putting this on the lowest possible ground, that of dollars and cents. The investigations of Louis Pasteur into the silkworm industry in France, into chicken cholera, and into anthrax-which, as hon. gentlemen know, killed many sheep and cattle in France-his investigations into these three things, it is conservatively estimated, increased the wealth of France sufficiently to pay the indemnity which the Huns demanded of the French in 1870-71. That is the result of the work of one man.
I need not refer, Sir, except in a passing way, to many of the secrets of nature which have been opened for the benefit of humanity, and which are to-day being used by men all through what my hon. friend so aptly termed as "the master key of science." These things I am about to refer to were all discovered within the memory of men who are now within the sound of my voice, with the single exception perhaps of the electric telegraph. The telephone, the telegraph, wireless telegraphy, the development of electricity, aviation-this morning careering across the North Atlantic is the first airship to connect the continent of Europe with that of America-all have been brought about by the development of
283i
science. I believe we are to-day on the verge of a vast development in aerial navigation, and that the continents of the world will be connected by ships larger even than the R-34, which we hope will to-day or tomorrow land on the shores of North America. The X-ray-I could deliver an address on that for an hour or two-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Thompson: I beg to assure my hon. friends that I do not intend to do so, but I could. Some people wonder why we spend thousands of dollars each year to maintain our Dominion Observatory; why we spent thousands of dollars in the erection in British Columbia of one of the largest telescopes in the world. I was asked the other day: Why should we spend money on things like that when we have a war debt to meet and interest to pay? I will tell you about something which, again on the lowest ground of dollars and cents, will pay for all the time that has been spent by the star-gazers, from the time when the shepherds watched the star of Bethlehem in the hills of Judsea until the present day. We have in our observatory out in the West one of the finest telescopes in the world. We have a photographic apparatus which will take the light from the farthest star, analyze it on the spectrum, and tell us of what that distant body is composed. Centuries ago one of the greatest astronomers of the day discovered in the gases of the sun, at a certain eclipse a new element which he called helium, after the sun itself. Helium was thought to be of no value, until, very recently, the German zeppelins raided the cities of England. It was then discovered that the weak spot in the zeppelin was the hydrogen gas which conveyed that big balloon over
12 a.m. the British Isles, and British scientists decided to find something that would explode that hydrogeD gas. This they did, and immediately the zeppelin raids came to naught; the invasion of England by zeppelins is a thing of the past so far as the use of hydrogen gas is concerned. What then? It was recognized as a living and continuous fact that we should have airships in the future; the question was, then, can we get anything in the way of a gas that will not inflame? Is there such a gas? The scientists said: Yes, there is, and that gas is helium. Professor McLennan, at present the scientific adviser for the British navy, told members of the House in this Chamber that during the war, when helium was at a premium, the city of Calgary alone was

releasing every twenty-four hours from the gases of that town $50,000,000 a day in helium.


Mr. BUREAU:: How much is realized
from the "gas" in this House?


Alfred Thompson: My hon. friend himself often does something of that nature in this House.


Jacques Bureau: That is why I want to know the value of it.


Alfred Thompson: I could not put a value on it. In all humah industry science is the great thing; the nation that is most advanced in science in the years that are to come will he in the best position to meet its war debt and will be furthest ahead in the line of progress. I want Canada to be that nation, and by encouraging just such things as are dealt with in this report, that desirable end will be brought about.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Has the Government purchased the Island of St. Barnabfe, near Rimouski, or any other island, of the lower St. Lawrence, since 1911?
2.	If so, when, and for what amount?


Robert Laird Borden: Inquiry has been made as to the island referred to, but no reference can be found to it in any department. If the hon. gentleman will give gome information as to the particular department alluded to, further search will be jnade; in the meantime the question might ,be dropped.
Question dropped.


REPORT OF FOOD CONTROLLER McFALL.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	Were any reports made to the Government by Controller McFall of The Canada Food Board, since his nomination as such?
2.	If so, how many, and on what dates?
3.	Will the Government lay such reports on the Table of the House?


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I was promised an answer to this question many times. On June 26th the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Maclean) said that he would answer my question at three o'clock on that day. Three o'clock has passed many times since then, but the information has not been forthcoming.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid that this question has been standing longer than it should; I shall endeavour to expedite an answer. That is really all that I can say in the absence of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. The minister has bad a great many important matters to deal with during the last two or three weeks, and I suppose it is on that account that he has not been able to give this matter his personal attention. I shall send him a written memorandum in regard to it.
Question stands.


CHARLOTTETOWN CONVALESCENT HOME.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's):: 1.	What are the names of the Persons who tendered for the contract of repairing and building the Convalescent Home in Charlottetown, and the amount of their respective tenders?
2.	What are the names of the successful tenderers?
3.	What are the names of the persons who tendered for the Plumbing and heating, furnishings, and bed and, bedding, respectively, and the respective amount of each tender?
4.	What are the names of the successful tenderers ?
5.	How were the tenders called for?
6.	How much notice was given previous to the opening of tenders?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	An agreement was entered into with E. Parkman & Company, who were selected as general contractors and given a force contract for labour and materials plus 10 per cent to erect additions to the old Government House, and one new ward building, and they agreed to call tenders for each subcontract: (a) J. A. Trainer, painting Government House, $6,800; J. Alfred Doyle, painting Government House, $6,812; Mc-Rory & Sons, painting Government House, $7,000; A. L. Howatt & iSon, painting Government House, $8,800.	(b) Kenneth Ferguson, painting Nurses' Home, $870; A. L. Howatt & ,'Son, painting Nurses' Home, $900; J. A. Trainer, painting Nurses' Home, $910; J. N. McBride, painting Nurses' Home, $959; Walter & Doyle, painting Nurses' Home, $1,232.	(c) Geo. Prowse, painting
exterior, $1,200; J. A. Trainer, painting exterior, $1,650; Ken. Ferguson, painting exterior, $1,892; Walter & Doyle, painting exterior, $2,488. (d) E. iParkham & Son, hardwood floor, etc., $3,000; McDonald & Rowe, hardwood floor, etc., $3,220; L. M. Poole & Company, hardwood floor, etc., $3,220. (e) E. Parkman & Co., alterations to north ward stable, chicken and coach house, $4,125.28; Patrick Bradley, alterations to north ward stable, chicken and coach house, $4,400. (f) E. Parkham & Co., wood and

concrete walks, $1,082; John Nicholson, wood and concrete walks, $1,167; John Power, wood and concrete walks (withdrawn), $997.
2.	(a) J. A. Trainer, (b) Kenneth Ferguson, (c) iGeo. Prowse, (d) E. Parkman & Company, (e) E. Parkman & Company, (f) E. Parkman & Company. ,
3.	(g) Currie & -Murnaghan, plumbing,
original buildings, $13,950; Bruce Stewart & Company, plumbing, original buildings, $14,500; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, plumbing, original buildings, $14,783. (h) Bruce Stewart & Company, heating original buildings, $10,250; J. A. McEachren, heating original buildings, $10,453; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, heating original buildings, $10,710; Currie & Murnaghan, heating original buildings, $10,950. (i) W. P. Douall, wiring original buildings, $4,453; Charlottetown Light & Power Company, wiring original buildings, $6,590; Leigh & Fitzgerald, wiring original buildings, $6,900. (j) Currie & Murnaghan, sewer, $4,300; Bruce Stewart & Company, sewer, $4,500; Parkman & Company, sewer, $4,800.	(k) Currie & Murnaghan, plumbing, heating and wiring, Nurses' Home, $6,400; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, plumbing, heating and wiring, Nurses' Home, $6,775; Bruce Stewart & Company, plumbing, heating and wiring, Nurses' Home, $7,100. (1) Bruce Stewart & Company, installing boiler, $4,900; Currie & Murnaghan, installing boiler, $5,000. (m) Parkman & Company, bricking-in boiler, $3,500; Currie & Murnaghan, bricking-in boiler, $3,675. (n) Bruce Stewart & Company, heat mains, $5,200; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, heat mains, $5,250; Currie & Murnaghan, heat mains, $5,800.	(o)
Currie & Murnaghan, heating vocational building, $380; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, heating vocational building, $400.	(p)
Currie & Murnaghan, plumbing vocational building, $680; Stanley, Shaw & Peardon, plumbing vocational building, $715.
4.	(g) Currie & Murnaghan, (h) Bruce Stewart & Company, (i) W. P. Douall, (j) Currie & Murnaghan, (k) Currie & Murnaghan, (1) Bruce Stewart & 'Company, (m) Parkman & Company, (n) Bruce Stewart & Company, (o) Currie & Murnaghan, (p) Currie & Murnaghan.
5.	(a) By verbal invitation of the local superintendent, (b) by verbal invitation, (c) by public advertisement, (d) by verbal invitation, (e) by public advertisement, (f) by verbal invitation, (g) by verbal invitation, (h) by verbal invitation, (i) by verbal invitation, (j) by verbal invitation, (k) by public advertisement, (1) by verbal invitation, (m) by verbal invitation, (n) by public advertisement, (o) by public advertisement, (p) by public advertisement.
6.	(a) Approximately three days, (b) approximately three days, (c) approximately ten days, (d) approximately one week, (e) approximately ten days, (f) approximately one week, (g) approximately three days, (h) approximately three days, (i) approximately three days, (j) approximately one week, (k) approximately one week, (1) approximately three days, (m) approximately three days, (n) approximately ten days, (o) approximately ten days, (p) approximately ten days.


DOCTOR B. E. GOODWIN, M.O.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: What has been the remuneration paid by the Department of Justice to Doctor B. E. Goodwin, M.O. of the Internment Camp at Amherst, Nova Scotia, during the past three years?


Arthur Meighen: This question was answered on the 26th day of June. The answer appears on page 4204 of Hansard.


YPRES WAR MEMORIAL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: There is a cable despatch to;day stating that the Belgian Minister of the Interior has offered the Canadian authorities a parcel of land near Ypres for the purpose of the erection of a war memorial or museum as a permanent tribute to the Canadian troops. May I ask the Prime Minister whether that is the fact, and, if so, whether the offer will be accepted by the Government?


Robert Laird Borden: A suggestion was made to the Governments of France and Belgium with respect to certain sites in both countries which are intimately associated with the engagements in which the Canadian Expeditionary Corps gained such distinction. I have no doubt that the suggestion, will be adopted. Doubtless the news item to which my hon. friend refers relates to one of these sites. There is an item in the Supplementary Estimates upon which there will he opportunity for discussion with regard to this proposal.


POLES AND UKRAINIANS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Samuel Hughes: I observe a despatch in the press this morning to the effect that, contrary to what were generally understood to be the terms of the armistice, the Polish

troops have attacked the Ukrainians. In view of the fact that we have over half a million of these Cossacks in Canada who have been good British subjects, I would like to know from the 'Prime Minister-he may not wish to give an answer to-day-what is the relationship which exists between the Poles and Ukrainians in the East.


Robert Laird Borden: I believe that I could give my hon. friend an answer from memory to-day, but, in accordance with his suggestion, which I consider a very wise one, I should prefer to refresh my recollection by referring to certain documents, and I shall endeavour to give an answer itomorrow.


HORSE RACING.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton, fNorth):: I believe that in August, 1917, certain prohibitory restrictions were placed upon horse racing in this country. It has been brought to my notice that advertisements are abroad now announcing that races in the old-fashioned way, betting, etc., are to be resumed in Canada on the fifteenth of this month. What is the condition, and is that horse racing allowable?


Robert Laird Borden: Both before my retnrn and since my return applications were made to the Government for the modification of the Orders in Council which have already been laid upon the table of the House. About a week or ten days after my return I personally received a delegation upon the subject; the application was considered, and the delegation was subsequently informed that no change nor modification could be made in the Orders in Council.


BOARD OF COMMERCE.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) Mas the Prime Minister received, during the last hours of this session, a protest from the Montreal Board of Trade respecting the enactment of legislation creating a Board of Commerce?
Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I have received it.


PRICE OF WHEAT FOR 1919 CROP.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent):: As wheat cutting has started in the southwestern part of Ontario, and as farmers will begin
I Sir Sam Hughes.]
threshing in a few days, has the Government given any consideration to the matter of fixing the ipriee of wheat for the 1919 crop? I understand the millers will not give the farmers any quotations on crops as they are waiting to see if the Government is going to give any consideration to this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The Government has given a great deal of consideration to this question and to other questions intimately associated with it, but up to the present time the Government has not reached a conclusion to fix a price for the wheat crop of this year.


BOARD OF COMMERCE ACT, 1919.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 166, to constitute a Board of Commerce for Canada.
He said: This Bill, associated with Bill No. 167, intituled " The Combines and Fair prices Act," embodies the proposals of the Government in specific form pursuant to the resolution of the Committee on the Cost of Living, which report was concurred in some two days ago in this House. The first Bill, which alone is now before the House, provides simply for the establishment of a Board of Commerce and for the empowering of that board to administer the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, its associate Bill, and also to empower the board in certain other general respects, fully set out in the measure.
The constitution of the board will be almost wholly along the lines of the constitution of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. The tenure of office, the security of tenure, and. the powers of the various members will he parallel to those that have so long ruled in the Board of Railway Commissioners. The number of members of the board, however, is much more restricted, being three instead of six. The exceptional powers given to the chairman, the exceptional qualifications demanded of him are akin, indeed, in every respect, alike to those of the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The purpose of the board will be to administer the Combines and Fair Prices Act, the terms of which are already before the House, the Bill having been distributed yesterday morning, and as I stated, the hoard will have other and more general powers in relation to control, within the limits of the Bill, of prices in Canada. The salaries to be paid to the board are not specified in the Bill as

presented. Proposals will be made in committee after the views of hori. members have been obtained as to recommendations in that regard. The head office of the board is fixed for the city of Ottawa, but the jurisdiction of the board, of course, is equal throughout Canada.
The main question that will be in the minds of hon. members will be as to the basis upon which the Government seeks to exercise control in matters relating wholly to civil rights and the executive powers of the board in that regard. The only method by which the Federal authorities can either act or legislate with regard to questions that are fundamentally questions of civil rights, is by the establishment of offences and by providing prohibition of the commission of such offences. That is the method adopted here. While civil rights appertain to the provinces alone in so far as civil remedies are concerned, indeed, appertain so exclusively to them that no legislation on our part, however well intended, would be effectual at law, nevertheless, for the reason that the powers of one province to act effectually are, in a large degree, hampered by the decision of . another province not to act in the same direction, there is, as a result, a very marked reluctance on the part of individual provinces to place on their statute books legislation dealing with the subject, and the call is very general-however just it may be is another question-and very persistent that the Federal authorities, having jurisdiction throughout the Dominion, should, within the limits of such jurisdiction that they have, do something to control what is commonly known as profiteering. Consequently by the Combines and Fair Prices Bill certain rules and principles are laid down, or to speak more definitely, the Board of Commerce is empowered to establish rules and principles and prohibitions, the violation of which, once they are made the order of the board, will constitute an offence and be punishable as such. The Federal authorities have power to constitute offences and to provide for their prohibition and punishment, and exercising that power, the Combines and Fair Prices Act is submitted to Parliament as the best and most reasonable and effectual means of putting into effect in the only way in which it can be put into effect the power vested in the Federal Parliament.
I do not feel that I would be doing any service to the House to speak further on the general principle that is embodied in the two Bills now presented. I will, however, in Committee be prepared to treat more specifically on the various clauses of the Board of Commerce Bill, and I invite the earnest application of each and every hon. member of this House to those clauses as thoroughly, as effectually, and as expeditiously as is possible. I am quite aware that we are close to the end of the session and that these are very important measures indeed, but I hope that the limited time at our disposal will be used to the utmost advantage to see that the Bills are made not only as effectual as possible, but as fair as they can be made in the interests of the people of this country, and as free from just criticism of every kind as Bills can Tie made in this House.
The reason they are introduced at this late hour of the session is, first of all, that there must always be at all times measures for the consideration of Parliament, but more particularly for the reason that the Government did not feel that it should anticipate the work of the committee dealing with the subject matter of this legislation before the committee reported. The report of that committee has only very recently been brought down, and immediately these Bills were introduced into the House; indeed the rules of the House were set aside for the purpose of promoting their immediate introduction, and they are now before us for second reading,' though late, at the earliest possible moment they could be placed before Parliament.
iMr. iMIOHAEL CLAiRK (ited Deer):	1
feel -that I owe the House an apology for the frequency with which I have found myself on my feet in the last few days. The apology ought to receive acceptance, however, in view of the statement which has just come from the minister that this is extremely important legislation to bring down within a few days of the closing of Parliament. That applies not only to this legislation, but to a great deal more than has gone on during the last week. I trust under these circumstances the House will bear with me while, as briefly as I can, 1 make a few comments on this proposed legislation.
With regard to the lateness of the session I think consideration is coming to the Government on that head when we remember the fact that the most experienced members of the Government were, in the early part of this session, overseas. Still, the fact remains that we performed all sorts of parliamentary antics here for weeks and even months about things of trifling
[Stage Direction]
importance, and this legislation was not before us.
The importance of this legislation, meant as it is, to deal with the unrest in Canada and the high cost of living, cannot be exaggerated. I apprehend 'that the House will agree with me when I say that it is fairly deducible from certain facts that the' Government have no great expectation of good from this legislation. I say that advisedly. If that is their frame of mind, then I fear I have to say that I am in accord with them. I will tell the House why I am in that frame of mind in a minute or two. I say the Government have no great expectations of doing any good with this legislation; that they have no great expectations is deducible from certain facts. What have been the statements of the Government in regard to unrest and the high cost of living repeated in this House again and again during this session? They have been to the effect that these evils are existing all over the world. The Minister of Finance was much more specific when he went before the Cost of Living Committee and said he had no new remedies to propose, that what the people iof Canada must do was to get down to hard work and thrift. Now it did not need a House of Commons or a Government to teach those very ancient moral precepts, and I think it is fairly deducible from that statement from the minister most concerned with these matters that the Government have no very great expectations from their own legislation. Personally I have reasons for not basing my expectations too high. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) who has introduced this legislation was in the House wim myself twhen the Combines Investigation Act was introduced by the previous government, nine or ten years ago. I very well remember that on that occasion I found it my painful duty to disagree with my leader of that day, and I disagreed with him to the extent of prophesying that that legislation of nine or ten years ago would not be of much use, "describing it as, in my judgment, a Bill to cure an earthquake. How much use it has been will be brought home to the House when they reflect that there has been but one prosecution under the Act. The Act is practically a dead letter on the statute books, but the earthquake has gone on disturbing people, and we have to-day the same troubles in the body politic, aggravated to a tremendous extent, that we had at that time. It seems to me that neither political party in this House has cut to the roots
[Mr. M. Clark. 1
of this matter. We have not got to the root of what is wrong with the people, and my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) comes now at the end of nine or ten years to administer another pill. Well, I say most wholeheartedly that I hope his pill will be more efficacious than the medicament which was given by Mr. Mackenzie King nine or ten years ago. This is another piece of mimetic legislation. The Board of Commerce is borrowed from the United States. Now as to what good the Board of Commerce is going to do, we can surely derive very important evidence from the United States, and what is that evidence? I am supposing that we are trying to get to the root of the cost of living, and the causes of that cost of living as leading to unrest and discontent among our people. They have had a Board of Commerce in the United States I think for four years-the minister can inform us if I am wrong. What are we told as to the cost of living in the United States? We have been told again and again that there is no difference between the cost of living in the United States and the cost of living in Canada. The statement is not mine; it is the statement of ministers and their supporters who agree with their fiscal policy. Very well; if there has been a Board of Commerce in tlje United States for three or four years, and on the evidence of those who embody that procedure here, nothing has been done to reduce the cost of living in the United States, I think I am justified along the line of fair criticism in saying that my expectations of results from this legislation are not very high. Neither can the Government's expectations be very high in the logical mind of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Justice.
However, I am not going to oppose this legislation. I should like, however, to say this: I think the Government would have been more logical in their procedure if they had borrow'ed some other things from the United States at the same time they borrowed the Board of Commerce.
I am going to go farther than that. I do not believe the cost of living is as high in the United States as it is in Canaria. All the eyidence I am able to gather from visitors to that country points in the contrary direction and goes to show that the cost of living is higher in Canada than in the United States. But, it is not lower in the United States, in my judgment, because they have a board of commerce there. It is lower because they have very largely, a free trade tariff in the United States. We hear frequently of the United States as

being a great protectionist country. The facts do not hear that out. What 'is the tariff in the United States? I apologize again for referring to this so frequently in this House, but, Mr. Speaker, I must keep on until I make a few converts to my cause. As a matter of fact, Sir, I keep on in response to the most distinguished advice which I have been able to get, that of Mr. Gladstone, who left behind him a book in which he had placed two marks of exclamation opposite a statement which was quoted from O'Connell, that to convince the people of the truth of what you believe you have not only to make statements to them but you have to iterate, and reiterate, those statements. That great Irishman, O'Connell, believed in a doctrine of which Gladstone approved and I trust the House will excuse me for wanting to follow such very good advice before an audience which it has not been easy to convert.
What is the tariff in the United 'States? Since the adoption of the Underwood tariff in 1913 seventy per cent of the goods coming into the United States have come in free of duty. If it is a good thing to imitate the United States, let the Minister of Finance begin at this point-thirty per cent only of the goods coming into the United States are dutiable. Tn 1912 the average tariff rate on dutiable goods in the United States was 40-12. It was a protectionist country. In 1918 the average tariff on dutiable goods was 21 -75-almost exactly the figure which I quoted in my speech in the Budget debate as being the highest duty which Sir Robert Peel allowed to prevail in England at the introduction of his first budget in 1842. What, is the consequence to the American people? The consequence is that for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1918, the Government of the United States collected from 110,000,000 people only the paltry sum of $182,758,988. Our own tariff collections, in this small country of 8,000,000 people, were not so many million dollars short of the total sum collected by the American Government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold that if there has been anything good done by the Wilson Government, there has been this: That the cost of living has been brought down to a lower point in the United States than in this country. I have drawn, attention, to these facts again and again and I shall persist until the last moment that I have the honour of a seat in this House in doing *my duty to Canada-not to any section of Canada. May I, in this connection, call attention to one thing more-still carrying on my analogy between these two great countries? I need not apologize for doing so because ever since I have had a seat in this House I have had my attention directed to the United States, When I have ventured to utter what I believe to be economic truth, I have been told: Look at the great country to the south of us. Well, look at the great country to the south of us; imitate .them with your boards of commerce and your combines investigations, which is mere dust cast into the eyes of the people, mere dust in the balance compared with the really radical reforms to which I have referred. What excuse is there-I shall repeat the question

what excuse is .there for patriotic Canadian statesmen to keep a duty of 35 per cent on the boots and shoes of this country when they are free in the United States? I might extend the list indefinitely. What excuse is .there for the Government of this country keeping a 'considerable duty on cement, an important building material of this country, when it is free in the United States? What excuse is there for keeping a duty on agricultural implements while agricultural implements are free in the United States and at the same time telling your farmers: You have got to produce. Look at the United States, I have been told ! Yes, look and imitate them if you want to do something that is really going to reach the heart of this question. What is the effect of making it 35 per cent more difficult for the workers in our cities and the workers on our farms to keep their feet, and the feet of their wives and children, properly covered? The effect, inevitably, is to drive your inhabitants from Canada across the imaginary line which separates Canada from the United States. This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which concerns every one of us and I venture to speak strongly upon it because I feel strongly.
Now I have concluded and I hope I shall not have to trouble the House again this session. I certainly shall not along this line because the opportunity will not be forthcoming. My hon. friend .the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) goes before a committee and tells our people through evidence given before that committee, that they must practise thrift. When the Government commends this doctrine to the citizens of the country the duty is incumbent upon it of setting the example. If the Minister of Finance had been in his seat I would have said to him that in this matter he seems to have exercised very poorly his powers and to have
[Stage Direction]
very poorly discharged his functions as the watchdog of the treasury, because the expenses of this country are mounting in such a way as to alarm the mind of every thoughtful and patriotic citizen of (Canada.
The duty of the Government is to develop the trade of the country. It is to increase its yield. The tariff was the instrument by which I had hoped against hope along reasonable and moderate lines this question would have been solved and in regard to which a measure would have been brought to this House for approval. I had hoped against hope that the Government would use that instrument in the Budget. I take this opportunity once more of drawing attention to the tariff as the instrument which should have been tried along with this other legislation. As to the general principle of interfering by means of a bludgeon, because that is what it is-going around and examining people's business affairs-I do not believe in it because I have very little use for the bludgeon in our politics. I have very little use for methods of force in managing people at all. There are natural laws under which human nature will run along upon right lines and there are natural laws under which trade will run along upon right lines. There would be some excuse, however, for the United States doing these things, because they have gone a very long way along the lines in which I believe.
I want to say in conclusion that if we consider the comparative figures as between the United' States and Canada, and if we consider the amount we receive from eight millions of our people, we have an explanation there of the high cost of living, and of much of the unrest and the difficulty that is afflicting our people to-day; and I denounce the Canadian tariff, when compared with the United States tariff, as a monstrosity which is largely guilty of a great deal of that umest and trouble. By dealing with it we should have done better, and been more logical, than by imitating fifty per cent of the legislation of the United States, and that fifty per cent the least likely to be effectual in producing those results which I am sure we ail desire to bring about.
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: The hon. gentleman has introduced into the discussion of this Bill a subject matter which, while quite proper in connection with the Budget, is, I venture to suggest to the House, not rightly applicable to the measure now under consideration. I notice that in one breath he argues that this par-
[Hr. M. Clark.]
ticular board should be rejected by this House-


Mr M. CLARK:: I must protest, if I may, against words being put into my mouth which I expressly did not use. I did not say I was not opposed to the legislation, and I have not asked the House to reject it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Clark: I am in the hearing of the House when I make that statement.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am at an entire loss to know why such a vigorous speech was delivered by my hon. friend if it was not with the intention of urging the rejection of the Bill. We will accept his explanation, but nevertheless I must draw attention to the fact that he argued that the Trade Board in the United States had done absolutely nothing to reduce the cost of living. Then he proceeded to argue that the cost of living in the United States was lower than in Canada, and in a vigorous manner attributed that entirely to the effect of a lower tariff. The exact ground of his reasoning I could not quite follow. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of such a tribunal in the United States did have some excellent results. I am not going to delay the House with an analysis of the activities of that board, but I will simply say this: On many occasions that board discovered cases where there was profiteering-to use a common word which conveys the desired meaning so aptly-and through their instrumentality that method of profiteering has been very largely curbed. Now I proceed to this point: Every member of the House and every intelligent student of economics will, admit that the main underlying cause for the high cost of living is the great international Upheaval of the last few years. I shall not labour the point, we all admit it, but there are other contributory causes which are local and which, to some degree at least, can be controlled; and what I wish to impress upon the House is that it is the duty of Parliament, so far as they are able, to control these contributory causes. I claim that one of the main causes of unrest in Canada to-day is the high cost of living, and the knowledge on the part of the people that a very large number of firms in this country have been earning abnormal profits during the war and during this period of the increasing cost of living. The very knowledge of that fact makes it necessary for this Parliament to take cognizance of it, and to deal with the problem

fittingly and as best they can. The Bill which is now under consideration contains a clause which I will not discuss in detail hut merely refer to for the purpose of emphasizing the argument that I have now made. This clause refers to any breach or non-observance of any provision of the Act in respect of the making or taking of unfair profits for or upon the holding or disposition of necessaries of life and then goes on to provide:
all such practices with respect to the holding or disposition of necessaries of life, as, in the opinion of the Board, are designed or calculated' to unfairly enhance the cost or price of such necessaries of life, etc.
In other words, one of the main principles of the Bill is to deal with the increased cost of living as it is brought about by hoarding, by improper trade practices, and by unreasonable and unfair profits. I say without fear of contradiction that the whole country is crying out for action 'by this Parliament to deal with exactly that sort of practice. I do not wish to delay the House at any length, but I must emphasize that point by calling attention to evidence that has been brought before the Committee -merely stating the fact, and leaving Parliament to read the evidence itself-calling attention to the fact that there has been brought before the Committee case after case where abnormal profits have been made, and strange to say largely during the period of the war. That is that, in many, many cases, abnormal profits have been earned during the last three years, and to a degree which exceeded the profits earned in the previous ten, fifteen, and in some cases, twenty and twenty-five years. That very fact alone warrants this House in taking cognizance of the situation and in endeavouring to remedy it.
Another point I wish to make is, that my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) with a good deal of force and, I think, with a good deal of logic, urged that trade should take its natural course, that we should leave the natural laws of supply and demand, and so forth, to deal with trade. Under ordinary circumstances I would entirely agree with him, but I draw his attention, and the attention of others who think as he does, to the point that during the last five years trade has not been allowed, has not been permitted, nor has it been possible for it, to follow its natural course. In every civilized country in the world, trade has been restricted, controlled, and directed. In Canada we prohibited many classes of imports and many classes of manufactures; we
stopped them, virtually speaking; and the same applies to other countries. It will be many months, and many years, I believe, before things will be so re-adjusted that trade can follow its natural channel, and the natural laws of trade will be applicable. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this House should make every provision to protect the people of the country against undue enhancement of prices because of this artificial direction of trade. I shall not detain honourable gentlemen with examples or further argument, but merely emphasize the point that the country is demanding that we exert every conceivable effort possible with respect to these matters and deal with the abnormal increase in the cost of living, in so far as we can do so; that we deal effectively, rigorously, and definitely with profiteers, or those who are inclined to profiteer, and make that an utter impossibility, and, as far as lies in our power, protect the consumer, who, after all, constitutes the gVeat unorganized body of society, against these inroads upon his rights as a free citizen of Canada. That is all I intend to say, except to urge the House to give this Bill most favourable attention and to make the assertion that so far as a large portion of the members of the House is concerned, we believe this Bill will effectively assist, at least, in dealing with the problem of the high cost of living.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not intend to detain the House for any length of time. I must congratulate the House and the country on the very excellent address delivered by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). Some times we cannot agree with his philosophy or his politics, but I say without hesitation, and as a man who usually does not receive the support or the commendation of the hon. gentleman, that I regard his deliverance as of great national importance, and I hope it will be of substantial assistance to the people in giving them a true insight into the real trade conditions of this country and the relations that should exist between the Government and the governed.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that as far as any remedial legislation along the lines of this Bill is concerned, we on this side of the House have been advocating it ever since the early days of the war. If the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill will refer to the debates in 1916 and 1917, and possibly in 1918, he will find that I, in my humble way, and other members on this side of the House were pressing upon him and upon

the Government the necessity of some legislation that would give us a firmer hold upon the profiteering conditions in this country, but we were always turned aside and told that " really nothing could be done." I feel, Sir, that the hon. member for Red Deer spoke the truth only too plainly and none too strongly when he said that the Government themselves do not expect any very beneficial results from this legislation. But as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we trust that it will give us such a grip on the existing profiteering conditions as will bring them to an end.
It is true, Sir, that we on this side of the House have done everything we could to promote freer trade. We have advocated free food and the placing on the free list of the very articles the hon. member for Red Deer has mentioned. But we have no executive authority. We can advocate as strongly as he can, but we have no power to put into concrete effective legislation any ideas that we may entertain. Therefore, if this Bill is going to help in lowering the cost of living and in curbing the combines, it will have our support, and it is only fair that it should be given a trial.
The advocates of the National Policy did not expect that it would enhance the cost of living in this country. The ideas of such men as the late Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper were that although we would have industries developed within the provinces, prices would be kept normal and within easy reach of the people by means of keen local competition. That condition of things might perhaps have gone on for some years, but the manufacturing and industrial magnates of this country got their heads together and said: Why should we be eating our heads off in this way? Why should I be fighting you, and why should you be fighting me, when we can agree on prices and thereby make money? That has resulted, whether we can bring it out or not, in combines and " gentlemen's agreements " by which prices are fixed and production is controlled in such a way that prices have gone up sky-high, and legitimate competition in the industrial life of this country has disappeared absolutely.
There are two things that we ought to do. First, we ought to give the freest possible access to other goods, and so destroy these combines and mergers, if such exist,-and I have no doubt that they do exist. If those in favour of that idea are not in a position to translate it into effective legis-
TMr. McKenzie.]
lation, we have the opportunity now from the Government of using another means. While permitting the outside walls to exist, they say, " Within those walls we will attempt to regulate, so that profiteering to any great extent will not be possible, and if it is in existence it will be prescribed and discredited as far as the enactments of the criminal law can bring that about." I fear that it will not be very effective, I fear that the energy of the Government will not go behind it, I fear that it will be only thrown out as a sort of camouflage or disguise to the people so that the Government can say: " We have done this thing, and it is for somebody else to see that this law is carried out." If this Bill is to become law, I hope, Sir, that the whole force of the Government will be utilized to see that the law is properly enforced so that good will come to the people by reason of this proposed legislation.
I wish to put myself in entire accord with what was said by the hon. member for Red Deer, and said so very much better than I could say it, in connection with what should take place in this country for the immediate benefit of the people who are suffering by reason of conditions that have existed for the past few years, and I hope that at a little later date, when the people will be freed from the trammels of this Government, they will express their own views upon this very important question.


Jacques Bureau: We are called upon, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the principle of a most important Bill contained in fifteen printed pages. This Bill actually creates a judicial tribunal. I see the date of the first reading is the 28th of June, and the first opportunity I have had to look at it is this morning. I have merely had a chance to take a glance at it, and its provisions seem to be of the greatest importance. We do not want to delay the business of the House, although it would be justifiable to a great extent, for we could have' taken advantage of the fact that this Bill is not printed in French, and therefore, according to the rules of the House, cannot be read a second time. We waived that because we desire to expedite matters. But there is one thing we are entitled to at least, and that is a little consideration. No hon. member has had an opportunity to examine this Bill and the Bill which comes after it, No. 167, which is to be cited as the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919. This Bill provides in section 25 that the Board shall be charged with the general administration

of the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, which was only presented to the House on the 28th of June, and the first opportunity we have had to look at it is to-day-a Bill of ten pages and twenty-four clauses, cannot say what it contains, because I have not had an opportunity to read it For the same reason, I do not know what Bill 166 contains. We want to conclude the business of the session, but we ought not to rush it through in such a way as to pass legislation-I will use the word, if I am permitted, Mr. Speaker-with levity. The Government may have considered these matters, having prepared the legislation, but we on this side have a duty to perform, and that is to examine the legislation and criticise it. If we try to look into any matter connected with a Government proposal; if we express our views and make suggestions concerning it, it is said that we want to reject it. My hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) has very ably expressed his view regarding the principle involved in these Bills-that the remedy sought to be applied is not the proper one; that if, you want to get at the root of the evil you could follow another course, with better advantage. In an effort to discredit the remarks of the member for Red Deer, my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) says that that hon. member wants to reject the proposal which is made. Does not the Prime Minister think that we are entitled to at least some consideration? It is intimated by the official press of the Government-well, I do not know whether there is any official press of the Government, but the organs of the Government announce that certain measures will be held off until another session; consequently we do not give them much attention, taking it for granted that they will be held over. But to our surprise these measures are sprung upon us and we are given but a short time to consider them. To-day we are asked to pass two Bills involving entirely new matters which have not been discussed in the House, which are brought here practically for the first time on the second reading, and which we have not had an opportunity of looking into, because the printed copies are laid on the Table only this morning. Bill 167 contains 24 clauses; Bill 166 contains 51 clauses. May I remark, en passant, that Bill 166 ought to be Bill 167, and vice versa? Under Bill 166 it is proposed that the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919, shall be administered, but Bill 167, which is the Combines and Fair Prices Act, has not been read the second time, has not been
considered in committee, has not been discussed at all. If we are to consider intelligently the creation of a tribunal which is to administer a certain Act, we should first deal with the Act which sets forth the matters so to be administered by that tribunal. I ask that this matter be postponed so that we may have time to look into it. Many Estimates have yet to be considered; there is plenty of other work to do. I suggest that that work be proceeded with; it can be given attention by some hon. members, and those who take a special interest in this legislation will have a reasonable opportunity of at least reading these Bills over. Hon. gentlemen cannot read them while discussion is going on and at the same time listen to the arguments pro and con. The Opposition is not being fairly treated in this matter and I want to register my protest.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


Jacques Bureau: When the House rose at one o'clock, I was pleading with the Prime Minister that the second reading of this Bill might be postponed to give the Opposition time to look into it. I have had just a very casual glance at the two Bills; I must confess I have not had time to read them through, and as they are very closely interwoven together, one cannot go through without the other. One creates a board with great powers, and the other creates, if I might call it so, the offence, and in Bill No. 167, containing the offence, the jurisdiction of the board is also called into account. It would not be right to state that we can proceed to discuss the various clauses in Committee of the Whole, because there may be objections to the principle of the Bill which we cannot now foresee, as we have had neither the opportunity nor the time to examine and study these Bills, If the Prime Minister will allow the second reading of these two Bills to stand, we shall go into them this afternoon, and in the meanwhile the business of the House can go on; Estimates can be taken up, and those who. have more particularly in charge looking after legislation in the House will have time to study both Bills. In this way time will be saved because, when we come to Bill No. 167, we shall know exactly what *it contains, and by discussing one we shall be in a position to discuss most of the clauses contained in the other. If the Prime Minister will grant my request, I shall not proceed further, but if not, I want

to discuss, as far as I have read the Bill, some provisions with which, without further consideration, I cannot agree. I do not close my remarks, but I am just waiting to see if my request is granted 'by the Prime Minister.


Robert Laird Borden: We should like to pass the second reading and go into committee, and if my hon. friend wants to discuss the principle of the Bill in committee, there will be no objection.


Jacques Bureau: As in the second reading, the principle of the Ball is involved, I beg my right hon. friend not to put us in the humiliating position of accepting the principle of the Bill by passing the second reading without having really had an opportunity to study the Bill. My hon. friend told me that we had had all night to look into the Bill, but he forgets that we sat here until twelve-thirty last night and then had to walk or get home as best we could. Fortunately some kind friends gave us a ride to the hotel. This afternoon we had to wait fifteen or twenty minutes for a cab and then drive up to the hotel and drive back. These are extraordinary circumstances, and I would ask my right hon. friend as a matter of right, I think I may say, to grant my request. Supposing the conditions were reversed and we asked him on short notice, to pass two lengthy Bills and admit the principle embodied in them I think in fairness we would have to grant a similar request on his part. How much further will it advance us to pass the second reading now? If it will advance the business of the House, well and good; but if the Bill is put into committee, we shall be committed to the principle of the Bill without knowing what we are doing, and we shall be put in. the position of being charged in the country with passing important legislation in haste and not taking the time to look into and to discuss the principle of the measure. That will not advance matters any, and I am sure my right hon. friend! cannot refuse to grant my request. During the afternoon I'will go through the Bills with some of my friends and we shall know enough about them to discuss the principles, and we shall agree to take the principles of the two Bills Nos. 166 and 167 together, because they are so closely interwoven that they can be discussed well together and, with great difficulty, separately.
'Sir ROBERT BORDEN: My hon. friend forgets that this is merely carrying out the 
recommendation of a report which, after debate, has already been accepted by the House; but notwithstanding that, I assure my hon. friend of the willingness of the Government to permit discussion in committee of the principle of the Bill, if that should be desired. My hon. friend's appeals are couched in such moving language that they would melt almost a heart of stone, but I hope that, on consideration, he will see that the course I am suggesting is quite reasonable. There is no desire on the part of the Government to prevent full discussion of this Bill; in fact, we have a very earnest desire that all the provisions of the Bill shall be most fully discussed and that all necessary time shall be given to that purpose. As it is, however, somewhat late in the session, it seemed to us that the matter would be advanced with ad- * vantage to the House, and with no detriment to the public interest if the course I suggest should be carried out.


Jacques Bureau: The Prime Minister will immediately see the position we are in. Supposing we carry this on division, we are opposing a thing we might be absolutely in accord with in principle if we had [DOT] time to read it. Supposing we agree to it, we might be agreeing to a thing that we may be opposed to in principle after we had time to read it. I cannot see that such a course will advance the business ' of the House, because when we come to the second reading we immediately go into committee, when we shall make any objections we have in regard to the two Bills.
I know my right hon. friend does not want us to believe that the resistance of his heart would be that of a heart of stone, because he is known for his great heart, and he is going to grant my request.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should like to interject that if the Prime Minister will agree to take these Bills up, say at eight o'clock, for second reading, I am satisfied that better progress will be made.


Robert Laird Borden: Will that suit the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau)?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, provided that Estimates are taken up in the meanwhile.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentlemen move that the debate be adjourned to be resumed again this day?


Jacques Bureau: I move that the debate be adjourned to be resumed again at eight o'clock this day.


Mr. FIELDING:: I do not wish to be understood as concurring in the view of the hon. gentleman that if the matter be postponed now, the Bill will go through bygeneral consent. I do not consent to that at all. I think there are reasons why this Bill should not go through at all, and I want to reserve my right to say so.


Jacques Bureau: This is just the adjournment of the discussion that I am moving so that we may resume it at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there is the slightest desire to commit any hon. member as to the course he may take on the Bill.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned to be resumed this day.


PROHIBITION.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour
to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate doth insist upon their amendment made to the Bill 107, sent up from the House of Commons, intituled: "An Act to confirm the Order in Council of the twenty-fourth day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the twelfth day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof," to which the House of Commons hath disagreed.


Robert Laird Borden: With the consent of the House I move:
That the message from the Senate respecting the amendment to Bill No. 107, intituled "An Act to confirm the Drder in Council of the twenty-fourth day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the twelfth day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof," be placed1 upon the Orders of the Day for consideration this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee oi Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Finance Department-Charges of Management, $571,850.
['I will give my own undertaking to notify Mr. Gleeson, who acted for the respondent before the Divorce Committee of the Senate.\nMotion agreed to and Bill read the second time.\nOn the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. (Friday).', 'Friday, July 4, 1919.']
Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose all these
contracts are with the American Bank Note Company?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are the contracts being renewed at the old rate?


William Thomas White: Yes, renewed in war time at the same rate-a very advantageous contract for the Dominion Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask the minister to issue some of the bonds in French in connection with the next loan this fall.


William Thomas White: All the issues have been printed in both English and French. To give my hon. friend an idea of the amount of work involved in connection with the first Victory Loan, I think I am within the mark when I say that there were fifty different instruments, printed in both English and French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is This the usual vote?


William Thomas White: There is an increase in the salary of the deputy minister to $6,000. The salaries of the assistant deputy minister and of the comptroller of Dominion currency are being increased by $500. Mr. B. J. Roberts is my private secretary. Mr. 'T. H. Siddall is a worthy old man who has been & considerable number of years in the department; his salary is being increased to $1,600. I think a salary of $6,000 is very small indeed for the deputy minister of a department so important as that of Finance, not only in view of the immense amount of work involved, but the exceptionally heavy responsibility. Personally, I desire -to pay as high a tribute as I can to the staff of the Finance Department for the faithful , discharge of their exceedingly onerous duties, especially during the war.


John Ewen Sinclair: Who is the Comptroller of Currency?


William Thomas White: Mr. Rourke. The assistant deputy minister is Mr. Saunders. Both officials are of very long standing in the department, and very capable men.


William Stevens Fielding: I heartily concur in what the minister has said so far as the general character of the officials of his department is concerned. I notice that the Commissioner of Taxation is being restored to his position on thp superannuation list. He is a very able and excellent official, I have no doubt, but there is a principle involved here that ought to have a moment's attention. It may be there is a precedent for it, but the general rule in our Civil Service is that when a man leaves the Service and breaks the continuity of his service, if he comes back again he must start afresh. That is the law, I think, and it is apparently to defeat that portion of the law that this item is put in. The Commissioner of Taxation is a gentlemen who wias in the Customs Department for years. He left the Service and in later years came back. In leaving the Service he lost his connection with the superannuation scheme, and now it is proposed to restore him. I call the minister's attention to it only because of the principle involved. Let me illustrate. I had a case recently of an official in a minor branch of the Service who retired, but on the outbreak of the war re-entered the public service. Recently he asked to have his- previous service recognized, not for the purposes of superannuation, but merely for his standing and record in the department, that he should stand as having so many years' service to his credit. He was informed that under the rules he must begin at the bottom and start afresh, and we had to bp content with that. If that principle were applied in the case of the Commissioner of Taxation he could not be restored to his position on the superannuation list. I merely call the minister's attention to the matter because of the principle involved, and because I happened to have a case recently in which one of the departments of the Government, very properly I suppose, refused to allow any idea of continuous service.	i	i	|


William Thomas White: I believe there is a precedent for this; but even if there were not, I would have no hesitation in bringing down this estimate, because the case is very exceptional. Mr. Breadner, who is Commissioner of Taxation, is one of the most highly qualified men in the Civil Service. Before leaving the Service he had been some

twenty-five years in the Department of Customs, his salary being something like $2,500. It was too small for a man of his abilities, and as his salary would not be increased-I am not at all reflecting upon the minister of the department at that time -he was obliged to take a position outside, at a salary of $4,500 a year. The department greatly needed an expert with Mr. Breadner's qualifications. I did not know him personally until after I had become minister, but T was greatly impressed by the ability with which he handled the cases that he had to bring before me. As we greatly needed an official, notwithstanding that we had a very good man in the person of Mr. Russell, whom my hon. friend knows, I decided that Mr. Breadner's services should be obtained. It was part of the understanding when he came in that he should be restored to the position that he had occupied in so far as concerned his superannuation, into which he had paid for twenty or twenty-five years. He came in at a salary, I think, of $4,500. Mr. Breadner is a man who could command to-day outside a salary of $10,000 a year; I know personally that he has been offered that salary. He is a man the Dominion Government should not lose, and it seems to me that, as his salary is now $6,000 only and as his services are exceedingly valuable to the Dominion, this Parliament might properly restore him to the position he occupied previously; that is to say, to allow the payments which he made for so many years to count in relation to the superannuation fund. He is an exceedingly valuable officer. I cannot speak in too high terms of his ability and even if there is no precedent he would have the right to have his case considered b.y the committee. There is one hon. member of this House, not present today, who knowsi that Mr. Breadner has been offered the salary I have mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not taking any exception to the salary. I quite agree with what the minister says, even judging by what is considered a reasonable salary in the Givil Service. It is the misfortune that in the public service, from one cause or another, we are not able to sufficiently reward men for the valuable services they render to the country, and there has been taken away man after man because of the greater inducements offered in private employment. It is the principle rather to which I desire to call attention. It is going to be awkward if it is to be understood that the high salaried man can have the benefit of this consideration while the low salaried man

can not. The case that I have in mind is that of a man who was not asking for superannuation, but who was simply asking to have his past years of service counted in relation to his general standing. The officers of the department to whom that request was made said: We are sorry, but we simply cannot do it. Here is a case in which the same principle is involved and if the Government is going to restore high salaried men to their former standing it is probable that they will find that they have to do it in a great many cases.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The rule that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has mentioned would work in two ways, I presume. If a man leaves the service of the department, goes away and comes back seeking work without being specially asked for by the department, I presume he would have to comply with the rule, but if the department seeks a man that they specially want to get by reason of his merit, I think it is only right that the Government should carry out the conditions upon which he comes back. I presume Mr. Breadner came back under these conditions.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Breadner could
not have come back under these conditions because he had been back in the department for seven years.


William Thomas White: Mr. Breadner
raised this question in connection with his coming back to the service and it was a very important matter with him. Outside he could have looked forward to an in-' crease in salary. Coming back he had the same salary-I would not like to say that positively-but it was an object with him in coming back to the service and he should be restored to his position under the superannuation fund. What the attractions of the service are personally I have never been able to understand. Since I have become a minister I have wondered why any first-class man ever enters the Civil Service. To me it is an amazing thing.
minor increase from time to time, and no doubt the matter of superannuation is of importance in the consideration. If the Committee are prepared to look at this matter on the merits I have no hesitation in saying that we are not paying Mr. Breadner within $4,000 a year of what he is worth even if in addition we restore him to his former position. As to superannuation it would seem to me that even if the question of establishing a precedent were involved, the matter should be fairly faced. Mr. Breadner is absolutely one of the best posted men in the service on so many different things that I would not like to look forward to the Finance Department losing him. While saying that about Mr. Breadner I would also like to say something in regard to other officers of my department. If these men-I am speaking of the principal officials-were in the business world their present salaries would be multiplied two, three, or four times. The Deputy Minister of Finance is in one sense responsible for the administration of literally hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet the assistant manager of a bank will receive a larger salary. I have no hesitation in saying that the salaries paid in the Finance Department are such as to ensure,'if they are uot raised, no first class man from the outside being attracted to the department. If I were administering the affairs of an outside business concern, I would feel ashamed of the salaries that we are paying these men to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: What my hon. friend says in regard to salaries in the Finance Department is very largely correct. In several instances in my own experience we lost very valuable men from the department because we could not afford to pay them, according to our custom, anything like what they could get outside. The minister says that Mr. Breadner stipulated when he came there that he should be restored to superannuation, but still he has remained for six or seven years without restoration.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is an easy life. sir TH0MAg WHITE: When j say tha,t


William Thomas White: It is not an easy he stipulated, I mean that he did raise the life for Mr. Breadner. It is an easy life question, and it was in my mind that he for some, but not for others. A first-class should be restored. The matter has not man outside is continually looking to an been brought up before, increase in salary and there are practically
no limits to the possibilities before him. Mr. FIELDINIG: If it has taken seven Coming into the service he looks forward years for the minister .to consider it, it to a continuation of employment at his looks as if there was some fear of coming present salary, or at all events a very events casting their shadows before.


Mr. EDWARDS :: Is the superannuation fund provided by amounts contributed by civil servants , exclusively or is it partly supplied by the Treasury?
Sir i'HOMAS WHITE: There are two systems in vogue at the present time. There is one that was in operation until 1896


William Stevens Fielding: 1897.


William Thomas White: 1897, under
which the officials contributed and the Dominion Government contributed a certain amount. Since 1897 the only fund is that which is paid in by the officials themselves and upon which the Dominion Government allows interest. It is merely a savings fund. In this particular case the payments were made under the old system.


Mr. CAHILL:: Under this head of "Commissioner of Taxation" I wish to ask the Finance Minister about the amount of money collected from the packing companies in this country in excess taxation. I arked the question a day or two ago.


William Thomas White: Does the hon.
- gentleman mean under the Business Profits War Tax Act or under the Order in Council?


Frank S. Cahill: I do not know which.


William Thomas White: There are two systems of taxation in effect with regard to the packers. In the first place, they were subject, like all other concerns that had the amount of capital specified in the Act, to the Business Profits War Tax Act which was passed in 1916. They have been subject to assessment and' have been assessed under that Act for the first three years, 1915, 1916 and 1917. I have a memorandum in my pocket, although I was not expecting this question to come up, which shows that the William Davies Company, for example, paid |919,000 into the Dominion treasury. The Order in Council to which my hon. friend refers came into effect at the end of 1917 or early in 1918. The year 1918, al-[DOT] though this is not, I suppose,, generally known, was a year in which the packers made very little money. Some of them made no money and it was feared that last year one or two of the smaller ones were on the verge of failure. The assessment in respect of 1918 is now under consideration, both for the Business Profits War Tax Act and under this Order in Council. In answering a question which was put on the Order Paper, I made inquiry and found that in so far as the investigation had proceeded it did not appear that any of the packers were

liable under the Order in Council, but they are liable, of course, under the Business Profits War Tax Act. The Order in Council limited, their profits to two per cent upon their turnover and took all they made over eleven per cent. It has yet to be shown that an amount was made in excess of eleven per cent for the year 1918. The years in which the packers made money were 1915, 1916 and 1917. The Grain Growers Companies, flour mills, and others, made large profits in those three years, but in the last two years none of them secured as large a return as they did in the three years immediately preceding. The profits of these and other concerns for 1918 are under assessment for 1919, and the returns are now being examined and verified.


Frank S. Cahill: I understand from the
minister that no taxes have been collected from the packers for 1918 although it was proven before the Cost of Living Committee that some of them have made profits to the extent of forty-eight per cent, at least it was so reported in the press. It seems very strange that the promise made by the Prime Minister in 19)17 that the packers would not be allowed to retain over eleven per cent of profits has not been lived up to. The President of the Privy Council seems to have been suffering from extreme heat, ..so energetically has he been trying to establish the nature of the election promises that were made by the Prime Minister, but I would like the Minister of Finance to see whether he cannot get the promises made in this and other respects carried out.


William Thomas White: The terms of the Order in Council will be strictly carried out.


Frank S. Cahill: When?


William Thomas White: I am telling my hon. friend that the assessment for 1918 for the Business Profits War Tax Act is made in 1919, and the same investigation will show whether the packers' profits have exceeded the prescribed eleven per cent. My own view is that in most cases they have not, or will not, for this reason: the Order in Council limited their profits to trwo per cent upon the turnover, and, as I have already pointed out, 1918 was a year in which the packers made very little money, and some I believe made nothing. For instance, my attention was drawn last year to the case of a large packing company that was about to go into insolvency. In the packing business a great deal of money may be made one year and a considerable loss sustained the year following; but, as I pointed out to my hon.

friend, for the three years 1915, 1916, 1917, nearly $1,000,000 was collected from the William Davies Company. Take another case: The Ogilvie Flour Mills Company has paid in over $1,000,000 to the treasury and that without taking into account the years 1918 or 1919. The Commissioner of Taxation, I think, has until September to make the assessment against last year.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Before this item passes, I have a few very brief observations to make. I have listened with great attention to what the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) and the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) have said in reference to a very valuable official's salary, but I would like to put on record the fact that it seems to me that all the officials of the department at Ottawa should be on the same basis and subject to- the same rules. However valuable a man may be, his value cannot be as great as the dissatisfaction which must arise if a feeling of an inequality creeps into the service here. I have no criticism to make as to the way in which the minister has treated this valuable servant, provided all other civil servants are put on the same basis, but it seems to me very subversive of discipline to have one civil servant treated in a manner in which the others are not.
Department of Insurance-Salaries, including Superintendent of Insurance, $1,000, additional to salary authorized by 7-8 Edw. VII, Chap. 69, $39,925.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: What will the salary of the Superintendent of Insurance.be now?


William Thomas White: Six thousand
dollars.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the meaning of the words "additional to salary authorized by 7-8 Edward VII, Chap. 69."?


William Thomas White: The Act referred to is the Insurance Act, and it provides that the salary of the Superintendent of Insurance shall be $5,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The same as a deputy.
'Sir THOMAS WHITE: The same as a deputy. I was going on to say that the Superintendent of Insurance has the rank of a deputy, and he has a very important post. I should state that I promoted Mr. Finlayson to his present position, and he is one of the best officials in the service. I am beginning to think all my geese are swans.


William Stevens Fielding: The effect of the item is to give him the same salary as the other deputies.


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: I notice there are quite a number of salaries mentioned in these items, and I was wondering why they are dealt with here instead of coming under the Civil Service Commission.
iSir THOMAS WHITE: I do not believe the Civil Service Commission has any jurisdiction to advance the salary of a deputy minister, or an official holding such rank. There is no way that I know of whereby these salaries can be increased, except by an item in the Estimates passed by Parliament.


William Cameron Edwards: I can understand why this should be done in this particular case, but I notice on this page of the Estimates, and on other pages, which we have passed, quite a number of salaries are being dealt with. For example, in item 29, I notice the following:
Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-.Salaries, including Deputy Minister at $6,000, Assistant Deputy Minister and Secreary at $4,00'0, 'Solicitor at $4,000, Superintendent of Expenditure at $3,500, Assistant Secretary, at $2,525, and Accountant at $2,500.
Why are these salaries dealt with in the Estimates instead of by the Civil Service Commission?


William Thomas White: In order to increase the salaries it is necessary to deal with them here. That is the reason why we retain some of our officials:	I think
they are all certainly not overpaid. I may ,say, following the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that I think we lost one of the best officials we had in Mr. Henry T. Ross. Mr. Ross was the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance at a salary of $4,000. I think it was increased to $4,500. He came to me and told me of an offer he had received from outside. He was very reluctant to leave the service, but I felt I should not stand in his way, because I could not, without upsetting the entire Civil Service, pay him anything like the salary he was offered. The result was that a man worth $10,000 to the department was lost, and I have missed him almost every day since he left. He is now receiving a salary two or three times more than he received from the Dominion Government.


William Cameron Edwards: Let me add, to make myself clear, that I am not offering any

captious criticism. It does seem to me now, and it has seemed to me on other occasions, that in our Civil Service we are very much like the army. I do not want to detract in any way from the generals and the other high officials who are really responsible for the conduct of the army, but I have thought some times that the glory which goes to those in high command is a glory which very often has passed on to them from those in the ranks. I apply my comparison to the Civil Service in the same way, that we hear a great deal in this House from time to time about the excellence of men who are drawing $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, or $7,000 a year, and I think a great deal of their excellence is due perhaps to the fact that they have efficient civil servants under them who are drawing from $1,200 to $1,400 a year and finding it hard work to make a living. That is what I mean. I have not seen during this session or in any previous session that consideration given for those in the lower ranks of the Civil Service which in my estimation they should receive; and I have seen what seems to be a disposition in this session and in previous sessions to give consideration, more perhaps than is their due, to men who occupy high positions in the Government service and drawing $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000 a year. I hope I have made myself clear. That, at all events, is my view in regard to the matter. What is the use of your so-called experts from Chicago who have reclassified and undertaken to fix the salaries of the civil servants? It means, if the words of the Finance Minister mean anything, that their . classification and arrangement of salaries will apply to men in the lower walks of the Civil Service, but when it suits the minister of any department to tack on a thousand dollars to the salary of a deputy minister or of an assistant deputy minister, or of any person who is getting three or four times the salary that is drawn by another man who is doing efficient service, that may be dealt with here in this House. We must not undertake to deal with, nor would it be proper on the part of members to consider improving the salaries of civil servants getting $1,200, $1,400 or $1,500 a year. We must be limited, we must not have anything to say in regard to those men, their positions or their salaries; but if a man gets from $5,000 to $7,000 a year, then if the reclassification does not 'touch that man, there is a way to tack another thousand dollars onto his salary.
[Mr. Edwards.1


Mr. BEST:: When the Supplementary
Estimates came down I looked through them to see if certain civil servants had got an increase; I found they were not dealt with. I understood a little over a year ago when the Civil Service Commission was appointed that the work would be left in their hands. But I would point out that now patronage is taken from the back benches and handed over to a few members of the Government so they can give what salaries they like. A year ago Parliament appointed a re-classification committee, and I think that every hon. member and every man and woman throughout Canada, in view of the prevailing unrest and discontent, believed the Government would be the first to set an example and would not do anything to augment that unrest and discontent. Now when the report of that classification committee comes down, what do we find? We find men's salaries being increased from $100 to $2,000 by this Government, while we have been paying $150 a day to the men who were making that report. The Government was well aware that that report was coming down at any time. First of all we were told it would be brought down in two or three weeks, then we were told it would be ready in April, and the next time we were told it would be placed before us in May. In the very face of that this Government added $500,$1,000, and in some cases $2,000 to the salaries of civil servants whom that committee rated lower than men who were getting $1,000 less. When I asked the question on the floor of this House, if it was the intention of the Government to accept that classification, to bring every man up to it, or down to it, I was told that was not the intention. Can we expect harmony and union in the country when the Government, during the present session, gives .to one man drawing $5,000 a year an additional $500, and nothing to another man who is drawing $4,000 a year, although the man drawing $4,000 a year is rated at $4,800 by the classification committtee, and the man drawing $5,000 a year is rated at $4,500? What will be the result? The man rated at $4,500 will continue to draw $5,000-$200 more than the man who is rated at $4,800 and drawing $4,000. There is not a Cabinet minister or an hon. member to-day if he knew he had the right to $200 or $300 a year more thah .another man, would be satisfied that the other man should continue to draw more. But that is what we are told in this House is to happen, and is it any wonder we have

discontent? I say we have the right to have those men reduced according to that classification when it is adopted, or, if they are below it we must raise them up to it.
I can give you one case where a civil servant drawing $4,500 a year had another $500 added to his salary during this present session, >and the classification reports him at $2,280.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I cannot see how the discussion upon which the hon. member has entered has anything whatever to do with the salary of the Superintendent of Insurance. I thought the hon. gentleman would refer to the Supplementary Estimates only by way of comparison with this item. A debate upon the Civil Service classification is certainly not in order.


William Cameron Edwards: The word "salary" is included there.


John Best: Mr. Chairman, I was touching on the expenditure of the Government. Every hon. member who has spoken so far has spoken on things that do not touch that question as much as the matter I discussed. They have spoken about the classification and many other things. I honestly believe that what I have mentioned touches on the question, and I think I should have the right to discuss it. I will tell you why. The hon. the Acting Postmaster General told me that when his Estimates came up in the House he would let me know, and if I was away he would hold them until I came here. I only missed three days during the whole of the session, and that was one of the days when those Estimates were dealt with. When I came back the hon. minister told me that when the Supplementary Estimates came up he would allow me to discuss this matter. He is sitting here, and I will ask him to confirm my statement.


Mr. ROWELL:: It is quite correct that I told the hon. member that when the Supplementary Post Office Estimates were up he would have an opportunity of discussing the matter; but the Estimates now under consideration are those of the Department of Finance. My hon. friend will be quite in order when the Supplementary Post Office Estimates are before the House.


John Best: I understood it was a general discussion of the Estimates before the House. When I spoke about the Supplementary Estimates, I only spoke about them in an indirect way. When it was not in the Main Estimates. I expected that it
would probably be in the Supplementary Estimates, and that is why 1 mentioned the Supplementary Estimates. I am well aware that the Supplementary Estimates are not now before the Committee. We should be trying to bring about harmony; we should use the public money in the right way. I know men here who are drawing from $1,000 to $1,200 a year, who have large families and whose work is just as efficient as that of the men who are drawing $5,000 and $6,000. Take our police force; almost every one is familiar-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. This item certainly has nothing to do with the salaries of the police force. I once more rule that the discussion must be limited to the employees of the Department of Insurance; any other discussion will be out of order.


Mr. ROBB:: Surely my hon. friend (Mr. Best) has a right to make a comparison between the pay of the police force and the pay of the employees of any other department. The hon. member says that the Acting Postmaster General promised him an opportunity of discussing this matter on the Supplementary Estimates. As we are now trying to close up the business of the House, I am sure that the hon. member will not take up too much time in making his statement, and perhaps we should get ahead by allowing him to do so.


John Best: I am discussing the finances of the country, which, I understand, are before the House. Every hon. member-


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The Chairman has ruled that the finances of the country, the Supplementary Estimates and the Civil Service reclassification are not before the House. I ask the hon. member either to bow to that ruling, or to appeal from the decision of the Chair.


John Best: AH I have to say is this: The discussion which took place before I rose went quite as far from the mark as what I myself said. I have understood that when the Estimates come up there is first a general discussion, and then the items are considered separately.


Georges Henri Boivin: I hope the hon. member will not think that I am doing him any injustice. It is true that the previous speaker did wander slightly from the item under discussion, but I did not think his remarks would lead to a general discussion. I quite realize that the hon. member (Mr. Best) only followed the previous speaker, therefore should not be too severely blamed. I

must point out, however, that if the hon. member was allowed to continue and conclude his remarks, they would call for an answer on the part of the minis-4 p.m. ter or from some other hon. member and we would then be engaged in a discussion of the' Civil Service classification and of salaries in general.


John Best: I am quite satisfied when you admit, Mr. Chairman, that you gave wide latitude until I got up, and when I got up you drew the line.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is not in order to comment upon the ruling of the Chair, but I will agree that a certain amount of latitude was given. I think the committee will also admit that the line must sometimes be drawn. .		
Grant to the National Battlefields Commission, $36,4^0.


William Thomas White: It has been customary for many years to provide in the Estimates the amount of money required by the National Battlefields Commission. Before the -war each year showed an annual increase, because in, addition to the administrative expenses, which were growing yearly, there were usually purchases of additional land. During the war the commission has been merely marking time, and that is true also with respect to the present year. The decrease of $16,200 in the vote is due chiefly to the fact that no additional purchases of land will be made this year. A statement of the entire expenditure is laid on the table of the House for each fiscal year.
Canadian Press Limited-towards expenses of a national news service, $50,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What are the ramifications of the Canadian press? How is it worked out? What is it?


William Thomas White: The memorandum which I have is as follows:
The Canadian Press Limited is an incorporated news agency of which all publishers of daily newspapers in Canada are members and stockholders. It does not operate to make a profit; the expenses of operation are assessed against the individual newspapers according to an established basis. The Government grant is to be applied towards the expense of maintaining a day and night leased wire news service over the three great natural gaps, namely, between Ottawa and Winnipeg, Oalgary and Vancouver, and Montreal and Saint John. The bridging of these gaps will make it possible. for this association to operate a national news service from coast to coast.
The motive of the grant of $50,000 is to enable the better distribution of Canadian news throughout the entire Dominion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Earlier in the session I moved the following resolution in connection with the press:
That in the opinion of this House, all newspapers, magazines, trade journals and other periodicals, publishing articles designed to mnu-ence public opinion shall be compelled from time to time to publish sworn statements setting forth the names of the owners, managers, editors, stockholders, bondholders and of any other person having an interest in such newspaper, magazine, trade journal or other periodical.
I do not object to the grant of $50,000 to the Canadian, press. I am an old journalist, and I believe in the press; I believe that it should be given all the facilities possible in order to enable it, by means of its editorial and news columns, to spread knowledge all over the country. But, for the reasons which I have already given, I think that the pres? of Canada should be subject to the. same rule-I should say, to the same law-that prevails in the United States. The subject was fully discussed in the House on two or three occasions, and the President of the Council promised me that sometime during the session 'he would announce the policy of the Government in connection with this matter. Perhaps my hon. friend will take advantage of this opportunity of informing the committee whether the Government intends to adopt the principle enunciated in this resolution.


Newton Wesley Rowell: At the time I pointed
out to my hon. friend that the matter covered by his resolution was within the jurisdiction of the various provincial legislatures, and that any province which desired to have the information covered by his resolution furnished and made public, had full legislative power to do so. My hon. friend suggested that the Federal Government might take action along lines similar to that taken in the United States. I have had the law looked into, and when the Prime Minister returned I submitted the matter to him. Owing, however, to the desire to conclude this session at the earliest possible date-.and my hon. friend is aware of the amount of legislation already introduced-the Government decided not to introduce any legislation in connection with the matter at this session. It was not considered of such an urgent character as to necessitate its being introduced in the closing hours of the session.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Before this item passes,
I should like to register a most temperate but, I trust, most emphatic protest against this subsidy to the press. When this Government had no paper of its own, there

was perhaps more excuse, although I do not think, reason for this subsidy of a very substantial amount. But this Government has gone, with the aid of the President of the Council, into the newspaper business. We have the Official Canadian Record containing the information which the Government thinks it 'wise to distribute amongst the people, and I think that costs several tens of thousands dollars a year. The President of the Council will correct me if I am wrong. Why then should the Government be bonusing its competitors? If the Government is in the newspaper business why give the people's money to aid its competitors? That is the first point I want to make. A feeling exists in the country-and I think it is well founded- that the newspaper press, in receiving this money is, perhaps, somewhat influenced in favour of the donors. I do not wish to say that emphatically because I have not the proof, but the tendency is that, when you are in receipt of gifts from a person, you regard that person with, perhaps, a more benevolent eye than you otherwise would. Some newspapers in this country make money; other papers make no money, but. those who make money are certainly not in need of governmental assistance for the purpose of getting news, and it is a question whether those who do not make money can be saved from bad financial condition by whatever assistance this grant is to them. I have an abhorrence of any governmental influence, directly or indirectly, upon the press. It is the most unwholesome condition that can possibly exist in this country. I know that the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) sometimes passes restless and worried hours when he considers the financial condition of the country, because I believe he is a patriotic citizen who has some appreciation, though with all humility and courtesy, 1 think, inadequate consideration of the very serious condition in which our finances are. What could he do better than either to cut out this allowance of $50,000 very substantially or to cut it out altogether? I point that way of economy. When we speak of economy on this side of the House, we are often told that we make vain and general observations, and we should come down to specific instances. I do not wish to detain the committee, as we are trying to finish the work of the session, but I would ask the Minister of Finance to consider very carefully whether he would not be able to save some of the people's money in cutting down this -grant.


William Thomas White: It does not appear to me that this grant of $50,000 to the Canadian Press, Limited, will have any influence upon the newspapers of this country.
I doubt very much if the great majority of them have it in their mind that the grant is made. The purpose of the grant was in the national interest. This country is peculiar geographically; we have a gap of one thousand miles between East and West; we have another gap between the prairies and the Pacific coast, and so between Montreal and the Maritime Provinces.
Mr. MoMASTER: The minister forgets Quebec, Sherbrooke, and other important places.


William Thomas White: The purpose of this is to enable the different portions of this country to receive more news of other parts than they otherwise would. If we cut out this	grant, my belief	is that	theWestern press will not receive from the East the news service that it does to-day. Hon. gentlemen may say: Well, let them receive an inferior service. My view is that, in a country of the size of Canada, with our sparse population, a grant of this kind for the purpose we have in view	can	serve a good nationalpurpose.	It	is not a	large	sumof money, and what appealed to the Government and to .myself, because I believe I was responsible for the introduction of the item originally-was the improvement of the service between East and West in this country, so that the people living in the West would get to know more about what was going on in the East, and vice versa. In that way	this	small grant	would	tend
towards bringing about a better understanding and closer harmony between all parts of the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is easy to defend the grant which was made some years ago by my hon. friend's predecessor (Mr. Fielding) to the cable news service from England. I remember that that hon. gentleman, when he was Minister of Finance, granted a subsidy of, I think, $15,000 a year for a cable news service from London to 'Canada.


William Thomas White: That is the next item.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But this grant of $50,000 for the Canadian press in Canada I do not feel inclined to defend so easily. The amount, however, is there, and I think under those circumstances the Government should accept the principle of my resolution. I must

say to the President of the Council that this resolution has been adopted at all conventions held in the western provinces during the last few years, and it is an exact copy of those resolutions which is to-day on the Order Paper. My hon, friend (Mr. Rowell) says that there is a question of provincial rights in connection with this resolution. He is able to obviate the difficulty if such is the difficulty. By the Post Office Act the department can make their own regulations. As I have already stated, for the important privilege enjoyed by the press in transmission through the mails of newspapers at a very cheap rate, practically nothing, the Government in return should ask the newspapers to give the public the moral guarantee which we find embodied in the Congressional law. I give notice to my hon. friend that if the Government does not act this year, I intend at the next session to move again this resolution, and my hon. friend should not "wait until the dying hours of the session to announce that the Government has had no time to consider this matter.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: I heartily concur in the view of the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) as regards the object of the resolution that he has on the Order Paper. I believe that a newspaper ought to be obliged to publish the names of its proprietors. Newspapers representthemselves as being published in the interest of the public, and I believe the public have an absolute right to know the names of the proprietors, to know absolutely what is behind the print.
Had the hon. gentleman had the opportunity of moving his resolution in the ordinary way I should have taken great pleasure in supporting it. Permit me to add a word to what the Minister of Finance said with regard to the main reason why this subsidy was granted. For a great many years the news that was furnished to the newspapers in the Canadian Northwest filtered through American channels from St. Paul and Minneapolis and was distributed in Winnipeg to the Western papers. It cost very much less to bring the news from St. Paul and Minneapolis, but the news being from American sources was coloured. From time to time the newspaper associations discussed the situation and eventually it came to the ear of the Government that the matter should be remedied. It was absolutely impossible for the newspapers in the West to carry a leased wire around the north shore of Lake Superior to distribute
[Mr. L.emienx.11
the news collected from purely Canadian sources; so a subsidy was proposed, and coupled with it was the request that the gap be bridged to the Maritime Provinces. I agree with the minister that not all the newspapers know about this subsidy. It is not given to influence any newspaper. All the papers profit equally by it. If the money were distributed among the different papers it would be a very small amount. I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) would insinuate that any paper would allow its policy to be influenced by the fact that it might profit in some cases by the subsidy.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The Minister of Finance said a few moments ago that the Canadian Press Association was a joint stock corporation operating without profit. How are the shares held? Are they paid for in any way, who are the officials of the company, what salaries are they paid, and how is the grant distributed?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Perhaps I can answer that question. The officers of the Canadian Press receive no pay whatever. They are confined to president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer, and directors. All the daily papers of the Dominion are members of the association. They are all shareholders, but are not all directors. The shares are divided into one hundred dollars each, I believe, and each newspaper throughout the Dominion gets one share. I am not sure whether they pay for it, but probably they do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the members of the board?


Robert Lorne Richardson: There is one in Vancouver, one in Victoria, one in Calgary, two in Winnipeg, two or three in Toronto, two or three in Montreal, one in Halifax, one in Moncton, one in Hamilton, and one in London, I believe.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are both parties represented?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Certainly. Politics does not enter into the constitution of the association in any way whatsoever. There are no profits made, and no dividends declared. In fact, very frequently there are assessments because of the increased cost of collecting news. Nobody makes a farthing out of it. Notwithstanding the subsidy, I regret to say that you could count on the fingers of one hand, certainly on the fingers of two, the newspapers that have been able to make ends meet during the last four or five years.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the method of distributing the money, where does it go tor


Robert Lorne Richardson: The money is paid into the Canadian Press Association, whose head office is in Toronto. It is used for the purpose of paying for the leased wire from Vancouver to the Atlantic coast. That costs a very large sum of money. I fancy the subsidy would be all absorbed by that charge.	N


Mr. PEDLOW:: Is this the association that maiiaged the advertising campaign for the Union Party in 1917?


Robert Lorne Richardson: It has nothing whatever to do with managing any election.


William Thomas White: I have been
handed a note from the Press Gallery in which it is stated that the London Advertiser, Le Soleil, Le Canada, and all other Liberal papers in the Dominion share in the Canadian, press service. It has not been drawn to my attention that these papers were very active in supporting the Union Government at the last election.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: That scarcely answers my question. We are all well aware of the stand the London Advertiser took in the 1917 election. My hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) said that one of the reasons for this subsidy was that the papers of the Canadian Northwest were receiving coloured news from American sources. Unfortunately, I am afraid there is a strong suspicion -I do not know how well founded it is- that the information supplied through the Canadian Press Association is also coloured, that it is not as fair to both parties as it might be. I am afraid that the papers who receive this subsidy are unconsciously influenced by it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The affairs of the
association are governed entirely by the directors, who are selected from papers utterly regardless of their political predilections. I am one of the directors and I know that it has rarely happened, not more than twice I believe, that a complaint has been made that the reports were not absolutely fair and non-partisan. No official of the association is ever asked a question as to his politics. The directors endeavour to deal with absolute fairness and justice in the collection and distribution of news, and the news is sent out to papers regard-lesss of their politics. I think my hon. friend would be perfectly satisfied if he Tead the reports that are sent out. .


William Stevens Fielding: I am not familiar with the details of the distribution of this
money, but so far as the principle of the grant is concerned, while the Minister of Finance has taken the responsibility for it,
I must be willing to associate myself in some degree with that responsibility because it is the carrying out of a policy which was begun by the Government of which I was a member, and which was partially successful, as has been mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux). I formed a very strong opinion, and my colleagues agreed with me, that it was highly desirable that provision should be made for the better dissemination of news as between Canada and Great Britain, and also between eastern and western Canada. With regard to the cable service, while it was not always free from criticism, it is generally admitted that we did get a direct cable service from the Old Country which made us independent of the connection with the United States, and while sometimes it did not give us all that we desired, it was very helpful and in the right direction. With regard to the home service the Government are carrying out a policy which I confess I attempted to carry out with only very limited success. I formed the impression and my colleagues agree with me that it was highly important that there should be better communication between eastern and western Canada. We were bringing into Canada hundreds of thousands of immigrants who landed at Montreal or Quebec, and then went across to western Canada. They knew absolutely nothing of eastern Canada, which formed a part of the Dominion. They were going out there unacquainted with the affairs of our country. The information that was given to them was limited at the best, and what did go to them came largely through communication with the United States.	t
At a very early stage in the experience of our Government, I confess now, we took up this very question and I personally visited some of the journalists in western Canada and endeavoured to get just such an organization as the hon. gentleman now has, At that time I did not succeed because the newspapers were not numerous enough and were not able to bear the burden and although I was prepared to recommend to my colleagues the granting of a subsidy I was not assured of a sufficient response from the press to justify me in carrying the matter any further. The object was to let the eastern people of Canada know something about the people of that western country and to let the western people get fuller information about eastern Canada

than they had been getting. I think the object is a good one and I see no reason why it should not be supported.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I am afraid that when the party in power is distributing this money, there is a possibility, if not a probability, of influencing the press. I might give the Finance Minister just one specific instance of the news being coloured by the press in the last election. Sir Allen Ayles-worth is one of the best known publicists in Canada. During the last election he delivered a most important speech in Toronto. No adequate report of that speech appeared, in so far as I know, in any paper in Canada east of Toronto.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Nor west.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Nor west of Toronto either. Is it not most essential that the views, whether they be the views of the minority or the majority, of public men, should be distributed without any favour? It does seem to me that the Government would have a little advantage by distributing the news which is most important for the Government, In a -subsidized distribution the tendency will be to distribute the news which the Government in office thinks is of interest to the people.


William Thomas White: The best judges of the news value of -any speech are the press. I have frequently been in the position of making what I regarded as a very able speech, and, upon looking for the report next morning in the press I found about half a "stick." I have come to the conclusion after such experience as I have had that probably the newspapers themselves have a much better sense of values than the makers of speeches. While I am the last person to in -any way disparage the standing of Sir Allen Aylesworth, whom I know very well personally, at the same time I am of the view that the newspapers which report speeches fairly correctly appraise their news value.
I	think my hon. friend will find
that the press in many cases have paid comparatively little attention to the speeches which we on this side might regard as of a particularly destructive, or constructive, character. Personally I think that a public man is fortunate to be reported at all. All of us feel frequently that the reports of our speeches are more or less garbled but as I become older in. public life I am not disconsolate at seeing even a garbled report given of my speech, and I make no complaint at all.


William Stevens Fielding: I had nothing whatever to do with the arrangements for this Canadian Press but I did have something to do with the organization of the cable service. As soon as that service was established one of the main conditions that we insisted upon was that the Government should have" nothing to do with it at all, and that it should be administered by an association of newspapermen who would manage it for themselves. We stipulated that the Government should have nothing to do with it except to provide the money and as a result the management of it in London was placed in the hands of the Toronto Telegram.	.


William Thomas White: Take this particular item which has been voted for the last three years-/I never knew when it was paid to the Canadian Press Limited. It is paid by cheque by some officer of the department.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What we are afraid of Is not the possibility of the press coming to the Government but of some members of the Government going to the press. _


Robert Lorne Richardson: The Government, before they dealt with the press at all, insisted that there should be a national organization built up by the Canadian press to cover the entire country. They insisted upon that before they would agree to grant the subsidy. That has been done. The Government has nothing to do with the distribution of that grant. It is paid out as the Finance Minister says. With the large foreign population in the Northwest it was felt that they should have the right kind of literature distributed to them through the press.
Grant in aid of the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scouts' Association, $5,000,


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Why should not the Girl Guides share in this?


William Thomas White: I am glad to hear my hon. friend mention the Girl Guides. If he will look at the Supplementary Estimates he will find a grant of ?3,000 for them. The movement is similar to that of the Boy Scouts and the object is a very deserving one.
Privy Council'Office-salaries, including clerk of the Privy Council at $6,000 and Captain William Wallace at $2,600, $49,52-5 ; contingencies, $10,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: While this item is before the- committee, I wish to refer to a question that has been previously raised in the House, and which has been frequently discussed in the press for the purpose of put-

ting on record for the information of the members of the House certain facts in relation to the numbers of Orders in Council "'which have been passed in recent years and particularly under the War Measures Act.
Various statements have appeared in the press as to the ever-increasing number of Orders in Council which were being passed by the Government particularly under Union government. The most striking statement appeared in Le Devoir of 7th December last, and for the information of the members I shall read the paragraph that appeared in that paper:
From the first of July, 1867, to the 20th April, 1918,
the different governments which have succeeded one another at Ottawa have adopted in all 919 Orders in Council. Guided by Mr. Kowell, the Unionist Minister, in six months, from the 20th April to the 23rd October, 1918, the Government has adopted and sighed 1,667 Orders in all, of which many hundreds were passed even while Parliament was in session, and among them those which radically suppressed the liberty of the press and of public opinion, and annulled at one stroke, at a secret meeting of the Cabinet, the exemption of thousands and thousands of young men from twenty to twenty-three years of age who had been liberated for proper motives by competent tribunals, and sent them to service in the army.
I should like to draw the attention of the. committee to the comparative statement contained in that paragraph, namely, that in fifty-one years, or more, prior to the date when I had the honour to become President of the Privy [Council, some 919 Orders in Council were passed and that in six months, while I was President of the Privy Council, 1,667 had been passed. For the information of the members of the committee, I might say that while I have not the exact record, the total number of Orders in [Council passed from the 1st of July, 1867, to the 31st December, 1917, was approximately-not 919, but 145,000. That is a fine illustration of exaggeration with a view of making a point against the Government.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: May I interrupt a moment to ask the Chairman to tell me what item we haye under consideration which brings forth this interesting information?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Privy Council Estimates, tTetails of which are to be found at page 12 of the Estimates. Then, with reference to the Orders in Council passed in recent years, I have the figures from 1910-


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Will the minister pardon me just a moment? May I ask whether he is dealing with the salaries of officials?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am dealing with the general question of civil government and making a statement with respect to the work of the Privy Council.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: May I ask the Chairman to rule whether the minister is in order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I take it that the statement is being made with the unanimous consent of the Committee, as is the custom upon the opening up of the Estimates of a particular department. However, if the hon. member insists upon his point I must rule that the statement is not in order upon the item under discussion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It has one interesting effect: It brings all the sins of the Orders in Council home to the Privy 'Council office.


Newton Wesley Rowell: We are but the medium through which the orders pass, hut, of course, we have the record of them. If the hon. gentleman objects, I cannot give the further information which is 'available.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not objecting.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it not part of the duties of the officials whose salaries we are being asked to vote, to write out these Orders in Council? Have these officials any work in connection with Orders in Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: All these Orders in Council pass through the hands of the officials of the Privy Council.


William Cameron Edwards: Then I submit that the statement of the minister is quite in order.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have already ruled that the statement would be in order with the unanimous consent of the Committee, and that it is a statement such as is given by all ministers in presenting tlheir Estimates.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: If the paternity of these Orders in 'Council rests on the conscience of the President of the Privy Council and he wishes to free his conscience by making this statement, I withdraw my objection in order to give him a free field.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will not accept the withdrawal on the conditions stipulated by the hon. gentleman. There is nothing on my conscience with respect to these Orders in Council while I have been a member of the Privy .Council.
Now taking the years commencing with 1910, I will give the number of Orders in Council passed each year.

Passed under
Year	Number the War
Measures Act
1910		 4,769
1911		 5,732
1912		  5,500
1913		 6,728
1914	
5,815	281915	
6,245	321916	
7,282	1161917	
6,991	3991918	
6,246	5681919 (up to June 30th) ..	2,563	110
Or a total from the first January, 1914, to the 30th June, 1919, of 35,142, of which 1,253 were passed under the War Measures Act. I should like to say with reference to the number of Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act, particularly for the latter part of 1917 and the whole of 1918, that a very substantial percentage of the total number were orders necessary to temporarily appoint persons to take the places of civil servants who enlisted and went overseas. Other Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act related to the work of the Fuel Controller, the War Trade Board, the Canada Food Board, and the operation of the Military Service Act, and other Acts relating to the prosecution of the war, where it was absolutely necessary to exercise the powers of the War Measures Act to deal with these matters. I might say further, that an Order in Council is the only official record of a decision of the Privy Council. The decision of the Privy Council may be embodied in an Order in Council, or a Minute approved by Council, according to circumstances. Just as the action of a municipal council may be embodied in a by-law or .a resolution of the council.
I have only one further observation to make, and that is with reference to the extract from Le Devoir which claimed that the Order in Council abolishing exemptions had been passed in secret. Members of the House will recall that the Order in Council referred to was not passed until after both Houses of Parliament had approved of a resolution that the Government should take such action.


William Stevens Fielding: When the minister speaks as to the methods of getting information about what the Council does, has his attention been drawn to the fact that according to the re-classification report which is before us, the duty of the clerk of the Privy Council is to attend the meetings of that body and keep records, and so forth?	;	j


Newton Wesley Rowell: My attention has been called to the fact, and that is one of the errors appearing in the reclassification. Of course, as hon. members know, no one attends the meetings of the Privy Council except the Privy Councillors themselves, and no regular minutes are kept.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister knows that it is not the number of Orders in Council that we are criticising. We were criticising the improper use of the powers given to the Government under the War Measures Act. that things were done by Order in Council which should have been brought before this House for discussion, particularly where millions of dollars were involved. Those are the things that we and the country censure, and no kind of explanation by the minister as to the number of Orders in Council issued this year and in other years will remove that censure.
Mines and Geological Survey Department- For experimental work relating to briquetting ot lignite coal (Revote), $160,000.


Mr. BURRELL:: A number of. 'members have spoken to me about this particular item, Mr. Chairman, and I would like very briefly to state the position of this work. As the result of a recommendation by the Research Council, approved by the Reconstruction Committee, it was decided to authorize the Minister of Mines to enter into agreements with the Provincial Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, by which each Provincial Government would grant $100,000 and this Government $200,000 for the purpose of investigating the lignite deposits of Saskatchewan and putting up a plant to briquette the lignite and put it on the market as a commercial fuel, in view of the scarcity of coal and the enormous cost of the anthracite coming into that market. Agreements were entered into with the two provinces, and subsequently a Lignite Utilization Board was appointed, consisting of Mr. R. A. Ross, consulting engineer, of Montreal, who is a member of the Research Council; Mr. Sheppart, of Moosejaw, and Mr. Leamy, an engineer of the city of Winnipeg. They discussed the whole situation and surveyed all the work that had been done in connection with briquetting. They appointed a staff of two engineers-one of whom was placed at their disposal from our own department, Mr. San-field. an engineering chemist-who inspected ail the different briqueMmg plants in the United States. It was thought that perhaps a lot of valuable information might be secured to guide us in Saskatchewan. However, it appears that nothing had been done

in the United States', except in respect to bituminous coal, and there was practically little to help us in reference to the immediate question we had under consideration. When this information had been gathered these two gentlemen made a trip to the Western part of Canada, samples were taken of the lignite coal in the Estevan district, and every kind of information contributory to the question was gathered there and studied to see if the briquetting process was a commercial possibility. Subsequently it appeared from their investigation that the whole matter depended on the carbonization7 of lignite. Lignite, as honourable members know, occurs in enormous deposits in Saskatchewan, and if it could be placed on the market in a suitable form it would be of great help in solving the fuel question. But lignite contains a heavy percentage of moisture, it rapidly disintegrates, and is then not particularly useful from the commercial point of view. The question, therefore, was to see if a process could be divised by which the calorific value of lignite, which is only half that of anthracite, could be put in such a form that the excess water could be driven out and the whole product, by a process of briquetting, made to approach to something like the value of anthracite pound for pound. A good deal of experimental work has been done. It was found, however, that we could not this year go on with the erection of the necessary briquetting plant as contemplated and hoped for. We determined, and I think wisely, not to incur that expense until we had thoroughly demonstrated the successful operation of the carbonizing process. We could drive out the excess moisture by the ordinary heating process or by air, but even then the product would rapidly absorb moisture again. The only practical way was by means of carbonization, which consists of heating the lignite to a high temperature in the absence of air, which would drive off not only the moisture but the various gases, and leave a product very much smaller in bulk and very much higher in calorific value. We have had a great deal of difficulty devising a carbonizing plant by which	this could	be satisfactorily
demonstrated, but finally a plant was designed and has lately been installed in the Mines Department, and that part of the experimental work is being carried on at the	present moment.
A good deal of experimental work is being carried on in connection with the binders for the making of briquettes, and progress
is being made. So far as standard machinery can be used in the briquetting and in other necessary processes, we are computing, subject to the soundness of carbonization experiments, what it would cost commercially in the way of machinery and buildings to establish a plant for the production of these lignite briquettes. If the carbonizer which is now being installed works as we have every reason to believe it will work and if the development of the binder experiment is satisfactory-and we have reason to believe that it is-I think we shall be in a position, in about two months, to select a place where the plant may be put up, to commence construction, and to get the thing under way. In that case we would probably be able to deliver fuel by 1920 and 1921. To members of the West who may think that there has been some delay in this matter I may point out that we would not have been justified in expending this $400,000 in the hasty erection of a large plant to briquette lignite on a commercial scale unless we had first made absolutely sure of our ground. That points to the reason why these experiments have been carried on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Experiments in briquetting of bituminous coal have been satisfactorily carried on in Nova Scotia, though not to a very great extent. Have the experiments to which my hon. friend refers been able to show whether a ton of briquette lignite can be sold in the market as at a price which compares favourably with that of, say, bituminous coal?


Martin Burrell: Well, one cannot be
positive in answering that question, but there is every reason to believe that the production of this article will be commercially successful. Of course, the lignite question is a little different from that of bituminous coal. One of the sources of profit in the carbonization of bituminous coal is in the by-products which are very valuable, whereas the by-products of lignite coal are comparatively small so far as coal value goes. But if we can once get the carbonizing experiment to a proper stage of development, I believe that this business can be made absolutely a commercial success.
Mines Branch, $309,OW).


Martin Burrell: This includes an amount for the carrying on of experimental work in connection with peat. Some time ago there was a very interesting discussion in this House and a very interesting controversy in the country on the vexed ques-

tion whether peat could be made a commercial fuel. Something like 140,000,000 tons of peat are known to be available in Canada; probably $30,000,000 have been spent during the last thirty or forty years in this country on experiments with peat, most of them having been doomed to failure for one reason or another. The result of all our investigations was to show that the whole question was one of the cheap handling of the raw material. It is absolutely necessary to the commercial success of the handling of peat that some form of machinery be devised to handle the raw material in such a cheap and economic way that when put on the market it will compete with the ordinary prices of anthracite or bituminous coal. We went into the matter thoroughly about a year ago and we found that as there are many peat bogs in Ontario, the Government of that province was also interested in the question. We finally made an arrangement with the 5 p.m. Ontario Government under which a certain sum of money was set aside and a joint committee was appointed to study the whole question and to conduct experiments. Two types of machinery were adopted, one designed by an expert in this business, Mr. E. V. Moore, and another an adaptation of the old Anrep plant. Mr. Anrep, senior, used to be the most noted expert in this line in Sweden. Part of his machines were used in the Alfred bogs in Ontario some years ago. As a result of the operations there a certain amount of success was achieved, but a good deal of doubt was cast upon the commercial value of the product. Last year, therefore, a committee was appointed consisting of Mr. P. A. Ross, of the Research Council, Montreal; Mr. Cole, of the Ontario Government; Mr. Haanel, of the Mines Department, and Mr. Harris. They worked on the various designs for peat machinery, and one of the machines was nearly ready by December but was held up owing to various causes: failure of-the manufacturers to deliver, the epidemic of influenza and causes arising out of the war; so that we were not able to get any work done. But we have made arrangements to operate on the Alfred bog, which is' about forty miles from Ottawa, and one of. the machines has commenced to manufacture peat there on a commercial scale at the rate of about sixty or seventy tons a day. The other machine should be ready to start next week.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: What would be the cost of production per ton?


Martin Burrell: It is impossible to say that. Experiments which were conducted some years ago in the Alfred bog showed that, with the price of labour as it was then, the product could almost compete with the price of anthracite prevailing at that time. But having regard to the increased cost of labour and to other conditions, I should not like to venture an assertion as to the cost at the present time. The question really is whether it is & practical proposition to develop Canada's enormous peat resources, or whether we should abandon the idea altogether. I myself am hopeful that as a result of the work which is being done this year we shall be able to show that by employing proper engineer-d&vices and using proper machinery, it will be possible to manufacture air-dried peat of this kind on such a cost basis as will make it a very useful 'adjunct to our future fuel supply. That of course is a thing which one would not like to pronounce upon.
Mr. (McKENZIE: Does the minister think that we have real peat in this country? Did he ever have it compared with Scotch peat, for instance? Is it the same?


Martin Burrell: The fuel was produced some years ago, and it was shown to be an admirable fuel, but it was a question of cost of production and handling. There is not the slightest doubt as to the quality of the peat and of the uses to which it may be put, if it is possible to put it on the market at a price that would enable it to compete with coal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have never been in Scotland, but my forefathers who came from there used to talk about peat. It was the fuel of many of the people in Scotland, and their way of drying it was very primitive and simple, and if we have the same sort of peat in Canada I do no| quite understand why the same results should not follow.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I presume the reason is because you have not the population in close proximity to the peat bog. May I ask the minister, in preparing his Estimates, what information is used in determining what work shall be done? Has the minister first hand knowledge of the needs of the various mining districts, or has his deputy? Has he visited the great asbestos mines in the Eastern Townships?


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend must know that we are in touch with all parts of the country, and, as a matter of fact, we are covering the whole of Canada. My hon.

friend is speaking now largely of the work of the Geological Survey, which we are coming to. The greater part of our mines work is done, not over the country, but actually at the Mines Department, for instance, in our ore dressing laboratories and in other work. The main part of our work, so far as the country goes, is the work of the Geological Survey in mapping out various parts of the country, showing rock formations, what is likely to be developed, following up matters that arise, the deposits, their character and assays. The work is carried on from year to year, and to be valuable at all it has to he a continuous process. By the putting out of maps, which is the greater part of the work of the Geological Survey, the prospector is enabled to decide intelligently where he shall go with prospects of success.
Geological Survey, $270,400.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Perhaps the questions which I put before would come more properly in connection with this item. My information is that the expenditure of the department in regard to geological survey and other mining work is not by any means in proportion to the mineral production of the different parts of the country. For instance, Ontario produces a great deal of the, mineral wealth of the country, and the expenditure of the department is considerably beneath the proportion which one might expect to be spent in that province if the principle is that the expenditures should bear some relation to the mineral production. What is the principle of expenditure? Has the minister himself or his deputy visited several of the ' great mining districts of our country like the Sudbury nickel and copper mines, the asbestos mines in the Eastern Townships, the molybdenite mines near Sherbrooke; or the silver and gold districts in Porcupine?


Martin Burrell: It would be pretty hard to lay down an exact ratio between the expenditure upon a matter like the geological survey and the results in the practical development of minek, because obviously you might discover, in one district in which you have been doing a little work, a highly mineralized area with posstbilities of development on an enormous scale. You might, on the other hand, do very considerable work in that district before any discoveries were made, and large expenditures would have to be made in order to get at the potentialities there. But in the long run I do not think I would be making an
exaggerated statement in saying that the development of our mining industry throughout Canada is very largely dependent upon the work of the Geological Survey. Let me give one or two illustrations of the kind of work we are endeavouring to do at present, and let me take the part of the country with which I am somewhat familiar, namely, the Cariboo gold mining district. When the gold rush to California was a thing of the past, all those men came up to the upper regions of the Fraser river where gold was discovered-my hon. friend knows a little of the history of that time. From that time up to within the last few years, something like $30,000,000 in gold was taken out of those various tributaries of the stream, sometimes by placer mining, sometimes by deep boring, pumping and so on. Many of those streams, the original beds which had gold in them, have been exhausted, and there have been immense problems to face in regard to reaching others on account of water and the costly method of pumping water, and the direction has also been lost. Last year we sent a man up there, and we have another man up there this year to try from the geological point of view to find out the old beds of these streams which have been diverted or overlaid by other material, and we have every reason to believe that we shall be able by Ithe work of the Geological Survey to determine the particular location of a great number of these old overgrown streams similar to those which have produced about $30,000,000 worth of gold, and when we have all that work done and the proper maps got out, I am not prophesying, because it is quite within the range of probability that nothing may turn up, but ton the other hand there may be an enormous gold production as the result of that work. It would be pretty difficult work, as regards gold, copper, asbestos or any other mineral to lay down an exact ratio between the expenditure and the result, because it must be guess work in any event. We are carrying on investigation work as regards such things as graphite, fluorite and other minerals. During the last two years we did a great deal of work as regards molybdenite and tungsten, which hitherto had hardly been known to occur in this country, but which, in the tremendous necessities of the war, led us to make various experiments; and We were able, by the Munitions Board buying, on behalf of the British Government, any molybdenite that was available, to stimulate the search for it, to discover a certain amount of it.

to have it milled and concentrated in our ore dressing laboratory here, and to do a great deal of stimulating -work of a very high character. That has been going on in connection with many minerals.
My own feeling about the Department of Mines is that perhaps we have not paid the attention to it in the past that we should have done. It is very hard to get the class of men required, and personally I think we should be very much more liberal in our expenditure on the Mines Department than we have been in the past.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: We had the first Mines Department on the North American Continent, did we not?
iMr. BURRELL: Yes. I am confident that our Mines Department and 'Geological Survey contains as many first-class men in their line of work-most important and basic work -as does probably any other country in the world. Nearly every geologist of repute in Canada, if he is not in the Mines Departs ment, has been trained in the Geological Survey. We take men first as assistants in the field after they have had at least a two years' course at the university, and we do not admit them as geologists until they have taken their degree, and also a three years' post graduate course and have become a Doctor of Science or Ph. D. We have from sixteen to twenty such men in our service, not at very big salaries, and every now and then we are losing one or two. They are carrying on work the value of which lies in its continuity, and it is a serious matter when by reason of not having enough men, or not paying them enough, there is a break in the work, which has then to be left until we can get somebody else to take it up. We have lost a good many of our men in the war. Fortunately we are getting some of them back, but one or two unfortunately will never come back. If I were to continue as head of the department I should like to endeavour another year to enlarge the whole scope of the work, because I believe that it can be of immensely greater value to the country than perhaps we have realized.
Mr. McMA'STER: What is the future for the two minerals which are most abundant in the Eastern Townships, copper and asbestos?


Martin Burrell: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend detailed information on that, not expecting my Estimates to come up this afternoon, but I shall be very glad

to take a note of it and let him have full information.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Has the minister ever visited the asbestos quarries there?


Martin Burrell: I have not. It is very difficult to visit all parts of Canada, and I am criticised for not visiting parts of my own province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this geological research work carried on systematically? Is the whole province of Nova Scotia, for instance, covered?


Martin Burrell: 'Speaking ibroadly, we are covering the whole country. In Nova Scotia we shall complete this year the geological mapping of areas at Lockeport and Sable River. It is also proposed to make the geological surveys necessary for the compilation of large scale plans of gold mines situate in Yarmouth county. Southwestern Nova Scotia will also be visited for the purpose of examining new developments and discoveries that have been made in that territory. The geological work necessary to a report on the Sydney coal area will also be completed this year. Further structural work will also be done in respect to the Malaguash salt deposits. My hon. friend will understand that it may take geologists three years to get sufficient data before they can put out a map which will be of real value to the man who is going in to take up development work; it is necessarily continuous work. During the war we have practically confined our attention to work that would give immediate results. Answering my hon. friend's question broadly, I would say yes, we cover the whole country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the department reports on the researches of Mr. Fletcher, for instance? He is a very able man and has been in the department many years.


Martin Burrell: We have a complete record of every geologist's work, and I will make a point of looking up the reports my hon. friend refers to and let him have copies.
Grant to the Canadian Mining Institute, $3,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any co-operation in research work and the testing of minerals, and so forth, between the Dominion and the provincial departments of mines? In Nova Scotia, for instance, we have a pretty well organized department of mines.


Martin Burrell: All our officers keep in touch with the work of the provincial departments. Only recently we had a communication from the Minister of Mines in Nova Scotia with reference to assistance in regard to the salt deposits I spoke of just now, and which they thought were possibly of commercial value. We are only too glad to co-operate in every way we can and to put at the disposal of the provinces any of our experts who can help them in the solution of any problem that will enure to their benefit.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We get very excellent results from co-operation between the Dominion and provincial governments in the matter of agriculture, for instance, and I see no reason why we should not get good results from co-operation between the departments of mines.


Martin Burrell: Our department keeps in sympathetic touch with the provincial departments and we are always ready to cooperate.
Weights and Measures, Gas and Electric Eight Inspection, $417,510.


Mr.  A. K. MAGLEAN@: The item for the salaries of inspectors and assistant inspectors of Weights and Measures and Preventive Service, while apparently showing an increase of 318,000, has been actually increased by only 35,000. Last year that
318,000	was contained in the Estimates of the Department of Inland Revenue, which has been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
The items therefore with the exception of that $5,000, are the same as last year. That additional amount seems to be necessary.
Civil Government-Department of Trade and Commerce-salaries including Deputy Minister at $6,000 and Solicitor of Patents and Copyrights at $6,000, $415,950 ; contingencies, $38,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that a new office?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: That vote of $6,000 is for Mr. O'Halloran who was deputy minister of Agriculture until about a year and a half ago. He was placed in charge of the administration of the Patent Act and under Order in Council his office was designated as Solicitor of Patents. The Committee will perhaps remember that a few days ago a Bill passed this House giving the office the new designation of Commissioner of Patents. This votes the supply for him.


Mr. BELAND:: Does this include the salaries paid to commercial agents in Europe?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, that item is passed.
To provide for the expenses, including salaries and contingencies of the Canada Trade Commission, $100,600.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: While we are obliged to ask for this vote to cover the expenses of the Canada Trade Commission, it is not expected that it will cost the country anything as a charge is made for all Canadian goods that are sold under credit. We expect that there will be no cost to the country for the administration of the Commission.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What trade commissioners have we, apart from special commissioners, operating in Canada or in other parts of the world?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We passed the
item which relates to my honourable friend's question and I am perhaps hardly in a position to answer him accurately. We have in Australia a trade commissioner, Mr. D. H. Ross, who is at present in Canada. We have a commissioner in China; his name also is Ross and he is at present in Canada. We have two commissioners in South America, one in Scotland and one in England.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Have you one in Holland?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have none in Holland.


Henri Sévérin Béland: You have an agent in
Rotterdam?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think we have a trade agent in Rotterdam.


Henri Sévérin Béland: You have a representative; I have been in his office many times.


Mr.  A. K. MAGLEAN@: What is his name?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I forget at this moment.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I presume my hon. friend is correct. 'It is proposed to extend the number of our trade commissioners abroad, but just at the present time, owing to the difficulties in carrying on trade, it has not been deemed advisable to increase the number. When normal trade conditions are resumed the world over, I think we may very profitably appoint further commissioners.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The reason I mention this particular branch of the service is that from information which has come to me-and I do not wish to specify-there are certain of the trade commissioners of Canada who are absolutely out of date, unqualified to



perform the reasonable functions of trade commissioners and have been " asleep at the switch for many years, as I think they will admit themselves. They have not been in complete touch with the Government and are not energetically carrying on the work for which they were appointed. ' I would like the minister to take notice of the conditions and see if the whole system should not be surveyed and. possibly bettered by replacing these men and putting younger and more aggressive men in the service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think my hon. friend's criticism is hardly applicable to recent appointments. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has made it a practice in recent years to appoint young men with university education and some little business experience and capacity. I think that my hon. friend's remarks might possibly be true in reference to some of the older appointments.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister point to any results which have come to us by reason of these trade agents or commissioners, or are they merely figureheads, or gentlemen abroad disporting themselves at the expense of the country? Unless the trade of this country is expanding by reason of these gentlemen being, here and there as representing us; unless we are getting advantages in trade; unless our trade is increasing and new avenues are being opened up to Canada by reason of these commissioners, they would not appear to me to be serving any useful purpose. I presume that these agents are supposed to make a report to the Minister of Trade and Commerce every year, and it would be interesting to know how the trade of Canada is developing in the places where they are operating. It would be well for them to understand that the Parliament of Canada has a keen eye upon this service in different parts of tlm world and that we are anxious to see what they are doing. If they are, as the hon. member for North Perth '(Mr. Morphy) said, " asleep at the switch," we might as well take them home, leave the switch alone, or appoint somebody else who will earn the salary and work to the greater advantage of the country. I am not speaking with anybody in view, but I have reason to suspect that in many instances we are not getting any great practical results from this service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is very difficult for me to answer in detail my hon. friend's criticism, but I think it cannot be said of any of our commissioners that they do not

earn their salaries or do not perform a service to Canada. I know that in the case of the South African agent, Mr. Egan, trade has been developed owing to his efforts and the department is very much impressed with his work. The same might be said of Mr. Ross in Australia. I think in every case they have performed a valuable service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is also my impression. Last year I was for a number of weeks in Holland, particularly in Rotterdam. I had the opportunity of going through the office of the representative of the Canadian Trade and Commerce Department in that city, and though it was during the war I could judge what an amount of work that official was performing and what important service he was rendering to Canadian trade in the way of imparting valuable information. Although at that time transportation facilities were curtailed to a large degree, he was able to supply any amount of useful information which will be available now that the war is ended. In the city of Antwerp there was formerly a Canadian trade agent but a few weeks,, or a few days perhaps, before the war broke out, he died, and the vacancy caused by his death has not yet been filled. Antwerp, while not the city it was in the past, is an important port of embarkation for passengers, including emigrants, and I look upon the trade agency there as invaluable and almost indispensable in the interests of Canada. I would urge upon the minister to replace the trade agent there immediately. No doubt at an early date Belgians will be seeking admission to this country, especially gardeners, who will be most useful to Canada, because our population does not consume sufficient vegetables, a fact which is well known to the medical profession. We need very badly the presence in Canada of Belgian gardeners, and we should invite those men to come here, but they will not embark upon the enterprise unless they can be supplied with proper information regarding this country. A Canadian trade agent in Antwerp would meet that requirement adequately. I imagine the vacancy in the office of trade agent is to be filled, and I would urge the minister to take the question up immediately. I have nobody particular in my mind, but if the minister wants me to select a trade agent for him I can assure him I will recommend the best man that is available either here or in Belgium.
Department of Militia and Defence-Annual drill, $350,000.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the minister explain what the policy of the department is with regard to the question of annual drill?
Major-General MEWBURN: We are trying to re-organize the militia units in Canada and it is possible, in fact probable, that some of the city corps may be required to train this fall at local headquarters. The item is needed to make provision for that in case of necessity, otherwise the vote will not be used.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it intended to hold the annual drills all over the country this year?
Major-General MEWBURN:	No. That
$350,000 is asked for in the event of some city corps being called out to drill at their own local headquarters. It is doubtful whether they will be required to do so., but we are asking for this amount in case of necessity. I do not expect the money will be needed, at least I hope not, but in the event of some of the city corps- of the active militia being called upon to drill at the local headquarters, the money will be available for tlhat purpose.
Militia-Grants	to associations, further
amount required, $55,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are there many rifle associations in Canada?
Major-General MEWBURN: Rifle associations are organized in every military district. We have Dominion and provincial rifle associations, and they are all getting on the-ir feet again. There are eleven districts, and in 'addition there must be twenty or thirty rifle associations all over the country.
Maintenance of military Properties, further amount required, $2-5,000.


William Cameron Edwards: What amount has already been voted for this purpose?
Major-General MEWBURN: One hundred and fifty thousand, but a further amount is demanded owing to the increased cost of fuel and light. The expenditure for this purpose last year was $173,000. The appropriation already made fails to take care of requirements and unless .there is a further provision we shall be short about $25,000.
Permanent force, further amount required, $3,496,986.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Am I right in supposing that this vote is required in view of the increase in the force which has been already the subject of discussion?
Major-General MEWBURN: In this estimate we provide for 399 officers and 5,000
285i
of other ranks. Then there is the fact about which I spoke the other 'night; we may have to, and I think we will, increase the pay of the rank and file to the same rate as that of t'he Northwest Mounted Police. The present vote does not provide for any more troops over and above the
5,000	already referred to.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: In what manner will any increase in the number of troops be provided for? Is it covered in the Main Estimates?	,
Major-General MEWBURN: Does the hon. gentleman refer to any excess over 5,000? We may not have to make any increase, but if we do we will add one squadron of Royal Canadian Dragoons and one squadron of Strathcona Horse.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: How many will that represent?
Major-General MEWBURN: About 350 in the case of the two squadrons. We have not made any provision here for any additional men in excess of the 5,000.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Where are these units of the permanent force stationed?
Major-General MEWRUHN:	The permanent force includes A, B, and C Batteries of field artillery, which will be located at Quebec and Kingston, and there may also be one in the West. The garrison and fortress artillery will be stationed at Quebec, Halifax, and Esquimalt, B.O. The headquarters of the Royal Canadian Dragoons are at Toronto, and the Strathcona Horse are at present located at Calgary. If any separation is made of that unit, part will be stationed at Winnipeg and part at Calgary. Should the Dragoons be increased in number, two squadrons will be stationed at Toronto, which is the centre of that district, and possibly one in this district. We propose to distribute the infantry at Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, London, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, and British Columbia. In addition, there will be the, engineers, army medical corps, army service corps, and so forth. But that will be distributed among the various military districts throughout the country.
Civil Government-Civil Service Commission- Salaries including Secretary at $4,006, Chief of Organization Branch at $2,800, $79,7-50 ; contingencies, $60,060.
Mr. EDWARDS What salary does the secretary of the commission receive?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think $3,200 or $3,400.


Mr. McMASTEE:: The contingencies
seem to me to constitute a very large sum in comparison with the definite vote. Perhaps the minister oan afford some explanation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That amount is required to pay temporary examiners and to meet the cost of holding the different examinations required by law, including the amount required for extra clerical assistance. The estimated cost of this is $30,000; printing and stationery, $10,000; sundries, $5,000; and advertising in connection with special positions to be filled by competition, $15,000.	.


William Cameron Edwards: The junior and senior matriculation examinations are recognized throughout the country as definite standards signifying a certain degree of general education. Are standards of that kind recognized without any further examination, or must any and every person who wants to get into the Civil Service pass an examination set by the Civil Service Board ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not speak definitely, but my recollection is that every person under the Act as it now stands must pass an examination. Under the amendments proposed in the Bill, which is likely to stand over until next session, it was intended to abandon the general Civil Service examination, and applicants for appointment to the Service would be required to pass an examination having reference to the position to be filled. A university examination would not be accepted as an equivalent.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It seems to me that candidates for the Civil Service who possess the degree of bachelor of arts from any of our universities ought not to be required to pass the ordinary examination. I wonder if the Civil Service Commission would have power to pass a regulation to that effect for a certain class of positions, or if the law as it is proposed to be amended will preclude them from doing so?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no doubt that under the classification, a university degree might be accepted so far as the general educational qualifications were concerned. But in all cases where special duties are to be performed the applicant would have to pass an examination thereon.


William Cameron Edwards: I asked the question because I think that the system which has been followed, and which I understand from the minister is intended to be followed,

strikes me as absolutely ridiculous. The examinations set by the Civil Service Commission are in many oases no test at all, -catchy questions which are not a test of a man's qualifications. You have only to look over the examination papers of the past to agree with me in that, Mr. Chairman. Why should not a university degree be accepted for at least the great bulk of the positions in the Civil Service? In fact, I think the standard of matriculation as indicative of a oandidaJte's general education might very well be accepted for nine-tenths of the positions in the service. I can readily understand that there would be some positions requiring special 'qualifications, and I agree that special examinations would be necessary in such cases.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The proposed amendments will bring about that which the hon. member contends for.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not understand that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I draw the attention of my hon. friend to the salaries of the commissioners? How is it that the commissioners, appointed with the understanding that they would have the status of deputy ministers, do not receive the salaries of deputy ministers? They receive $5,000, while deputy ministers receive $6,000. I remember that some years ago, when this commission was created the right hon. the Prime Minister, who ithen led the Opposition stated that in his judgment the commissioners should be considered as judges as to their tenure of office.
They were given responsibilities which would certainly entitle them to the status of deputy ministers. In my judgment, their responsibilities are as great as, if not greater than, those of ordinary deputy ministers, and I do not see why Mr. Eoehe, Mr. Jameson and Mr. La Eochelle should not be treated as deputy ministers. In paragraph 2, section 9, of the Act creating the Civil Service Commission, I find the following:
The rank, standing and salary of each commissioner shall be that of Deputy Minister of a department and each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
The Act of 1912, providing for the addition of one member to the commission confirmed the status of the commissioners in the following words:
The rank, standing and salary of each commissioner shall be those of a deputy head of a

department and each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour and shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and House of Commons.
The Civil Service Act of 1918 also confirms the status of the commissioners in the following terms:
The rank and standing of each commissioner shall be that of a deputy head. Each commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour but shall be removable by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the House of Commons.
I hold no brief for the commission, but as their rank and status have been repeatedly fixed by Act of Parliament, and as we have increased the salaries of deputy ministers from 55,000 to $6,000, I .do not see why the Civil Service Commissioners, having regard to the responsibilities of the office, should not be treated on a footing of equality with deputy ministers.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Personally I am not disposed to disagree with what my hon. friend says. The Bill which is now before the House to amend the Civil Service Act provides a salary of $6,000 for the two commissioners whose names my hon. friend has mentioned. It is not the intention of the Government to proceed with that legislation this session, but it will be one of the first matters disposed of at the coming October session, and when that Bill is passed the suggestion made by my hon. friend will be met. I may point out that there is a difference between deputy ministers and other persons in the service who hold the rank of deputy heads. Under the Civil Service Act many persons are given the rank of deputy for the purpose of the performances of certain duties required by the Civil Service Act of heads of branches. For certain purposes-, therefore, officials are sometimes given the rank of deputy head.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Am I to understand that by the legislation which will be brought down next session, these commissioners will be placed on the basis that I have suggested?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is in the Bill now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What I want to know is whether it is the intention of the Government to live up to the written promise therein contained.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
Resolutions reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Consideration of a message from the Senate insisting upon their amendment made to Bill No. 107, to confirm the Order in Council of the twenty-fourth day of February 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the twelfth day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof.-the Prime Minister.
Robert Laird Borden: I need not repeat the considerations which were set forth in the reasons transmitted to the Senate on account of which this House did not concur in the amendment proposed by the Senate. The message just received informs this House that the Senate insist upon their amendment. In the hope that possibly a conference might result in composing the difference between the two Houses with regard to this Bill, I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with Their Honours to consider Bill 107, intituled "An Act to confirm the Order in Council of the twenty-fourth day of February, 1919, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Order in Council of the twelfth day of April, 1919, in amendment thereof,'' and any amendment which at such conference it may be considered desirable to make thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Hon. Arthur Meighen (Acting Minister of Justice) for the second reading of Bill No. 166, to constitute a Board of Commerce for Canada.
Jacques Bureau: Mr. Speaker, I have only one word to add to what I said previously, but before I do so I want to re-affirm what I said before, namely, that it is rather late in the session to bring forward such an important measure as this one, and I for one do not want to assume any responsibility in the matter. I do not, however, want to be understood as objecting to the Bill; any measure which will tend to restrain combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers and the enhancement of the price of commodities, has my sympathy. But I do not believe that we ought to be called upon to make a pronouncement or

to assume any responsibility when such important legislation as this is brought down, to use a stereotyped phrase, in the dying hours of the session. I have looked over Bill No. 166, and I find matters to which exception can be taken and matters to be discussed in committee as the sections are read; but there is one thing in particular which affects the principle of the Bill and to which I desire to call the attention of the House. The Bill constitutes a tribunal to enforce the Combines and Fair Prices Act, 1919. In one of these two Bills-I do not know which one it is as they are. so closely interwoven-it is stated that the two Bills shall and ought to be read together of course, for otherwise you cannot have a fair or intelligent understanding of the Bill. In other words, Bill No. 166 creates the tool which is to be used in working out the object of Bill No. 167. Bill No. 166 creates a tribunal to try an offence which is not yet before the House, that offence being in Bill No. 167. I may be wrong, but, in my opinion, in this case the cart is before the horse; let that however, be as it may. The principle of the Bill is to invest a tribunal with powers similar to those of the Railway Commission as regards railway matters, but to deal with those matters which form part of Bill No. 167, namely, to investigate and restrain combines and monopolies. After this tribunal has been vested with wide powers to investigate all these matters and to pronounce upon them, and after the procedure under which the investigation shall be held is determined, clause 41 of the Bill states:
The Governor in Council may, in his discretion, either upon petition of any person interested, lodged within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation-
This is the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation by the .board which is to be created under this Bill. It goes on:
-or within such further time as the board, under special circumstances may allow, or of his own motion, at any time-
After all that has been done, after all these investigations have been held, and after all these rules and regulations and judgments have been made-
The Governor in Council may	of
his own motion, at any time, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, Whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application.
This whole system-the court which is to be created and the procedure which it is to

follow-is subject to the whim, I might say, of the Governor in Council, who can upset it with a stroke of his pen. If the Government is in earnest, if they are not merely trying to throw dust in the eyes of the people, let the board have full power, and -if any wrong done by the board needs righting, let it be done by the judiciary of Canada; let it be done by the Supreme Court. That is one of my objections to this Bill.	,
There are other things in it which do not please me, but which are matters of opinion and can be discussed when the Bill is in Committee. Certain changes will have to be made undoubtedly, because I notice that some clauses conflict with others, but that we can discuss later. Now I do not want people to go out and say to-morrow that I am against the principle of this Bill. I am willing to support anything that will ease conditions and help reduce the cost of living, if that is possible. What I object to is that such important legislation as this should be brought down at this late hour of the session, when hon, members have not an opportunity to consider it thoroughly before passing judgment upon it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the merits of the Bill. I have no doubt the Bill has merits, and if we had time to give it the consideration which a measure of this character deserves, we might be able to mature a piece of legislation which would be of some value when placed upon the statute-books. This Bill is. to be read, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has stated, in conjunction with another Bill relating to combines. The two Bills are twins, Siamese twins in fact, because they are absolutely united, and must be considered together. I have no doubt, in view of the discussion we have had from time to time during several years [DOT] over combines, that there is a feeling that some sort of tribunal might be created that could, give us better administration of our commercial practices than we have at present. I can sympathize with that view, and at the present time, when the question of the high cost of living is engaging so much attention, I can understand the desire of some hon. gentlemen to have some such legislation placed on the statute-books. I am satisfied, however, that these Bills, whatever their merits may be, are not likely to give any immediate or early relief in this very important question of the high cost of living. I believe that if we are to look to these Bills to serve that purpose we shall be much

disappointed in their results. I quite understand that if these measures could be discussed with great deliberation and the attention that should be given to them, the Government might in the end be able to produce a piece of useful legislation. My observations are not by way of criticism of the Bill, but I should like to be able to persuade the Government if I could of the unwisdom of attempting to proceed with matters of this important character in the last hours of the session-for they are the last hours of the session. It is commonly understood-may I not say, almost officially understood-that Parliament is to prorogue on Saturday? And this is Thursday night. Is it seriously contemplated that two Bills so important as this, in addition to other legislation, can be got through this House, especially if they are to be opposed in any quarter, sent to the Senate and be considered with the deliberation to which they are entitled, before Saturday evening? If the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) were in his place I would ask him to adopt the rule, which is sometimes a useful one, of putting one's self in the other fellow's place. If the Prime Minister instead of occupying his present high place was sitting as the leader of the Opposition, as he did before, I think he would have difficulty in finding adequate language in which to denounce a Government which could bring forward legislation of this character but a few hours before the close of the session. I do believe that if the Government attempts to get these Bills through they will fail. It is almost physically impossible to get them through if Parliament is to prorogue on Saturday, and even if they were to get them through I am sure they would be in a condition which probably at a later stage the Government would very much regret. I believe they are among the most important Bills presented this session, I believe there is no body which you could create as to which there would be more difficulty in defining its rights, powers and authority than the board provided for in this Bill. It is in a measure akin to the Bankruptcy Bill. Let us see how that was treated. There had been talk for twenty years about the desirability and importance of a bankruptcy law, and last year a Bankruptcy Bill was brought in by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). The general character of that Bill was approved, but even then the feeling was that a measure of so much importance affecting the trade interests of the country ought not to be proceeded with in a hurry, and the
Bill was laid aside, printed and distributed among the trade organizations of the country. Then, this year, the Government took it up and carried it through; and I have no doubt it is a very good piece of legislation. If that process of delay and deliberation was necessary in connection with the enactment of a Bankruptcy law, should we not have as much deliberation in the creation of this new and very important and very difficult tribunal? I do not want to argue on the merits of the Bill at all, but I am persuaded that if the Government should succeed in getting the Bill through, of which I have grave doubt, they will have a piece of legislation which will be imperfect, and which I believe they will regret. I earnestly plead for them to let the matter stand over after this discussion to-night and give it further consideration, and at the next session, whenever it may be, bring down a more mature measure, and then they may place on the statute-books something which may be of value.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: The importance of this measure seems to be the chief reason why hon. gentlemen who have spoken against it would have it held over until another session. In that connection it is well to ask ourselves, if the Bill is important why is it important? It is important chiefly for the reason that from one end of this country to the other there is a feeling that something must be done before this Parliament prorogues to grapple with the question of the high cost of living, and the undue profiteering which so many of our people believe is enchancing that cost.
If the committee that has been investigating this subject for the past four weeks had brought in a report recommending something that was not important, something that was meaningless and trivial, would the House have been ready to pass a resolution commending it for having done that -kind of work? In that connection I would like to refer briefly to what has been saicj of the manner in which the committee did its work. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) said, two or three days iago, that the work of the committee had been more or less of a perfunctory character and that the evidence had been taken in such a way as to render it practically impossible to reach anything in the nature jof a definite conclusion.


William Stevens Fielding: I may say that I did not say that the work was of a perfunctory

character. I said that in so far as they were able to do it at all, it was done well.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Archibald Blake McCoig: I rise for the purpose of taking the stand in the House that I took in the committee, and in that regard I wish to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has to a certain extent voiced my sentiments. The hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) in the excellent and forceful speech which he delivered this afternoon probably made his finest effort in this House. He took the stand that the great need at this time was to grant assistance to the people of Canada by reducing -the tariff on the necessaries of life, as a result of which he would have greater competition and do away with many of the combines which now exist. He stated that the high cost of shoes, articles so essential to the people of every community, is attributable to the fact that the duty is somewhere in the neighbourhood of thirty or forty per cent. If this duty were reduced it would result in greater competition among the shoe manufacturers, and the price of shoes would in consequence be reduced. We know that many people in the border cities of the province of Ontario are in the habit of
smuggling in shoes from the United States because they can get them so much cheaper in the country to the south than they can in the large centres of the province. Is it not evident that if the duty on footwear was reduced our people would be able to buy shoes at as low a rate as they can be purchased for in the United States?
The hon. gentleman who lhas just resumed his seat claims that the added cost of producing foodstuffs by reason of the tariff on agricultural implements, only represents a fraction of one per cent. Let me remind the hon. gentleman, who is Chairman of the Committee which conducted the inquiry into the high cost of living, that at that committee I asked for an investigation into the enormous profits that two of the largest corporations of the country are making out of the producers of foodstuffs, but he ruled my motion out of order, and it was voted down by a majority composed of supporters of the Government. Let the hon. gentleman deny that if he can. I proved to him that in one instance there was a spread of $800 between the value of tractors that are being brought into Canada and the price at which they were sold here, and what did the hon. gentleman say? He declared the matter to be one which should not be investigated, because it was not pertinent to the production of foodstuffs. I cited another instance where the spread amounted to $1,000, and1 still the hon. gentleman said the question was not pertinent to the inquiry.


George Brecken Nicholson: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to make a correction?


Archibald Blake McCoig: Certainly.


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. gentleman has misstated what I said in the committee. I made no such statement as that the price of tractors did not enter into the cost of producing foodstuffs.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Did not the hon. gentleman rule my resolution out of order?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, I ruled the resolution out of order, and if the time was opportune I would tell the House why I did so. *


Archibald Blake McCoig: I ask the Chairman of the Committee why he ruled out of order my resolution to investigate a spread such as I have stated between the cost of tractors brought into Canada and the price- at which they are* sold to the people of this country?


George Brecken Nicholson: Does the hon. gentleman wish a reply to the question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr G. B. Nicholson) has already spoken in reply to the hon. member for Kent, Ontario. It is very unusual for an hon. gentleman who has the floor to interrogate another hon. member.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The proposition I wished
to have investigated by the committee was why the food producers of Canada should be charged so much for the implements they so greatly need in their work, when the cry is going up on all sides for increased production. In my opinion, the committee did not carry its investigation far enough. As the hon, gentleman (Mr. Fielding) has said, the committee did not probe the matter to the extent that would enable them in ' bringing in an intelligent report at the present time. More than that, I maintain that the present Bill was submitted to the committee in draft form long before they had made any progress in their investigation, and even long before the committee had been appointed to take up that investigation. I challenge the hon. gentleman (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) to deny the statement. Under that draft Bill the chairman of the proposed commission or/ board was to be a judge or a lawyer who had practised at least ten years, and he was to receive a salary of $8,000 a year. Will the chairman of the committee deny that statment?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, I will deny it.
Mr. MoOOIG: Not only did the Bill provide for a chairman, but he was to have high-salaried assistants. It seems to me, therefore, that the object of this investigation was not so much to ascertain whether the people were paying too much for the foodstuffs as it was to create another commission and give some friends of the Government a few fat jobs at great expense to the country. What we really want to see carried out is the proposition which Mr. W. F. O'Connor advocated-the appointment of a public prosecutor to inquire into the operations of these trusts, combines, and corporations, and, where they are found guilty of extorting exorbitant profits from the consumers, bring them before the courts of the country and mete out even-handed justice to them-mulct them heavily in fines and place the money in the treasury to assist in carrying on the public affairs of Canada.
This, Sir, is what I have advocated from the start. We have judges galore in every province not employed to any great extent,

and the Government has seen fit from time to time to place them on various commissions. Then why not establish a court of judges in each province and appoint public prosecutors to bring cases before them and so carry out this work at a much less expense than will be possible under this measure presented by the Government? Those prosecutors can bring profiteering individuals before these courts, and the latter will see that a fair deal is handed out at much less cost to the people than this commission to be appointed under this Bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me go a step further. In this Bill we are to have these men appointed as a Board of Commerce. Would it not be better for the Government to remember that they appointed during the war that great commission known as the Food Board? That was an example the Government copied from the great United States, and in placing that commission over this little country of ours they did it at an expense equal to that of the Board established by the great nation to the south of us. Will the Government deny the fact that the Food Board has done more to place the present Administration in disfavour with the people than any other of the many commissions they have appointed? I predict that if the Government appoint this proposed commission, which will draw thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars out of the treasury, without giving any effective aid to the consumers, the Government will have a repetition of the Food Board,-a commission which will put them in still greater disfavour with the plain people, and will lead to their defeat whenever the time comes for an appeal to the great electors of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bear my testimony to the assiduity with which the Committee carried out its work from the day it was appointed until it presented its .report. I entirely agree that no body of men in this House could have worked harder than the members of the -Committee whose work we are discussing to-night. I quite concur with the views of the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when he says, as I understand him to say, that the investigation by the Committee was inadequate. But it was inadequate because it was impossible to perform such a task in the short space of time left to the Committee.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so; that is my statement.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: This work could very well occupy the best minds of this House for many months instead of a few weeks, for the ramifications of every branch of industry are such that weeks might be taken to cover all the details of one industry alone.
I submit that the committee made a serious and earnest effort to follow up some branches, and a great deal of information was obtained. The net result of it, to my mind, is that any profiteering that is going on in this country is not general, but is isolated. I do not think, there is any one industry, so far as our investigation went, that could be charged with the general practice of profiteering. We discovered that one industry is conducted efficiently, and another ia conducted inefficiently; one consequently makes more profit than the other. One will sometimes make a profit running up to 30 per cent. That might be called profiteering. As- a matter of fact, it was not, but the owner had greater efficiency and worked longer hours, and therefore produced more goods. When it came to boiling it down, his profit on the turn-over was not any greater, or as great in some instances, as that of the man who made very much less. Let me illustrate my point in this way: WTe had the director of the Experimental Farm before us and he gave us this evidence. He said: There are some farmers in this country keeping twenty cows, and they will get from each of those cows about
5.000	pounds of milk a year. There are other farmers in the same county or township with twenty cows who will get from each of those cows 10,000 pounds of milk a year. Manifestly the man who is getting
10.000	pounds of milk from each cow is going to make a good deal more money than the man who is getting only 5,000 pounds. He has the same labour cost, the same capital expenditure for barns and all that kind of thing; of course, he has to buy a little more feed and has a better grade of cows. But the one is an efficient farmer and the other is an inefficient farmer. And I submit that as long as human nature is what it is efficiency will always make a higher profit than inefficiency. We had the same thing illustrated in the case of butter. One man operate ing a creamery down on Lake Ontario was able to induce the farmers of the neighbourhood of Renfrew, where there is a competing creamery, to put their butterfat on the railway car and send it down to him at Belleville. He also drew butterfat for his butter from Trenton, and there is a creamery at Trenton. Now, manifestly that man operating at Belleville is a much more
efficient man than his competitors at Renfrew and Trenton, because he satisfies the men who produce the butterfat, and he satisfies his customers, for he has a sale for every pound of butter as soon as he makes it, while other creamery men testified to us that they had considerable quantities on hand. That man had a small capital, but he made a very large return upon it. Are you going to penalize him and call him a profiteer because he has extraordinary efficiency and brain power and exceptional industry and works long hours in order to produce a large profit on his business? I submit that that kind of man should get the praise of the people, not their scorn and their blame. No committee that this House may appoint can possibly go into the details of the various lines of business connected with the necessaries of life and get out the facts in isolated cases where there is profiteering.
We had a great deal of evidence to convince me that those who produce on the farms of this country are on the average earning a very small wage-revenue for the work they do. I think the Guelph College made a survey of the whole county of Oxford and reported that the average wage-revenue of the farmer was $1,200. A man can come into the city of Ottawa and make $1,400 or $1,500 a year running a street car. So that the average farmer is not making what he ought to make. But individual farmers are making a considerable revenue, due, perhaps, to a large capital being employed and to greater efficiency in operating the farm. But that greater efficiency should not be penalized; it is something for which the man should be praised, not blamed, as I said before. I think there is something to be done, Mr. Speaker, to familiarize the people with the fact I am trying to bring out-that if there is profiteering in Canada to-day, it is in isolated instances, and it is due to exceptional genius on the part of the man who is conducting the industry.
The outcry about profiteering and the unrest that is the consequence of it is due largely to what has happened during .the last three or four years. Men who have been making munitions, clothing for the army, and other necessaries of war, have made enormous fortunes. But these men had been urged by the Imperial Government to operate their plants at double time, and they worked two and sometimes three shifts a day. There were factories in this country which were working not eight hours, but twenty-four hours a day; and a man whose plant was operating twenty-

four hours a. day would surely make a great deal more money than a man whose plant was operating only eight hours a day, because his output would he three times as large. Under these conditions the making of large fortunes was inevitable. This condition of affairs does not exist to-day and will not exist in the future. I doubt very much whether large fortunes are being made in any industry of this country today. As I say, there may be isolated instances, but no branch of industry has been making anything like the profits that were made during the last few years and which were due entirely to the fact that the men engaged in these industries were urged to speed up production.
The Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) tells us in his Budget speech that the only solution for our present troubles is more production-produce and save. If a man follows that advice and exercises all his talents in the operation of his industry, whether it be a farm, a planing mill or an implement factory, he is to be commended for it. The law takes care of his excess profits. There is no such incentive now to make large profits as there was a short time ago. I believe that men should be advised and urged at this particular time to produce to the very limit of the capacity of their plants. The world is short of everything that people want-of clothing, of boots and shoes, of wheat, of butter, of other necessaries of life. Only one thing will restore normal conditions, and that is production -over-production, if that is possible-production to the last limit of our capacity. That mdans more profit, and it comes from greater efficiency. I submit that if out of the stress and strain of the last four years and out of the necessities of the present time we can learn to operate our businesses, whether they be agriculture or manufacturing or the working of the natural resources of the country, at a higher rate of efficiency, we shall be on the high road to prosperity and to the removal of all the unrest that, exists. That man who to-day has the means and the genius to operate his plant on two shifts instead of one is a public benefactor. He employs twice as many men; he is entitled to just twice as much profit, and as a public benefactor he should be encouraged. I believe that the people, whether they be farmers or manufacturers or mechanics in the workshops of our cities, are willing to meet all the taxes that the country imposes upon them, provided those taxes are within the bounds of reason. The Canadian people as a whole want to get 
to work with a view to bringing the country back to normal conditions; only an isolated individual is looking for excessive profits.
As to this Bill, I think-and my conclusion is based upon a very serious and earnest examination of the facts-that the people are looking for a measure such as this, and the sooner it is enacted the better it will be for the country. It will have a splendid effect upon the morale of the people. If any man has a grievance, he will be able to take it to the Court of Commerce [DOT]and have it adjusted. I disagree with the view of the member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) with regard to the desirability of appointing a public prosecutor, though I recognize the sincerity of his view and admit that there is some force in it. But a public prosecutor takes a profiteer before a court of justice where all the rules of evidence are strictly adhered to; where clever counsel are able to impose barriers in the way of getting at the very evidence that may be necessary in order to bring about a removal of the grievance complained of. One of the Bills before us is to create a tribunal after the type of the Railway Board before which any citizen can appear, state his grievance and have it adjudicated. He can go before that board without engaging expensive counsel; he can make this own case and fight it out, and get not law, but justice. The equity of the case will be considered; the rules of evidence will not be used to prevent the bringing out of all the facts. If this measure is put into effect it will be an intimation to the people that Parliament is doing what it can to reduce the cost of living. I very much doubt whether this Parliament is able to reduce the cost of living; I very much doubt whether any agency in this or any other country can reduce the cost of living at the present time. World-wide conditions are operating to raise prices, and these conditions cannot be done away with merely by enacting a statute or establishing a court; they can only be settled by the people getting back to work and economizing. Our trouble, is on the one hand, a desire-on the part of men who work to cut the working day in half, or pretty nearly in half, and on the other hand a desire on the -part of others to indulge in all kinds of extravagance. While either of these conditions prevails the cost of living, will continue to be up to its present level, or will even go higher. The people have to be educated to the fact that nothing will bring us back to normal conditions tout in-

dustry and economy; and I think it would be worth while if a greater effort were made to acquaint the people with the truth of that general principle. But, while that is a proper thing to do, the appointment of a tribunal such as this, a tribunal that will enable any citizen to have his case investigated, will remove ninety-five per cent of the dissatisfaction, of the grouching, that is going on, and of the causes of complaint against Government and against Parliament. For these reasons I am a supporter of these Bills 'and hope that they will be adopted by the House.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to clear up a point raised by the member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) as to the action of the Chairman of the Special Committee in ruling out some motion which he presented for the calling of witnesses in regard to the tractor industry. My recollection is that the hon-gentleman, on the first day that the committee met, submitted a motion that certain witnesses be called from Winnipeg to give testimony with regard to certain tractors which were imported into that city.
The method which the committee was adopting was to plan out in regular order and sequence the character of the inquiry which, as the time was very limited, had to be very carefully considered, and the first point upon which they were agreed was that nothing but the necessaries of life, such as the production of butter, eggs, meat, etc., should be investigated first, and there was no attempt on the part of the chairman nor any of the members of the committee to have the hon. member's motion ruled out of order, and it was not ruled out of order-


Archibald Blake McCoig: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James McCrie Douglas: Just a
moment,-until a vote was taken, and the hon. gentleman challenged the finding of the chairman.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I take exception to the statement of the hon. member. My resolution was ruled out of order. The minutes of the committee have been censored, and everything that was said in connection with that matter has been eliminated from the report, and the hon. member cannot deny that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I understood that the hon. member (Mr. McCoig) was rising to ask a question. I am afraid he has hardly done so.


James McCrie Douglas: I wish to state further that the sittings of the committee were carried on without any party bias of that kind until it was introduced by two hon. gentlemen who, I might say, did not attend the sessions of that committee as frequently as they might have done, so that they might have heard all that was going on. I am heartily in sympathy with this Bill. I have followed the proceedings of the committee very carefully, having attended, with few exceptions, every session the committee has held. I heard the. evidence that was produced in connection with every phase of the work this committee has undertaken, and I do not need to say that the committee has worked exceedingly hard. When you consider that the whole domestic trade of the Dominion of Canada is confided to the oare of a Board of Commerce such as is proposed in this Bill, I feel that it is of vast importance that a measure such as this should be carried into effect at once. The sum of all the evidence which we have heard from any man who appeared before the committee was in favour of the establishment of such a board. These men were men who might be affected by the operations of this board, but they felt that, in justice to themselves and to the business which they conducted, such a board should be created, because they were subjected to unjust criticism which could be cleared up by an independent hoard which would investigate these cases and decide upon them upon their merits. For that reason I am in entire accord with this Bill. If there is one subject which is agitating the minds of the people of Canada at the present time, it is this question of so-called profiteering. I am in accord with a great deal that has been said by the hon. member for Toronto East (Mr. Hocken), that the statements which have been given out as to unjust profiteering have not been borne out by the facts which have been brought out in committee. But that is all the more reason why a board, such as is contemplated in this Bill, should be established for the very purpose of protecting the men who are engaged in the industries of this country and giving them a fair chance to allow their initiative and enterprise to be properly rewarded. I do not wish to delay the House any further; I hope that, even though this session is nearly closed, the members will realize the importance of this Bill being passed and the value which it will be to the people of Canada.

*1506


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (Oxford North):: I did not wish to speak on this question tonight until we got into Committee, as there are some clauses in the Bill which I do not quite agree with, hut I was very much surprised to hear the attack made by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. MeOoig) on the chairman of the committee. I have been sitting on committees ever since I have been in this House, and very frequently on special committee, and I have never sat under a fairer chairman.
Mr. MoCQIG: In reference to my criticism of the chairman for ruling my resolution out of order, was my hon. friend (Mr. Nesbitt) present iri the committee at that time?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was going to speak about that.
Mr. MoOOIG: The hon. member was absent. What does he know about it?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I can only repeat that we met with nothing but the utmost courtesy from the chairman of the committee from start to finish. I never saw a chairman or a member of any committee who worked more earnestly or industriously for the cause he had before him than the chairman of this committee, and I think it is nothing but right-and I would not havd spoken otherwise- to make that statement. I have the greatest possible respect for the way in which the chairman handled the committee and also for his views in reference to the matter. Let me say one word with reference to the draft Bill that was presented to the committee. There is no secret about this draft Bill; the Bill was, I understand, drafted by Mr. O'Connor some time ago, I believe a year or more ago. I am not saying that is correct; but, although I have not compared the draft Bill with these two Bills, there is no doubt that the tenor is very similar. As regards, however, the draft Bill having any influence upon the committee, I can speak only for myself, but the mere fact of the draft Bill being presented by Mr. O'Connor did not influence me in the slightest degree in my views with regard to the creation of a Board of Commerce.
The hon. member for Kent (Mr. McCoig) asked me if I was present at the time his resolution was moved out of order. When he spoke, I wondered to myself whether I was present or not. There were some meetings of the committee at which I was not present, but I assure the House there were not many, as the members of the

committee can testify. But I -did not remember, nor do I now remember the chairman ruling out of order a resolution moved by the hon. member for Kent. I remember, however, a resolution or a discussion in committee such as is suggested by	the hon.	member for
Strathcona (Mr. Douglas;, and further my memory tells me that the reason why the committee was opposed to the proposition made was the reason given by the hon. member for Strathcona, namely, that we must pay the strictest attention to the question of fooodstuffs. It was thought by the members of the committee, the day I was there, that this motion did not pertain directly to the question of foodstuffs, and if I remember correctly, it did pot come within the scope of the order of the House appointing the committee. I may be wrong, but that is my memory of the matter, and I am speaking only from memory.
As to the question of the creation of a Board of Commerce, I did not vote for it, as I stated the other day in the committee, because I thought, like the hon. member for Kent, that the present Food Controller and the Labour Department could be given greater powers, and that would answer the purpose and would be cheaper to the country than the creation of this Board.
I agree with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) that the idea that there is a great deal of profiteering on the part of our manufacturers and commercial men is wrong, but owing to that very feeling perhaps it is wise to appoint this Board, because if they find, as we did, that there is absolutely no foundation in fact for that prevailing idea, it will serve a good purpose. For that reason I shall support the principle of the Bill. When we get into Committee there are some clauses on which I should like to say a few words.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There has arisen some discussion about certain proceedings before a committee, which I submit has nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House. It is one of those unfortunate offshoots of debate which it is sometimes difficult to prevent. We are considering a motion for the second reading of a Bill to constitute a Board of Commerce for Canada, and I submit that the debate ought properly to be confined to the principle of that Bill. I trust that hereafter

hon. gentlemen will adhere more strictly to the subject.


Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: The
hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas) made two statements which I should think should not pass unnoticed. His first statement was that there was no party spirit in the conduct of this investigation until it was introduced by two hon. members on this side of the House.
'Mr. SPEAKER:	I must ask the hon.
gentleman to discuss the question of the principle of Bill No. 166.


Thomas Vien: I was endeavouring to correct the statement of the hon. member for Strathcona, with reference to the action taken on this side of the House on Bill No. 166. This Bill is for the purpose of con. stituting a Board of Commerce for Canada, in pursuance of the recommendations of the special committee of this House appointed to investigate the causes affecting the high cost of living in this country. We are charged by the hon. member for Strathcona with introducing party spirit into the discussion of this Bill, and the hon. gentleman thinks that this is unfair, particularly on account of what took place in the committee, and in view of the manner in which the chairman of the committee had conducted the proceedings. I do not think that any party spirit was introduced by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House into the discussion of the report of the committee, and we do not intend to introduce any party spirit into the discussion of the merits of this Bill. The rules of the House may prevent me from discussing the report of the Committee, much as 1 should like to correct the statements made by my hon. friend from Strathcona in that regard. Suffice it to say that the report of the Committee was not a partisan report. In the discussion that took place I did nothing more than discuss the merits of the report.
Coming to the Bill before us, it is for the purpose of instituting a Board of Commerce for Canada. The Government wishes to do something to satisfy public opinion in this country. It his high time. It wishes to convey the idea to the people of Canada that . this is a panacea which will cure all evils, the best remedy for all ailments of which the consumers of this country and the people of Canada at large complain. The Board proposed by this Bill is absolutely identical with the Commission suggested two years ago by Mr. O'Connor. The Government have had his report before them for two
years, but they have not acted on it. Is not their refusal to act on that report the best possible evidence that in their opinion this remedy was inadequate? If the remedy was adequate the Government should have acted two years ago. The Government appar ently did not consider that the proper remedy during the war when the main causes of which the people complain were driving up the cost of living, but now the war is over and normal conditions are returning, now that competition and ordinary trade conditions will reduce prices, they would try to satisfy public opinion. As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) so eloquently said this morning they want to throw dust in the people's eyes and lead them to believe that the Government has saved the situation'. Not only is this remedy inadequate, but it involves a useless expenditure, and I believe it will be a hindrance in the curing of the evil. What is the object of instituting a Board of Commerce as proposed by this Bill? It is proposed that the Board shall investigate. What will it investigate? It will investigate the very conditions that Mr. O'Connor investigated two years ago, the very conditions that Dr. McFall, as chairman of the Commission on the High Cost ol Living under the Labour Department, has been investigating for two years since the resignation of Mr. O'Connor; it will investigate the very conditions that the Special Committee appointed by this House has b.een investigating for over a month. It will disclose nothing that the people of Canada do not know. It will disclose no cases of profiteering which were not pointed out to the Government for months and years. If the Government did not see fit to .adopt the measures which would have stopped profiteering two years ago, is it to be supposed that it will act any differently when those conditions are reported upon by the Board of Commerce for Canada? No, the Government do not intend to act otherwise. A glance at some of the clauses of this Bill will enlighten the House in this respect. What will the Board of Commerce do? It will investigate, it will adjudicate, it will pass orders. Let us see what clause 41 of the Bill provides. I would like the House to give some attention to this clause because it is most important. Section 41 reads:
41. (1) The Governor in Council may, in His discretion, either upon petition of any person interested, lodged within one month after the making of the order, decision, rule or regulation, or within such further time as the hoard under special circumstances may allow.
#08


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is not my intention to speak at any length on this Bill. Let me say at the outset that I was struck with the statement of the hon. member who has just spoken in the concluding part of his remarks. He complained that the Government has failed for two years to put a measure similar to the one we are at present considering into effect, and now he laments that it is doing so. It reminds one of the old saying:
" You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't." I cannot help thinking that hon. gentlemen opposite have not had their ear to the ground lately, or they would know that there is a public demand throughout the country for this legislation that cannot be trifled with. It may not be possible for us to control prices, but I certainly think it will be possible to control or limit profits, at least to a considerable extent. Whether that can be done or not, the feeling throughout Canada, as I said the other day, is so intense and the country is so aflame with indignation over the profiteering that has taken place, that this Parliament and this Government are in duty bound to make an honest effort to deal with the subject. There is another thing to be noted with regard to. this legislation. As has been pointed out, a law along similar lines has been enacted in Great Britain, and also in New Zealand, and a body similar to the Board of Commerce proposed under this Bill has been in exisfc-ence for years in the United States. These tribunals, I am told, have done very effective work indeed. Everybody will admit that this legislation has been brought



down late in the session, so the coinplaint of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) in that regard is probably a fair one; but even if that be admitted it is probably the most important legislation that has been submitted to Parliament during the present session. I say, therefore, that even so wise and experienced a public man as the hon. gentleman referred to must see that it is infinitely better that Parliament should sit if necessary for another month, in order that this Bill should become effective. I believe it is in the vital .interests of the country and in the vital interests of the peace and welfare of our people, that this measure should become effective. It may not accomplish all we expect of it, it probably will not, but -I am thoroughly convinced it will go a long way in that direction. After all, stripped of its verbiage, the Bill only provides for a tribunal which will help to carry out the will expressed by Parliament some years ago to put an end to trusts and combines. The people of Canada are thoroughly conversant with that idea and, I fancy, endorsed it when it was first proposed. It should be remembered also that Bill No. 167, which is really part and parcel of the present measure, will have for its object the suppression of combines. Then we have in the measure we are now considering, Bill No. 166, provision for a tribunal to inquire into the profits that are being charged on the necessaries of life, and if those profits are found to be undue and improper, the punishment of the profiteers may follow. As I understand it, that is practically all that is aimed at in the Bills now before the House.
The hon. member for Kent complained 'about the measure and denounced it in unmeasured terms. He was of the opinion that all that would be necessary would be a public prosecutor on the lines that existed some months ago when Mr. W. F. O'Connor occupied that position. I would like to tell the hon. member for Kent and-other hon. members of the House that I discussed to-day this very measure with Mr. O'Connor-who made a universally good impression in his efforts to control prices- and he expressed to me the view that it was a thoroughly effective piece of machinery. There you have the opinion of an expert, of the man best qualified in the whole Dominion perhaps, to express an opinion on a measure of this kind. It is intimated that he had a hand in preparing another Bill along the same lines. So it must be admitted that there is nothing really hasty about the measure. It has been

in the minds of the public for a considerable time, and in the mind of this expert, and he recommends it as the right kind of Bill to deal with the question at issue. Although it is but a brief time since this Bill was introduced, there have been, expressions of opinion throughout the country in regard to it, and, notably in some portions of the press, and these expressions of opinion are quite favourable to the measure. I will read a brief paragraph from the Hamilton Spectator. All members of the House *who know anything about our press will agree that the Spectator is perhaps one of the most admirably conducted publications in Western Ontario. It says in part:
The establishment of this board is a most gratifying move; but everything will turn upon the strength and fearlessness of its personnel. It should be composed of men of outstanding integrity, ability and experience, who would share to the full the confidence of the public in whose interests it has been formed, -Especially should this be so in the case of the appointment of the chairman, upon whom, in the main, the ultimate utility of the commission will depend. If he be a man of proven courage and impartiality, the success of the 'board is assured. If, on the other hand, he be weak and vacillating, the commission will only prove an additional waste of public funds, and a further aggravation of existing discontent. It is not a Job for a political protege. The public will eagerly watch all further developments, in the hope that the board' will turn out to be the agency of relief which has been so long and ardently awaited.
I want to reiterate what I said on t.he floor the other day in connection with this matter, that if the Government thinks for one moment of appointing political protegees, hangers on or heelers, it might just as well drop the project now. In that case the time of Parliament would be absolutely wasted. The country will not stand for any but the highest type of men, and none but the very best should be appointed. As I said the other day, the consumers, the people who suffer, should have the nomination of at least one member. It may be desirable that a judge of probity, of proved integrity and of good reputation should be the presiding officer; but the, other two members must be business men, and the best business men that can be found,-men who are known to sympathize with the people, men whose hearts beat true to the ideal of public service. Many of our commissions in the past have been farces of the worst type, and thousands, if not millions, of dollars of the people's money has been literally squandered on them. No wonder there is great public contempt for such commissions and opposition to the creation of any more of a similar character.

Many of those already existing might verj well be abolished, as, indeed, this commission after it has done its work might conceivably be dispensed with.
One other point in regard to the charge that there has been undue haste, and that the whole country should have an opportunity to discuss this measure and that all interests should be notified an order that they might be present to offer their opinions. I am not so sure that the idea of putting this Bill through even hurriedly, as charged is an unmixed evil. We do not want (the corridors of this Parliament filled with all sorts of lobbyists on behalf of "the Interests." Surely the representatives of the people have the ability themselves to settle what is best in the public interest, and the absence of the lobbyist, I think, is one of the 'best things that could occur.
I repeat, if it is necessary, the matter with which w'e are dealing is of such deep interest to the country and to the people at large, that even if this Hbuse were kept in session another two- weeks it would be well worth while in order that this "Bill may become law and an honest effort made to gratify the aspirations and demands of the masses.


Mr. G. W. ALLAN (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, representing hs I do a portion of the city of Winnipeg, which within the last few weeks has suffered a financial loss and set-back without parallel in any other urban community of the Dominion, I feel that I may say just a few words in connection with these measures. It is my profound conviction that it is the desire of a large portipn of the citizens of Winnipeg that just such measures as are embraced in these Bills shall become law, and that at once. At the present moment there' is a condition of unemployment which may not wholly be remedied, I think, without in any way being a pessimist, when snow flies. Consequently at the moment Winnipeg probably is thinking more deeply upon this subject than any other of our cities, and although I am perfectly frank to admit that statements which have been made in this House during the currency of this session commend themselves very forcibly to me as regards what the situation really is in connection with the increased cost of living, wherefrom it arises, and what are likely to be the only remedies therefor, yet I have the belief that the expenditure which will be entailed if these Bills are put into force will be justified to the very fullest possible extent, because I think it
will give an opportunity of putting the people's minds at rest, if that which they believe to be the case is found on investigation not to be far-reaching, -but which as the member for Toronto said, probably prevails only in a limited number of cases and not in large volume. Therefore, I think that the legislation will be thoroughly justified within a very short passage of time after the machinery is made effective and active work is taken up under it.
Personally, I share the belief very thoroughly which has been expressed several times in this House, that the things most required to meet the existing conditions in our country are hard work-that character of hard work which in all the activities of our country will lead to greater and to cheaper production and economy. I fear that if we really get down to brass tables and consider the situation as we individually know it to be, and if we deal honestly with ourselves we must recognize that fact that to a very large extent those are the two things which seem at the moment to be most distasteful to the people of Canada, and which at the moment they seemingly are not prepared to adopt.
After all, we might just as well speak what is honestly in our minds when we are dealing with a subject of this kind; and I fear that what will really bring the pfeople of this country down to hard work and to economy will be the coming on, possibly at no distant date, of a larger measure of unemployment, and consequently, a larger measure of hardship. Nothing gets the people down to work like hard times. .None of us wish to see hard times, but in all human probability the problems which confront us in connection with getting the country back to normal conditions will not be squarely faced until the hard taskmaster of necessity causes the people to get down to hard facts.
So -far as the western farmer is concerned, I have no fear whatever of the outcome of any investigation into the high cost of living. I had long been profoundly convinced that for some years prior to the breaking out of the war the farmers of the three prairie provinces, taken as a whole, had not been receiving an adequate return for their labour and invested capital. That was my belief in those days, and I have never had reason to change it. It is true that during the last few years, when the prices of all agricultural products went up because of the great demand arising out of the war, certain districts of the West where

the climatic and other conditions were favourable prospered exceedingly. But 1 regret to say that the anticipation of all of us who come from the West is that in the current year the farmers in that country will experience a feast and a famine, as in previous years; in other words, that while certain districts will prosper exceedingly, others, whose weather conditions have been destructive of crops, will suffer exceedingly. I believe that if you deal with the western country as a whole and pool the results obtained by all the farmers there, notwithstanding what has been said time and again in the eastern portions of Canada with regard to the excess profits of the western farmers, it will be found that although agricultural conditions have been improved during the period of high prices, the average return to the farmers in those provinces has not been unduly large. What our people desire is that there shall be an adequate, honest and effective investigation of the wide spread which exists in respect of many foood products between the cost of production and the price paid by the consumer. I do not really believe that in the great majority of cases the people can point just to where undue profits are accruing to those who handle food products; I do not think they can put their finger on the particular place in that spread where the large profit is really made. As to other articles which the people of the West buy, they feel the same way. They wish to [DOT] know whether the manufacturer does or does not get such a profit as entitles him to be designated as a profiteer; they wish to know whether those who are the intermediaries between the manufacturer and the consumer derive such profits as to justify the application to them of the term profiteer. I know the feelings of the people of my own city, particularly that portion of it which I have the honour to represent, and I think I can say without being doubtful on the subject that the effective carrying out of such legislation as this is what the great majority of our people strongly desire. I admit that the fixing of prices with a view to safeguarding the consumer and the enacting of legislation with a view to bringing down the cost of living may not be found to be absolutely effective, but I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that they will be effective to a very considerable extent and that such legislation as this will go a long way towards satisfying the people.
The suggestion that this as camouflage, or that it is legislation of an opportunist character is, in my opinion, not worthy of reply.

The present time is the appropriate time for the enactment of such a law as this. After the passing of the first period of the war, in which there was unemployment, and, consequently, considerable distress, we entered upon a period of prosperity which was recognized as more or less artificial. There was a large and continuous demand for manufactured and natural products; these products were needed badly and needed quickly, and the prices were such as are always created under conditions of that kind. So there was a period of prosperity which unquestionably was shared largely, particularly in Eastern Canada, by all the working people. It is a question whether those who enjoyed the very high wages which were paid exercised a proper degree of thrift or saved as much as they should have saved. But the fact was that the pinch of want was not felt, and until comparatively recently there was no lack of employment.
The line of demarcation can clearly and reasonably bedrawn between the full measure of employment and the high wages enjoyed prior to the armistice and the period upon which we have now entered. That is, to my mind, a most reasonable manner of regarding this subject, seeing that the distress is exhibiting itself because the people desire that not only their views as to hours and conditions of labour shall be met, but that their wages shall be continued on the scale and to the extent that they enjoyed during those times of great prosperity tinged with a large measure of artificiality owing to the continuance of the war. That is, of course, the great trouble at the moment. There is, to my mind, nothing which will be of more value than if it .can be shown that either no large volume of evil exists in the way of profiteering or that, if such large volume does exist, there shall be the machinery created and made effective for absolutely bringing it to an end. For that reason I support the Bill. -


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford, South):: Mr. Speaker, the acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen), in introducing this Bill, stated that it was as a result of the report brought in by the committee appointed by Parliament a short time ago to investigate the causes of the high cost of the necessaries of life in this country. As I am almost the only member of the committee who has not spoken upon the subject, I should like to say a few words with regard to the matter, particularly so in view of the fact that, when the interim

report was made, I was not of the opinion that it was advisable at that .stage to recommend the appointment of a commission such as is provided for in this Bill. I regret very much, in view of the importance of the facts which were elicited by the committee, that it was not appointed earlier in the session. That however, was unavoidable, and the committee have been very diligently endeavouring to '**ascertain who were reaping the profits in the spread between the old prices and the new. I regret very much that a wrong impression has got abroad throughout the country as regards the evidence adduced by the committee. The press of this country can and does reach the people as no other medium can, and I believe it could, if it desired to do so, allay a great deal of the unrest that prevails in Canada at the present time by putting the evidence in the case squarely before the people. It was clearly demonstrated by the evidence brought out that many of the large industries of this country, instead of being iwhat might be termed profiteers, were, although they were earning substantial dividends, putting their goods into the hands of the consumers of this country at a remarkably low cost of production. There were the milling companies, the shoe manufacturers and the packers, and I doubt if there are within the confines of Canada three other industries conducted on a small scale that are doing their work so efficiently and economically as are those industries who are, on the whole, charging the people less for the work they are dioing than is the case in connection with the other industries which I have mentioned. Let us' take the shoe industry as an example. A manufacturer from an Ontario city stated under oath that the profit on a shoe that, I believe, they sold to the retailer for ?4.50 per pair, was nine cents per pair, and that they could manufacture them at that margin of profit and make money in doing so. It is remarkable that the retailer was selling this shoe for $8 per pair, as his profit on commissions in handling this same pair of shoes upon which the manufacturer received a profit of nine cents. That matter should have been clearly placed before the people of this country. Instead of an endeavour being made to libel people who are putting their money into important industries in this country and characterizing them as profiteers, the blame should be placed where it properly belongs. The same thing could be said with regard to the manufacturers of flour in Canada.
The evidence adduced shows that they were producing flour at a cost to the consumer of about. seventeen or eighteen cents per barrel, which was surely a reasonable profit. The evidence adduced by a manager and others connected with some of the large packing houses of this country showed that their profits in connection with meat was about one-quarter of one cent per pound or something in the neighbourhood of one and a half per cent on the turnover. I do not believe that the Canadian people realize or appreciate what the packing industries in this country are doing for them.
I may be told that they have put local butchers out of business. In many instances that is true, but why is it true? Because they are able to hang the beef and pork on the hooks in the butcher's shop at a cheaper rate than the butcher can put it there. That is the reason Why these big industries have been built up in this country, and they are doing the people a service that they little appreciate. It was pointed out that the Swifts of Chicago are in charge of the stockyards at Toronto. We had evidence not from a butcher but from a retailer of meat at Toronto, who stated that a butcher could not go into the Toronto stockyards and1 buy animals there to be slaughtered and that the farmers had to sell to the commission men. That information was sent broadcast throughout this country, although it was contradicted in the committee when that witness was present, and it was unqualifiedly denied afterwards and proved to be absolutely without foundation.
I may say at the outset that I am not very much in favour of commissions; my experience with commissions in this country during the last few years is not such as to cause me to place a great deal of confidence in them. But we are asked to appoint a board with powers defined in the Bill now before the House with a view to allaying the unrest that has been created throughout the country. The Acting Minister o-f Justice in introducing the Bill stated that there was an insistent demand for something of this nature and it was demonstrated by the evidence before the committee that many important bodies in this country were petitioning for something along this line. There is no gainsaying the fact that there has been a very great increase in the cost of living in Canada since the beginning of the war. When the war began, it was necessary to speed up all the industries that were contributing material necessary towards the winning of

the war, regardless of what wages would have to be paid in order to bring that about, and high wages were paid to workers in order that we might win the war which was the first and paramount consideration. The workers earned wages during the continuance of the war, particularly in the early stages, such as they had never earned in their lives before. Farmers received for their products prices such as they had never received before. As a result of all those things, labour was drawn from many of the necessary avocations of life under peace conditions and turned into war channels. Is it then, any wonder that to-day we are living under abnormal conditions?
Conditions are abnormal. There is a feeling of unrest prevailing throughout this country, and I believe it is the duty of this House and of each individual member, and particularly of the press, to put the case straight before the people and not endeavour to mislead them in any degree. I am satisfied that there is a time coming, and in the near future, when, it will be necessary for the people to buckle down to work as they have never done before, and to realize it is only by hard labour they are going to overcome the difficulties with which we are confronted. Neither the Government, nor commissions, nor officials of the Government, can do very much in that regard. The matter is in the hands of the people themselves, and the sooner they realize that it is by hard labour, longer hours and the sweat of their brow that they are going to overcome their difficulties the better it will be for all concerned. I do not believe that it is in the interest of the country that we should say or do anything in which we have not absolute confidence. I for one do not believe that any great benefits are going to come from the appointment of any such board as is proposed by this Bill. I believe that the matter rests entirely in the hands of the people themselves, and the sooner they realize their responsibility the better it will be for all concerned. There is one class in the country that points to another class as profiteers. I was sorry to hear even my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, when speaking on the Bill this afternoon, refer to the manufacturers of this country and the princes of industry as he called them as having made gentlemen's agreements by which they were fixing prices. It is true that some manufacturers in this country did make very great profits in their business during the war, but do not overlook the fact thaJt the markets were on the 
rise continually, and some of these men had the foresight to purchase large quantities of raw material, and as a result of their foresight they reaped very great profits, indeed.
I was surprised at some references the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) made to the shoe manufacturers. The tariff, he said, was the only obstacle in the way of having a desirable condition of affairs in this country, and he referred to the shoe manufacturers, and to one firm in particular located in the city of St. Thomas, with a branch in the United States. Why did he not tell the whole story? Why did he not tell us that the parent concern had been located in the United States for many, many years, and that it was by reason of our tariff that this firm established itself in the city of St. Thomas? Why did he not tell the House that the profits of that concern in St. Thomas last year were under $500, that for a number of years they had no profits at all, but a deficit. That was the condition of affairs in connection with this particular concern. I believe the people are entitled to know what came out before the committee. Very important evidence came out, and it is unfair to state that all manufacturers in this country who have been carrying on during the war and employing large numbers of men at high wages should to-day be dubbed profiteers and be looked upon as robbing the poor people of this country. I believe that in nine out of ten cases you will find that the very large profits were made by purchasing large quantities of raw material on a low market, which enabled the manufacturers to sell their product later on at a very great profit. There is one thing in that connection that I wish to refer to, and that is the income tax, and the excess profits tax, from which a very large amount of revenue was derived from these concerns. Where are you going to get your revenue? We have to have it. We have an enormous ..debt as a result of the war which we have just passed through, a war that has saved this country to the people of Canada, and it is a debt that we ought to face with gladness and gratitude in our hearts. Instead of inciting the people to rebellion and forming organizations with a view to preventing the industries of this country from carrying on, I say that we ought to lend our hearty support to the Government in the most difficult days that any government has had to face. I believe that the next two

years will possibly be the most difficult this country has ever experienced, and if this Bill is going to satisfy the people of this country I am not going to stand in the way of its passage, but I want to place myself on record as one who does not believe that the Bill is going to accomplish what many people expect of it. I believe that the labourers of this country, in cutting down the hours of labour and clamouring for higher pay at this stage in our history, are doing the very thing that is going to defeat the object they have in, view.
I want to say a word with reference to the criticisms that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite of the chairman of the Cost of Living Committee. One of the first things that the committee undertook to ascertain was the cost of food supplies in this country, and with a view to doing that we brought before the committee those who might be supposed to be the best informed with regard to that matter. It was settled conclusively that there is no class of people in this country to-day who are working for a smaller wage than the farmers of Canada. That was clearly established by expert evidence as a result of careful investigation, so no further reference need have been made to it. I was very sorry indeed to hear. the Chairman of that committee, who was absolutely fair, and worked very hard indeed to bring out all the evidence that was possible, charged with ruling out certain matters that the hon. member for Kent wished to introduce. It was only for the time being, because we were following up a certain line of investigation at that time.
I do not intend to detain the House longer. As iso many other members of the committee had spoken on the Bill I thought in justice to myself I should say a word or two. I believe that these two Bills, Nos. 166 and 167, are so closely interwoven that they might well be considered together. If the people want a new toy and are bound to have it, and they think this is going to satisfy them, I am not going to stand in the way of their getting it, but personally I have not very much faith in this Bill accomplishing what many people expect of it. I do not believe you can afford to eliminate competition or fix prices. I believe that in order to bring the best to the surface you have to have honest competition in every walk of life. You have it in the schoolroom; the first thing the pupil encounters in the school is competition. As soon as competition is eliminated you may rest assured that you have reached
the stage where apathy and decay is bound to creep in.


Mr. F. N. McCBEA (Sherbrooke):: I am rising more for information than anything else. As I understand it, this board is to appointed for the purpose of investigating combines if they exist, and to ascertain whether there is excessive profiteering.
There are three different classes or kinds of profiteering. There is the concern which has made large profits and paid large dividends, not because of a large margin of profit, but because of the volume of business that it has, done. To this class of profiteering I do not think any person should take exception. If a concern has done a very large volume of business on a very close margin, if it has made large profits and consequently is able to pay large dividends on the invested capital, I do not see where there can be any very serious criticism, or how the high cost of living can be attributed to that class of profits. But there is another class of profiteering in which case a large percentage of profit is taken on the turnover, and unreasonable profits are made from that source. That, I think, should be checked and condemned and a remedy found as quickly as it is possible. The third class of profiteering is that which takes place with a large margin of profit and a large volume of business. This, too, I think should be checked. Any large margin of profit, for the manufacturer, dealer, or whoever he may be, taken especially on foodstuffs at this particular time should not be allowed and should be checked.
There is another phase of this problem, and I do not think I understand how the commission is going to deal with it. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hoc-ken) illustrated his remarks by citing the case of two farmers. One farmer has thirty cows and gets 5,000 pounds of milk in the season from each cow. The other farmer has the same number of cows, but by better management, better process of farming and a better class of stock, he gets 10,000 pounds during the season from each cow; consequently, he has double the profit that the other man gets, for the overhead charge in both cases is the same. That same condition prevails in other lines of business. I would like to ask the promoter of this Bill how he would propose to deal with such cases. In my own town during the war we had six .shops manufacturing shells and munitions of war. I presume they cannot be accused of being a combine because the prices for the manufacture of these goods

were fixed by the Government and there would not be any combine, I presume, in connection with the fixing of prices by the Government. One of these factories which was poorly equipped, manufactured shells for a short time and then had to go out of business because it was not able to make satisfactory goods. The owners were losing money, and they handed their contract over to another manufacturer, went out of the shell business and went back to the line they belonged to. Another manufacturing concern, the second largest manufacturer in the town also was making shells, but they practically made no profit. The others, and especially the best-equipped shop in town, made immense profits. All worked on the same article and all got the same price. What was the cause of the difference in results? One had to go out of business, another made no money but the other four made a lot of money, especially one of them. Why? (Because they were a well equipped shop, especially one of them; they were mechanics; they had a thoroughly trained staff and they properly managed their business. Not only did this best shop which made the most money make a profit on the volume but they made the largest margin of profit on each shell, simply because they were properly equipped, they understood their business and they made the most money out of it. Their competitor, right opposite them, through lack of management, lack of understanding the business and lack of ability, made none. I would ask the promoter of this Bill if the owners of these four shops that made immense profits are to be considered profiteers and if so how would you deal with them? On the one hand you have the well-equipped properly-managed business run by men who have the ability to make a success of it, and of the other you have his neighbour who, because of his lack of ability and management, has not made a profit. Do you propose that the unsuccessful man shall be considered a saint while the man who has made an extremely large profit because of his ability shall be condemned as a profiteer? What will this board do with such a man? We have heard men speaking on this question and saying that such men should be prosecuted. We have heard the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) saying that the Government should not dissolve this session before they put some measure on the criminal statute books to put such men as those -I do not know where, but in the penitentiary probably. I would like to know how you are going to deal with these men. In 
my judgment the Government regulations as they now exist deal satisfactorily with them. That is, they apply to them the income tax. If it can be shown that certain individuals or manufacturers have made immense profits the income tax comes in and takes a good big share of those profits, and rightly so. That is a good deal better than to deal with the successful manufacturer as if he were a criminal, or to say that because he has made a success of his business he shall be condemned before this tribunal that you propose to organize.
There is no man who realizes the necessity of thrift, economy, and all the rest of it more than does the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). What does he tell the people? He tells the people to practise thrift and economy and to produce more. Then you turn around and appoint a commission to penalize a man because he has the ability to manufacture cheaply and make a profit.
I believe that, so far as combines are concerned, it is a wise proposal to appoint a commission with authority to investigate and exandne into their operations and, if they find combines existing, to deal with them. If they find that any party has made extreme profits by charging too high a percentage for his goods, that is another matter that might be corrected. But if a man is selling his goods and meeting competition in the open market and if, by reason of his ability and the fact that he has a well equipped factory, and a proper organization, he is able to make profits, that man should be commended rather than condemned. To my mind, the income tax that is imposed will amply take care of any surplus profits that a man makes in a legitimate and1 honest way by his thrift and economy.
We have heard from both sides of this House this session and we have seen in big head lines in the newspapers, a good deal about profiteers. The profiteers are responsible for the high cost of living and for the evils that beset the land at this time if the press and some hon. members in this House are to be believed. The profiteers may be partly responsible and if there are persons making undue profits, I say make them pay for it, and put an end to the evil. But the real cause of the present situation, the real cause of the high cost of living and the shortage of food, is that millions of people throughout the world have for four years been destroying property and consuming food instead of producing it.

Now what is the remedy? The remedy to overcome that situation, as the Finance Minister has already told the House, is to practice thrift and economy. Industry on the part of the people, and the saving of their earnings, will tend to 'bring this country out of the present distressing situation. In my judgment the farmer must put forth every effort that he can to cultivate more land and to produce more food. And what is the labourer's duty? I have been an employer of labour for forty years and have never had a strike among my employees. Not only that, but I am a farmer's son and I have been a labourer myself.
I have earned money by hard work, and I know and sympathize with the position of the farmer and the labourer. Therefore, I can speak with some knowledge and experience on these matters. The labourer to-day is asking for more money on the ground that he cannot support his family on the wages he is receiving. The proper thing for him to do is to go to his employer and say:	"I cannot support my family on
my present wages because the cost of living is so high. If you will increase my wages, I will try and increase my efficiency. If you will give me more wages, I will try and give a little more labour." The moment he does that his employer, if he is the right kind of man, will say "all right, my brother, we will agree on this: I will do everything to increase your pay, and at the same time do everything I can to increase my business, so as not only to give employment to you but to afford employment to others. You are travelling with me in the right direction. You are willing to give me more labour, I am willing to give you more pay." This is one way out of the present situation. You cannot take up a paper to-day without reading, under big head-lines, that the profiteers have done this and that. Take the case of the western farmers who have been clamouring for free implements, -and talking of all the evils that result from the tariff. I venture to. think that when some farmers of that type who are members of this House go back to their constituents, they will be told "Why in, some of these grain growing and elevator operations you have made two hundred per cent and you [DOT] are partly responsible for some of the existing difficulties." That statement will not be correct because when you come to investigate the profits which the grain growers in the West have made, it will be found that those profits were realized on a very small margin and a big turnover, which, I maintain, is
not a crime. As I say, we are told in the press that the profiteers, the big interests, and the millionaires are responsible for the existing trouble. The remedy for that I have, in part, explained, but I desire to elaborate upon that subject. We read of large -meetings of labour organizations and the members otf those organizations are being told by agitators "Why should you not have just as good a house as your employer, and enjoy all the luxuries that he enjoys, because you are just as much of a human being as he is." My opinion is that every man should enjoy all he can afford to pay for. The man who lives beyond his means is living on somebody else. If a poor man had a grown-up son starting out in life to make his way in the world, would he advise him- in this way? "Watch the clock, my son. Do not' start to work until it points to the hour. At noon do the same thing. Do not do anything that your employment or job doesi not call upon you to do. At six o'clock have your coat on and be ready to go home as soon as the clock strikes. Do not do anything to help your employer-in fact know him and go on strike every opportunity you can." But the advice the sensible working man in such a position would give his son would be this: "Try to be useful to your employer, and do everything you can for his advancement. He will recognize it shortly, and if he does not, somebody else will. By acting on this advice, you will promote your own interests. If you do not always want to remain a labourer, be useful to the man who employs you and you will obtain advancement." That is the right advice to give to the labouring classes of this country. I say to every such man, "Your duty, my boy, is to make yourself useful to the man you are working for. Show him you take an interest in his business, and if you are faithful and use good judgment your efforts will be recognized." But that is not the advice given to labour by the press of this country and the agitators who address labour meetings. If they would give such advice and state the facts plainly, it would be most beneficial as far as the labouring classes are concerned.
I have explained what in my opinion is the duty of the labourer, and I wish now to consider what the duty of the employer is. He should not be content to live in peace and luxury. He should take care oi his employees and see that they are provided with good schools and everything else that will tend to make them peaceful and happy. He should pay them all the wages he can afford to pay consistently with the

successful conduct of his business. He should not like Cain ask: "Am I my brother's keeper?" All of us are brothers and it is up to the farmer, the labourer, and manufacturer, to put their shoulders to the wheel and see if they cannot find a way out of this trouble. That trouble will continue as long as labour pleads for shorter hours and more pay without realizing its responsibilities and as long as the farmer pleads for free implements without taxes. I am sorry to have taken up so much time-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are doing fine


Francis N. McCrea: -but perhaps in my awkward fashion I have made my position reasonably clear. I believe this Bill will have a settling effect upon the people, and as far as the manufacturers are concerned, they welcome investigation, for they believe they will be able to show that the high cost of living does not lie at their door entirely.
I think that that will be -a source of satisfaction to the people. I do not, however, think that I shall vote for this Bill-I believe I shall vote against it. It is an old saying that " a burnt child is afraid of the fire," and the experience I have had in the last two or three years of -Government control and Government investigation of businesses that I have been connected with has not been in the direction of inducing me to favour many more of these commissions. Consequently I shall vote against the Bill.


Mr. F. L. DAVIS (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members of the committee bringing in the report on which this Bill follows, I think I should say a few words in support. First, with reference to what the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) said, that it never was and is not now wise that such a Bill should be introduced, although immediately thereafter he criticized the Government for not having introduced this Bjll two years ago. I think he is on one horn or other of a dilemma there, and it might truly be .said that the Government then perhaps was no wiser than he is now, but now if is wiser than he was then or is now. With regard to his remark that the fiscal policy of this country probably aggravates the situation, I agree; but I think that Free Trade and Protection, have but a passing reference to this question, because when I .see those states which have better conditions with regard to Protection than we have-such as the United States, the Dominion of New Zealand, and even that great happy realm of Great Britain-them-
selves regulating these conditions as we now propose to regulate them, I think that something more than Protection must be at the root of the trouble. What then is it?
The facts, as I see them, are these: It was in 1825 that we first had the possibility of limited liability joint stock companies, and then, itoo, it first became possible for labour to organize itself in trade unions. Since that time we have had a development of industry which is not like anything the world had known before. We have seen aggregations of capital and we have seen- aggregations of labouring men, and now they stand in hostility, and we have to understand the situation. Now, if I or any other member of this House understood just what was wrong, we would probably tell the House, .and we might apply the proper remedy; but the trouble is that to-day we do not know just how to correct the situation. However, we propose a tribunal which shall make of this situation a special study, and which will find the remedy if it is at all possible. The course now being pursued by us, four years ago was entered upon by New Zealand and by the United States-and I would like to direct attention to ithe report of the Committee on Trusts of the British Parliament, because I think it will open the eyes of many of our members. It is State Paper No. 9236. I would especially direct attention to the addendum to. that report headed " A study of trade organizations and combinations in (the United Kingdom, prepared for the Committee on Trusts by John Hilton, of the Garton Foundation." He was the secretary of the committee and his study is referred to in .these words at the end of the committee's report:
We wish to place on record our appreciation of the great services which have been rendered to the committee by our secretary, Mr. John Hilton, whose comprehensive study of combinations we have printed as an appendix to this report.


Mr. CURRIE:: Were these trusts in Free Trade England?


Fred Langdon Davis: Certainly. I quite appreciate the hon. gentleman's point of view; he misses mine. I say that these conditions are not. peculiar to protected countries, they are the result of combinations of capital which have taken place in all countries, and'have to be dealt with; and that the means which are being adopted by other countries are the means which are now being recommended to this House and to the country as a way of solution.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that the United States have passed legislation enabling the manufacturers to form trusts in order to carry on their foreign trade, and that they loosened the Sherman law to that effect during the previous session of Congress,-that the movement is all in the other direction?


Fred Langdon Davis: I believe that there has been a change of policy. The United States at one time adopted the policy of treating all combinations as necessarily in restraint of trade. Now they adopt the more sensible policy of looking at the agreement and seeing if it is really in restraint of trade, and in opposition to the interests of the consumers or a benefit to them. The final remark I have to make is this: By simulation of a real commission this thing can be made a farce, and it is the duty of the Government not to take that course. I have confidence in the Government that it is in earnest, that it means that real men shall be put at the head of this commission, and if men of the type of those who framed the policy of the Railway Commission are put upon this commission, I have no fear of section 41 of the Bill, because the Government itself dare not defeat the recommendations of the Committee, which has the entire confidence of this House.


Mr. W. F. NICKLE (Kingston):: When I came into the House this evening, Mr. Speaker, I must frankly admit, I had no intention of speaking on this matter, but as it has become a sort of free-for-all I should like to express one or two ideas before the Acting Minister of Justice closes the ddbate. In the first place, it seems to me that hon. members are somewhat careless in the way they interchange the expressions "profits" and "prices," and I think it is well we should keep clearly before the country that there is a clear distinction between these terms. I also think that perhaps it would not be unwise if the attention of the House and of the country was directed to the industrial progress, very briefly referred to by the last speaker, that has taken place in Canada during possibly the last twenty-five or thirty years. Prior to that time we had what I might call isolation in manufacturing. There was no place in Ontario of any importance where there was any waterpower that you could not find the small grist mill, which gathered about it other incidental industries. It was the day of small industries and very little machinery,
and most of the labour was by hand. But an industrial centralization took place by which there was the centralization of capital and the centralization of labour incidental to manufacturing. That centralization of capital and labour had a tremendous potential efficiency, due to the fact that highly organized and very delicate and rapid working machinery was introduced for the purpose of decreasing the cost of production. In this country from 1890 on, to be rough in one's dates, there has been a great era of industrial prosperity. Large amounts of capital had been brought into the country by way of borrowing for the purpose of carrying on municipal and other works, we had built two transcontinental railroads, ;to say nothing of the extensions to the third, with the result that we had great prosperity. There are those in this House who will -emember that in the spring of 1913 and from then on until the autumn of 1914 there was a decided industrial reaction, due to_ the fact that there was not the industrial activity that had obtained prior to that date.
By 1913 our two national transcontinental railways had practically reached completion; money was not being spent on them; the people were beginning to say that we were entering a period of bad times-bad times, because as much money was not being put in circulation as had been prior to that time. In August, 1914, the war broke out. At that time supply and demand, so far as the manufacturers of this country went, were pretty evenly balanced. The supply, provided the industries had been worked to the maximum of their capacity, was probably greater than the demand; but keen competition and the fact that each industry had its own customers, made the majority of the industries in this country capable of meeting the demand that was made upon them.	[DOT]
When the war broke out, or within a few months following its outbreak, there was a decided slump. Work was slack in this country and there were many who thought that we were closing in on a period of industrial stagnation and severe hard times. In my own riding skilled workers in the steel industry who had up to that time been getting reasonably good wages, found themselves out of employment and were willing to work for labourers' pay because other wages could not be had. But suddenly the whole scene was changed by the demand that was made on Canada for the supply of munitions to meet the wants of the Allies; and the prices of these munitions were not

so much the question as prompt supply, because it was realized that if defeat was to be kept away, munitions had to be supplied in large quantities and promptly. Now, what happened ? All our steel industries within a few months were at the full of their potential efficiency. Steel industries that had been engaged in one type of manufacturing were as promptly as possible changed to another; men who had never worked in the steel industry were suddenly called into demand, with the result that men left other industries to take up the making of munitions. The demand for labour was greater than the supply, with the result that wages increased, and as wages increased prices went up, because a great many men who had been engaged in agricultural pursuits had gone to the war, while others, as I said a moment ago, left those pursuits to enter industry. There were not enough agricultural products to go around; consequently, prices advanced. Then, when the shortage of labour was more acutely felt, competition for labour became keener and there was a steady increase in the wages that were paid. Fifty million men from all parts of the world who had previously been engaged in industry and in agricultural production were taken to the war-not, if the whole truth be told, all at once; they were gradually taken away from productive labour. Canada gave, in the net result, some 500,000 men, but in the early days of the war we had under arms probably
100,000	or 150.000 men, the supply of foodstuffs that should have been kept up gradually became less, owing to the fact that fewer men were engaged in production and the supply available for 'Canada became still less because -the Allies abroad were taking our supplies and our people at home were consuming more than they had previously consumed. It is an economic law that when wages are high and people have spending money, consumption will be great and we have what is commonly called good times. The reason is simple. Money is only a medium of exchange. Those countries that are on a gold standard have practically said that gold, in its relation to the other commodities, bears a fixed ratio; and they have made the dollar the initial value of exchange. "Price" is only the statement in money of the value of an article; "cost" is the value in money of what it takes to produce an article; "profit" is what you can sell an article for in excess of what it costs you. Now, as I said, prices went up. If you ask me why prices went up, I direct 
your attention to some figures that appear in the Canada Food Board report. At page 13 the following figures are given: in 1914-15 the total export of foodstuffs from Canada was $187,000,000. In 1915-16 this amount was increased to $332,000,000; in 1916-17 it was increased to $482,000,000 and in 1917-18 it was increased to $710,000,000
Mr. MoMASTER: Has the hon. gentleman the figures before him to show the increase in weight or number of the exports? My feeling is that the increase is rather an increase in the value of the exports than an increase of the exports themselves.


William Folger Nickle: My hon. friend really took my remark right out of my mouth. I was just going to say that it is true that the figures that I have given do not actually represent that the amount of the export was proportionate to the increased value of the export. The value of our agricultural products had increased very rapidly between 1914-15 and 1917-18, with the result that the $710,000,000 in 1917-18 as compared with $187,000,000 of the first year probably did not represent an increased ratio of exports in proportion to the value. But what it does represent is that out of Canada during these years,an ever-increasing supply of foodstuffs wasgoing. Take, for instance, fisheries. Fisheries rose from $23,000,000 in the first year to $24,000,000, and again to $33,000,000. Animal products rose from $111,000,000 to $157,000,000 and then to $163,000,000; agricultural products from $396,000,000 to $427,000,000 and to $440,000,000 during the last year. Or taking it in the aggregate, in the first year the exports of fisheries, animal products and agricultural products were $530,000,000, in the next year $630,000,000, and in the last year $638,000,000.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman quote the figures for the manufactures also?


William Folger Nickle: I am confining myself particularly to the argument in relation to the high cost of living and profits. Now, the reason why prices increased-as I understand it, having given some little consideration to the matter-is this: First, as I said a moment ago, the people of Canada were consuming more than they had previously consumed because they had more money with which to buy goods. Less goods were being produced, and as supply fell off and the demand increased prices rose abnormally. The supply was. much less in relation to the demand than it ordinarily would have been, due to the fact that the Allies were bidding against one another be-

cause of the necessity of their having these foodstuffs, and an abnormal price was reached in relation to them. Then there was an inflation. Canada had got off the gold standard and we had an inflated currency. There were not enough counters- because, if one might so describe it, money is nothing hut a counter, and if each man has more than his fair share of the counters in relation to the available products that are to be bought, prices will rise, because each man, being determined to get what he thinks is his proportion of the available supply and having more than a reasonable share of the counters, will bid against the others, and the result will be an enhancement of prices. And you have inflation also, not merely because there were more counters than each should have had, but because these counters were passing very rapidly from one man to another. You had an inflation-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Folger Nickle: I propose to continue this argument, as briefly as I can, until I reach my conclusion. I shall not be deterred in
the argument that I am trying to deduce simply because any hon. gentleman on either side of the House calls "Carried."
I do not often direct the attention of the House to questions of this character, and having taken the floor, I purpose continuing my argument to its end, even if this House does not adjourn on Saturday. As I said, inflation may be of two characters: You may have inflation because there are too many counters or because the counters are going about .too rapidly, and we had both of these conditions in Canada. The condition that existed in Canada was no different from the condition that existed in the United States. Very illuminating figures are given in the 1918 report of the Food Board in reference to the prices of commodities in the United States and Canada. This is the table:
Retail Prices of Staple Foods in Uanada and the United States, September, 15, 1918.
Tfhe following table of the cost of staple articles of food, averaged in sixty cities in Canada and forty cities in the United States, was compiled from data furnished toy the Labour Departments of both countries, and is revised to terms of quantities consumed by the average family in one week:-
		pounds.
Flour			pounds.
		pounds.
Milk. 				quarts .
Cheese			2	pounds.
Eggs			dozen .
Bacon			pound .
Beef			pounds.
			1	
Potatoes			pecks .
Beans (dry)			pound .
Kice	. . . 2	pounds.Tea	i	pound .Coffee	pound .Sugar	4	pounds.pounds.Prunes	pound .
In the above comparison five items out of the seventeen are slightly lower in the United States than in Canada-lard, coffee, potatoes, sugar and prunes. Coffee, sugar and prunes are naturally lower in price in the United States than in Canada, which is further from the source of supply. The United States is one of the world's greatest producers of lard.
I give the figures only to show that prices in Canada for many of the things that go to make up the food of the people were, during the same period, slightly higher in the United States than in Canada, and if Ij-Nsmtlemen who are interested in this subject care to look at the returns for other ojpntries overseas they will see that prices trore there, in the main, higher than in Canada.
Canada		U.S.		
60 cities	-	40 cities		
$ 1.170		$ 1.4&5		
6.80		680		
1.486		1.776		
744		1.029	(Imperial	Measure).
643		720		
1.065		1.172		
511		562		
1.363		1.42*6		
403		461		
707		702	(Imperial	Measure)
169	169
238	274
* 303	332
114	076
472	384
740	672.
183	174
$10,991	$12,094
When you turn to the question of profits-and I might say, in passing, that I am thoroughly in favour of the measure that has been introduced to-night by the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen)- you will have to define what you mean by your term. Does the term "reasonable profits" mean the percentage on the individual transactions, or does it mean reasonable profits in relation to the aggregate? In my opening remarks I endeavoured to show how there had been a centralization of capital and labour and machinery in our industries in Canada. Hon.t gentlemen who have read the milling report as prepared by Miss McKenna, will remember that it showed clearly that, while only

twenty-five cents was allowed by the Government on each barrel of flour turned out by the milling company, yet the turnover of the milling industry of this country was so tremendous during the war that their profits rose to fabulous sums.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They did not take the
twenty-five cents.


William Folger Nickle: Let us suppose they took less than twenty-five cents; let us suppose they took twenty cents.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sixteen cents.


William Folger Nickle: No person would contend that in peace times a profit of less than twenty cents on a barrel of flour was an unreasonable profit. If the aggregate war profit was taken into account, and the profit on the individual transaction was so small that it cannot very well be reduced without turning an aggregate profit into a substantial loss, it was only fair that that initial profit should continue, but the State then should take a very substantial proportion of the large aggregate profit made by these industries. It is unreasonable to argue that, because the potential efficiency of a great organization enables it to make a tremendous profit on small initial transaction profits a most substantial portion of the profits should be left to the industry. In abnormal times it is reasonable to contend that the industry should be allowed to retain reasonable profits on its efforts, but the effort of the people which led to the great aggregate profit being made should be taken into account by the great proportion of that profit being taken for the benefit of the State.
A gentleman interested in the manufacture of munitions informed me that by the cheapening of the process by which a cartridge case was reduced in cost by three cents, his profits were tremendously increased. His profit on the individual transaction was only triflingly increased by the three-cent reduction but it was tremendously increased by the percentage computation. Applying those small initial profits to a tremendous output he made a tremendous profit, a profit beyond all conception when compared with that which he hoped to make when he entered into the contract that gave him such a substantial return.
When you come to consider the high cost of living, there is another factor which is sometimes left out. It is the profit made by the merchants in this country as distinct from the manufacturer. When the war broke out our wholesalers had substantial 
stocks on their shelves and the stocks of the retailers were, generally speaking, in a fair state. No sooner had war broken out than there was a steady increase in the value of those stocks and I suppose, so long as human nature is human nature a man will take all the traffic will bear. That is, if an ever-increasing cost makes the wholesaler demand more from the retailer than the amount that the retailer originally paid for the commodities, the retailer who has the goods on his shelves and the wholesaler who also has his shelves well stocked, will endeavour to take from the people all the traflfic will bear. In other words he will ask what he could get for the new goods supposing he had to buy them from the manufacturer or the jobber. That is exactly what took place in this country. The .stocks of the wholesalers were sold at much more than they cost and the stocks of the retailers brought substantial profits to them.
There are some very interesting paragraphs in the fuel controller's report issued this year. The fuel controller was interested in showing that the price of coal had not increased in proportion to the price of other commodities. I have directed the attention of the House to the fact of the tremendous increase there was in the export of natural products of this country, and I should like now to put on record the great increase there was in value of various articles in Canada. For instance, anthracite coal, taking 100 as being the initial price in 1900, went up from a price in 1914 of 140 to a price in 1918 of 195 or thereabouts. Lumber from an initial price of lt)0 in 1900 and, about 180 in 1913 went to 265 in 1918. Leather -a natural product, the production of which could not rapidly be increased because it takes a certain number of years for the animals to reach maturity, went up from 150 in 1914 to 267 in 1918; drugs and chemicals went up from 135 in 1914 to 287 in 1918; animals and meats from 190 in 1914 to 350 in 1918; dairy products from 155 in 1914 to 262 in 1918; grains and fodders from 160 in 1914 to. 317 in 1918; fish from 160 in 1914 to 250 in 1918; miscellaneous groceries from 130 in 1914 to 262 in 1918; woollens from 140 in 1914 to 410 in 1918! Now if you will turn to page 107 of the Fuel Commissioners's Report you will find a very interesting graph prepared by an American lady showing the prices' of commodities in America during the Civil and Franco-Prussian Wars. You will see that during all wars that lasted for any period prices of natural products and other goods inevitably rose in the affected countries.

From 1862 to 1864 during the American War prices there reached an abnormal level; then there was a very rapid slump at the cessation of hostilities, and a steady decline, with one rise, until 1897, when the lowest price was reached. Then there was an increase, practically a steady although a varying increase until 1914, due to the industrial prosperity of the United States and Canada and the entire world.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Does the graph represent the prices of natural products only?


William Folger Nickle: 
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker,-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must advise the House that the minister proposes to exercise his right to close the debate.
Mr. MEIlGHEN: Those members of the House who had hoped that this Bill would have a favourable reception have no cause ' for discouragement at the course of this debate. I have listened with care to the progress of the discussion, and I have endeavoured to discern from the speeches what each hon. member's attitude on this Bill was, I think, with some success. I am not sure that I am able to say that any hon. member distinctly opposes the measure. There has been considerable criticism and some scowling, but in so far as I have discerned, no hon. member has set himself against the Bill itself.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) tells us that he must oppose it because the session is late and there has not been sufficient time for consideration, not that there is anything in the measure to which he takes exception, not that he is opposed to the formation of a board of commerce with the general powers

embodied in this Bill, but because it is the end of the session and we should not discuss it now. I do not know why there should be any less value in the third day of July than in the 30th'day of January. I do not know what we are to do at the end of the session, nor how we are going to have a session unless there is an end to it. There must be an end, a middle and a beginning. If we have to conduct o.ur session with nothing at the end except congratulations and measures, that mean nothing, we had better finish some time before the end. I do not know how we can use the last few days of the session better than by considering and passing measures which the public demand and which will do the public good. We are not asking any hon. member to rush this measure through. Surely that has not been the attitude of the Government throughout the debate to-night? Nor did the speech, I think, of any hon. member indicate that there was any great scarcity of time or that he was not being given an opportunity to thoroughly review and understand what he has to decide upon.
There was an attitude, as well, on the part of some, to criticise the measure from every standpoint. The hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) said that it was the same as the Combines Act of nine years ago-an attempt to regulate an earthquake, that it was an imitation of the wrong end of American legislation and a blinding of ourselves to the right end; in a word, he saw no good and no hope in the measure but he took great care to tell the House that he could not find it in his heart to oppose it. The leader of the Opposition who, I observe was very anxious to overcome, and if possible negative, the maladroit 'move he made the day before yesterday, came forward and stated that some such measure as this was what the Opposition had been looking foT for years and that for his part he would not oppose 'it. If it is good leadership to make an appeal to all classes of the community then he has vindicated the position that he occupies, because he can say to those who do not like the Board of Commerce, and who will criticise it when it comes into existence and starts operation: Why, I opposed the thing from the beginning; I voted against concurrence in the resolution that looked to the establishment of a Board of Commerce. To those, who think that something should be done at this time to take' care of the grosser cases of profiteering he will say: I did not oppose the measure; as a matter of fact I voted for it. He has on his left an hon. member (Mr. MoGrea) who delivered a speech of very considerable value indeed filled with common sense from the beginning until very close to the end and pregnant with a lot of good advice for young and old in this country.
And even he, staid and successful business man as he is, is free to tell this House that he believes a lot of good can come out of such a board as this measure contemplates, and that his only reason for voting against it is to be on the safe side for fear the Board of Commerce does something rash after it comes into existence. I do not quite get the point of the 'last two or three sentences of the speech of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. MoCrea). We had a scold from the hon. member from Kent (Mr. McCoig), a speech characterized by bad temper and bad logic, and aiming at what results I know not, but discussing everything in the world except the Bill before the House. I am sorry that the hon. member for Bed Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) did not give closer attention to the terms of the measure that he rose to discuss today. He is the slave of a vision. He feels that no subject can be properly discussed until he offers the House a dissertation on the subject of free trade; and in everything that occurs, in Canada or the world over, he is able to find an argument for his favourite theory. 1 believe that if a comet were to alight on this House, he would rise at once to tell us that that was a vindication of his argument, ever since he entered Parliament, in favour of free trade; and no matter what disaster comes in any portion of the world he traces it in some way or the other to protection. Now it must be apparent to a mind as clear as his that the evils sought to be in some way controlled by the Bill before Parliament exist in every country and under all conditions, whether under a protection system, or under a semi-protective system, or under a free trade system. No country in the world is free from them, nor are they more accentuated in this Dominion than in any country on the face of the globe. And in Great Britain to-day, not because of free trade, not because of protection, but uninfluenced by either condition, the combine exerts its pressure-the combine causes, at all events, some suffering. There are combinations of capital that are detrimental to the public interest; there are, in a word, conditions such as will be controlled, regulated, and modified if the Board of Commerce contemplated by this measure .does its work. Surely it also ought to be clear to him that as we are now many generations from the



day when all intelligent countries dealt with (the tariff question, andi when after years, yea, generations of experience, the majority -of the intelligent democracies of the world have, in some form or other, adopted the regulation of trade by tariff, it must be clear to a mind like his, if he could only let it operate, that the democracies have not, after that experience and with these long years of thought and study, adhered to a principle that is obviously and patently false. Tariffs, like every human institution, have their uses and they have their abuses; they have their applications and they have their mis-applica-tions; they can do good under circumstances, and they can do harm under other circumstances; they have their extreme and impetuous advocates who find in them the source of all the blessings we enjoy; and they have as well their equally blind and obdurate foes who seem to see in them only monsters of sin. But tariff or no tariff, high tariff, low tariff, or none at all, the Bill before the House is a good Bill if the board that it contemplates is fearless and able, and addresses itself skilfully to the situation.
Now what I suggest is this; We have throughout this war, and particularly since the war closed, confronted abnormal conditions in Canada. Those conditions are not peculiar to us nor are they accentuated here beyond the measure of their accentuation in other lands. I never yet in my life saw or heard of any man who could look across the 'border as the hon. member for Bed Deer did this afternoon, and tell us that the condition of the high cost of living and the development of combines and monopolies is not existent there, much less have I ever heard a man who would stand up and say that as an advocate of free trade he took comfort to himself in the prosperity of the United States on account of the low tariff of that country. Why, in the United States of America to-day there is not a phenomenon that we see in Canada now that is not present there, and is not present in a greater degree than it is in this country. Who suggests for a minute that the labour troubles they are confronting and passing through now are not just as prevalent and just as difficult, and even more difficult, to contend with than they are in this Dominion? The phase we are passing through in the month of July, 1919, they passed through in the latter end of 1918. We are walking not quite step by step with them, but just a little behind, because their industrial position is just a little further ahead than ours. Every
IMr. Meighen.]
other phenomenon is present there just the same as here; not only industrial unrest but the presence of combinations of capital on the one hand and large combinations of labour on the other hand, and undue oppression or undue profiteering, in some instances, although not the general rule there any more than it is here. All these conditions are present there and they have been present there just as long as here. They have sought a remedy in the United States. They sought a remedy along the lines of this measure and the remedy they sought has not been by any means without effect. For some years they have had what we propose to call a Board of Commerce. They have a Trade Commission, and that Trade Commission has done good work in breaking into the illegal practices or combinations of trade. But the Bill they passed did not admit the one fundamental truth that there may be combinations of capital that are not detrimental to the public interest; there may be combines even that work to the economic advantage of the whole country, and are not against the public interest at all; and as a consequence of failure to recognize that truth they have had to await a long course of judicial decisions in order to get away from the fundamental error of their first legislation; and in the Federal Supreme Court of the United States, by a series of decisions, they have gradually brought the jurisprudence of that country, and indeed the operations of the Trade Commission, to a recognition of the fact that it was not their duty wholly to break up combines in every case or to interfere with the operations of large combinations of capital, but only to do* so where the effect was detrimental, oppressive, and illegitimate in its character. In the Bill that is before the House the operations of the Board of Commerce that will be appointed will be governed by the first principle enunciated in the early part of the measure that will follow this Bill (the twin measure), namely, that they can only deal with such features of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, so called, as they find to be detrimental to the public interest.
Furthermore, in the American legislation they did not give the board thereby established any control of prices or of profits; they only permitted them to check such practices as they might find to be unfair. They were given no control such as is given by this Bill, and it is but too evident that there could have been, at all events, greater efficiency in that board if that oontrol had been given to them. In Great Britain, as


JUL'S 3, 1919
[Stage Direction]
has been shown by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), they, too, have recommended the adoption of a policy1 similar to that which we are venturing to enter upon by this legislation. Consequently from the courses now being pursued in other countries, from the deliberations of hon. members of this House through these latter years and their observations of what is taking place in our own country, and particularly from the earnest deliberations of the Cost of Living Committee of this House, we surely now come to the discussion of this measure fairly well prepared to deal with it intelligently and to pass upon it according to its merits.
Therefore, it seems to me the second reading may now be passed. But I invite hon. members opposite to say yes or no to this legislation. Surely it is not sufficient on the part of any hon. member to say, as did the hon. member, I think, for Kent-at least, one hon. member opposite-" I refuse to take any responsibility." No hon. member can refuse to take responsibility. He must stand for or against legislation that comes before Parliament. If hon. members are opposed to the measure, let them say they are opposed to it; if they are in favour of the measure, let them say they are in favour of it; and if they are not in favour of the measure, let them direct the attention of the House to a better form of legislation to attain the end that this Bill has in sight.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, rule 8 provides that upon a division the Yeas and Nays shall not be entered upon the minutes, unless demanded by five members. As five members rose to ask for the Yeas and Nays, we are therefore entitled to have the Yeas and Nays taken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There being no contrary voice, there can be no division of opinion.


William Sora Middlebro: As it now appears that the House is unanimous that the Bill should receive its second reading, I do not insist upon the formal taking of the Yeas and Nays.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen (Acting Minister of Justice), the House went into Committee on the Bill; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-definitions:


Arthur Meighen: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-appointment:
Sir HERBERT AMES:: I refrained from speaking on the principle of the Bill, Mr. Chairman, because the few remarks I have ito make have reference .to clause 4, and I think they are practically along the same lines as those of the member for Chateau-guay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb). This Bill [DOT] particularly exempts agriculturists and employees; it therefore deals particularly with manufacturers and merchants. Now, not all manufacturers and merchants are profiteers. This House has no sympathy with those that are, and there can be no objection whatever to having the most thorough investigation. But I want to. point out .that this Bill provides for wide means of inquisitorial examination-that it is possible to go very completely into what have hitherto been considered the private affairs of a business concern. No business concern that is doing what is honest and right has any fear of investigation; but it does want the investigation to be made by an impartial man, and I contend that the last part of subsection (2) of clause 4 should be amended so as to provide that ithe chief commissioner of this board shall be a judge-a judge of staiiding, a judge of reputation as a fair-minded man. A judge is a man who has been accustomed to give fair play to all concerned, to arrive at his conclusions after the evidence has been heard from both sides. A judge usually has a very wide experience, for he touches a great many phases of life in his judicial career, and he learns to know a great deal about the general transactions of business. Therefore a judge is eminently fitted to act as chairman of this very important board. I know perfectly well that the class of people throughout Canada who are to be investigated 'by this Act are quite prepared to submit freely and voluntarily to any such investigation as Parliament may order, there will be no obstacle thrown in the way, but they wish to be assured that that investigation will be at the hands of an Impartial commission.
They do not want that commission to be headed by some lawyer who is a sensationalist, who wants to make a reputation for himself, who is constantly passing out to the press reports that are of a. half-baked

or half-considered character. They want a man of judicial temperament and of reputation as a fair-minded man. I move, therefore, that subsection 2 of section 4 be amended by striking out the following words at the end thereof: "Or who is a barrister or advocate of at least ten years' standing at the bar of any such province"; so as to confine the choice to a judge of the Superior Court of any province.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Unless the constitution of the commission is changed, this amendment would be very unfair. The commissioners are appointed for only ten years, and to take a judge off the Bench, where he may, subject to good conduct, remain for life, and to make him a commissioner under this Act for a term of ten years is not fair to the judge. I point out to my hon. friend (Sir Herbert Ames) that judges, who are all of such judicial mind and who are so fair and so adverse to sensation, are drawn from barristers of ten years' standing; so that the judicial mind is not' confined to those who are not of the Bench. There are judges who like sensation, just as there are lawyers who like sensation, and if the proper type of lawyer is appointed to this board he will be found to be possessed of the judicial mind and the dislike of sensation which my hon. friend so much desires to find in the appointee.


Arthur Meighen: I really do not like to leave it open to the Governor in Council to appoint a judge alone, especially a judge of the Superior Court. It is quite possible that no judge of the Superior Court will accept the office.


Herbert Brown Ames: The public would be far more satisfied with this enactment if they felt that its administration was in the hands of a man who had proved himself to be a wise and impartial judge. Very wide	powers	are	being	placed	in	thehands of this Chief Commissioner- wide	powers	are	being	placed	in	the
than have ever been given to any one in Canada. If you wish to have the Act accepted with favohr by the public, you should give to the public a guarantee that the nomination will be of such a character that justice and fair play will be assured.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: The chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners is a lawyer, and I do not think iany complaint has ever been made with regard to that board. Some members of the Bar who have not been appointed as judges may be better suited to this position than any judge who might be available. I do

not think the Government should be circumscribed in their choice; the very best man available should be had. The suggestion of my hon. friend (Sir Herbert Ames) would, if adopted, restrict that choice and endanger the carrying out of the desire of the House. In my opinion, the section is better as it is.


James Alexander Robb: Subsection 3 provides a ten-year job for somebody, and whoever is appointed may hold the job until he is seventy-five years of age. I cannot quite understand why these commissioners should be limited to the professional class, to judges or to lawyers. I am not ready to admit that all the wisdom centres around gentlemen who have been trained to the Bar. But in preparing this legislation the Government are following the procedure laid down by the Prime Minister in selecting his Cabinet, for he has practically surrounded himself with lawyers. The business men, the labouring classes and the agricultural classes throughout the country have a suspicion that there are too many lawyers in this Government, and it is not a very great recommendation of their abilities that it takes twenty-three of these gentlemen and two under-secretaries to do work that was better done by the fourteen ministers of the Laurier Administration.


Arthur Meighen: I see six lawyers around the hon. member now.


James Alexander Robb: That is not an argument that all the wisdom centres around these gentlemen. These gentlemen of the law have been living upon, the public treasury for the last three years, holding various commissions and that kind of thing, and now that the military tribunals are going out of business jobs must be found for them somewhere. The impression in the country will be that this is a measure to provide positions for some friends of the Government whose jobs are fading away now that peace has come.


Arthur Meighen: It is a matter of wonder to me, then, why the hon. gentleman supported the measure. As to the occupation of the man who should be chairman, the reason for this provision is the same as in the case of the Railway Commission. In the appointment of the chairman of the Railway Commission, the same class is to be selected from, the reason being that the work of the chairman is judicial, and that in a very short time there will grow up a body of jurisprudence that will be of value in the further conduct of the work of this board, just as there has grown up a like

body of jurisprudence in the work of the Kailway Commission. If the chairman were of any other occupation I cannot see how he could carry on his work efficiently unless he had counsel appointed to sit beside him and give him assistance. The work as chairman is essentially judicial; the other two commissioners do not require to be lawyers.
Amendment (Sir Herbert Ames) negatived.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think it would be well to have an assistant chief commissioner when there are to be only three commissioners. There is an assistant chief commissioner of the Railway Commission, but I think it would be better not to have that here. I therefore move:
That subsection 1 of section 4 be amended by striking out all the words after the word "and" in the second line thereof and substituting therefor the following: " each of the others shall be known as assistant commissioner."
I move also:
That subsection 3 of section 4 be amended by striking out the following words in the second and third lines thereof: " and the Assistant Chief Commissioner the office of Assistant Chief Commissioner " ; and by striking out the words " they respectively continue to be members " in the fourth line thereof and replacing them by the words " he continues to be a member."
Subsection 3 will then read:
The Chief Commissioner shall be entitled to hold the office of Chief Commissioner as long as he continues to be a member of the board.


Andrew Ross McMaster: You have three commissioners, and you call one of them chief commissioner. Why give any other title but commissioner to the others?


Arthur Meighen: Because I want the other * two to be equal, so that there will be no priority as between the other two.


Herbert Brown Ames: Have we the assurance of the minister that every effort will be made to secure a judge as chief commissioner?


Arthur Meighen: The minister has not the matter entirely in his own hands. I realize that other things being equal, the reputation that attaches to a judge, " the divinity that doth hedge " him, would be of considerable value.
Sir HERBERT AMElS : And his experience and reputation.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: How does the minister argue that it is necessary that the chief commissioner should be a judge or a lawyer, when, according to clause 6, two commissioners shall form a quorum, and subclause 3 of clause 6, says:
No vacancy in the board shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to act.
And in that case if the judge or lawyer who is the chief commissioner should resign, then the other two commissioners, who may be farmers or business men, are. in the judgment of the minister quite qualified to act.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, because when they do any order made must be supervised by the chief commissioner. That appears in a clause in the Bill. The very same principle is followed here as is followed in the Board of Railway Commissioners. In the Railway Commission the junior commissioner may act, but there is a supervisory power in the-chairman of the commission. It is on account of that power that he requires to have a knowledge of the law.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I trust the minister
will not regard my objection as captious. But he rather depreciates the status of other commissioners by calling them " assistant commissioners." There was some reason for the word " assistant " when he had an assistant commissioner, but now when he has three commissioners and he calls one of them a chief commissioner, there is no necessity of calling the others assistant commissioners. They are not there to "assist" the chief commissioner; they are there to do their work as commissioners.


Arthur Meighen: The chief commissioner is a commissioner too, so that I think the distinction is just a little bit clearer.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It makes no great difference. What is the necessity for the provision that the chief commissioner shall be entitled to hold the office of chief commissioner so long as he continues to be a member of the board?


Arthur Meighen: It means simply that once appointed he is entitled to hold that position so long as he is a commissioner.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Does not that go without saying?


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps it does, but
this is merely taken out of the clause in the Bill creating the Railway Commission. I move to strike out the words " the assistant chief" in the twenty-second line and to replace them by the words " assistant," so that the clause will now read:

An assistant commissioner shall have all the powers-


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice there is no
provision made here for either the chief commissioner or any of the commissioners being able to speak or understand both languages. In a body like this that is proposed to be a democratic court, and to which any man may come with his story, not necessarily being represented by counsel, it is highly essential that someone on that body should be able to understand both languages. It is desirable that the chief commissioner should be able to speak both languages, but if not the chief commissioner, at least one of the body should be able to speak both language.


Arthur Meighen: That may be, but I do not think an amendment should be made circumscribing the powers of the Governor in Council to gain that end. There was no such provision in the appointment of the six members of the Railway Commission, and the circumscription would be greater here if you compel one of the three commissioners to speak both languages. If it is practicable, that may be done, but it may not be practicable. I do not know.


Joseph Archambault: I do not wish to be obnoxious, but I have just been informed that the Bill has not been printed in French.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Joseph Archambault: I understand that when a clause in English is passed, the similar clause in French is also passed. There may be a discrepancy between the clause in the French and the same clause in the English Bill. Therefore, if clauses in French are to be passed without our knowing how they read, I do not believe it is fair to go on with the Bill.


Arthur Meighen: If a clause passes, then that clause as passed in English as translated into French exactly as passed.


Joseph Archambault: There may be an error in translation. I remember cases where the sense of the French clause was entirely different from the sense in the English clause although the translators did their best to translate it properly. If we are to be asked to pass a clause in English and then see the translation of it, and the translation has a different meaning from the clause in English, that is not a proper way of passing, the Bill.

. Mr. MEIGHEN: Of course, if the translation is wrong I presume it could be corrected.


Joseph Archambault: It is often wrong. How could it be corrected?


Arthur Meighen: It could be corrected
at all events where amendments are made.
. Mr? ARCHAMBAULT: Next year.


Arthur Meighen: No, this year. For example, clause 4 must now be translated into French, which will amount to the same thing as if the French translation of the original Bill was in the hands of the hon. member. Where we pass a clause without amendment it may be true that the clause in French is passed automatically. We must always run the risk of wrong translation, more or less.


Joseph Archambault: There are some
hon. members who do not understand English very well, and I think they are entitled to read the Bill in French. I do not think we should proceed with the Bill when it is not printed in French; I believe there is a rule to that effect.


Arthur Meighen: There is no hon. member present who does not understand English well. I am sure all hon. members behind him do', and certainly my hon. friend does.


Joseph Archambault: I am not so sure about that.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Chief Commissioner may authorize a commissioner to exercise certain of his powers:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Here is the very same objection that we had to the Civil Service Commissioners delegating some one else to carry out certain duties.


Arthur Meighen: That cannot be done
under this Bill. The commissioner can only authorize another commissioner, not an outsider.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-quorum:
Mr.   McM ASTER@: There will have to be a change made in line 8 on page 3. You have the words " Assistant Chief Commissioner " there.


James Alexander Robb: The Government have received protests from Boards of Trade against this legislation, and it is scarcely fair to the House or the country that the minister should come down at this late hour
I

with the Bill and immediately start to amend it. Either his officers have not been careful in drafting the Bill or the minister himself has not been careful. We have been sitting here since eleven o'clock yesterday and it is now nearly one o'clock in the morning and the House will be opening again in another ten hours. I think it is not fair to the House nor to the men in the Press Gallery, who have been here since early morning, to go on with the Bill to-night. I think we should report progress.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member need not be afraid about the drafting of the Bill. It was decided when the Bill was drafted, not to proceed upon the principle of having any one as Assistant Commissioner. It was thought there should be no priority as between the two. These are merely clerical amendments. There is virtually no other amendment except one to amend clause 19, merely to provide that the money for salaries and so forth shall be voted by Parliament instead of being left to the Governor in Council.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would suggest
where these clerical amendments have to be made the clause might stand.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Section stands.
On section 7-where interested in matter, etc., Governor in Council may appoint another person to act:


Mr.   McM ASTER@: After providing that
no commissioner who has got an interest in any matter can act as a judge in that matter, which is quite proper, this clause goes on to provide:
Provided that no commissioner shall he disqualified to act by reason of interest or ot kindred or affinity to any person interested in any matter before the 'board.
That is directly contrary to our practice before the ordinary courts, where a judge refuses to sit if his son appears before him to represent a party. A fortiori, if a commissioner 'has a son whose business is being investigated, it seems to me that that commissioner should not sit, but that someone should take his place. I think I have only to point this out to the minister for him to see the reasonableness of my suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: The clause does not
mean that. It does not empower any commissioner to act in a case in which he himself is interested as against the common law.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I am not complaining about the first part of the clause but the latter part.


Arthur Meighen: The latter part is a common provision, and is indeed in the Act creating the Railway Commission. The first part of the clause provides that if there is affinity or kinship between the commissioner and any one on trial before him, upon application by the commissioner or by the Governor in 'Council without application an ad hoc commissioner may be appointed. That is not compulsory at all. The latter part of the clause provides that if it should not be done, and later it should turn out that there was some kinship, that shall not upset the whole proceeding.


Thomas Vien: It means that the commissioner would not be disqualified from sitting in a matter in which he had a direct interest. The minister says it does not give him the right to sit, but the clause clearly says that he is not disqualified from sitting, and if he is not disqualified he is qualified to sit when a matter in which he is directly interested comes before the board.


Arthur Meighen: What I said was that there was nothing to qualify a man as against the common law, that is, if the common, law disqualified him from sitting by reason of interest this does not qualify him. He is disqualified if he is a judge of .a lower court buit no judge of a court of record is now disqualified on account of interest. The law presumes that his character is such that he will not be influenced by that fact.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: He can be refused in our province.


Arthur Meighen: He cannot throughout the rest of the Dominion if he is a judge of the court of record.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Where a commissioner is interested in a matter which comes before him he may be replaced under this clause by the Governor in Council appointing another man. I think that the law should go farther. I think it should provide that no man should sit in an investigation in which he is personally interested. I would suggest the advisability of amending the Act in that sense. I am rather surprised to learn that in the other provinces in the Dominion a judge can sit on a matter in which he is personally interested. With us in Quebec that would be a just ground for

objection. Under our practice no judge would think of sitting on a matter in which he is interested.	.


Arthur Meighen: They follow that practice in the other courts, too, but they are not bound to.


Thomas Vien: Will the minister say that in the English-speaking provinces it is not a good ground for objection that a judge is interested in the matter that comes before him?


Arthur Meighen: Not in'a court of record.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Does not the minister think my suggestion worthy of acceptance? The minister wishes this court to have influence with the public. He wishes the findings of that court to be without cavil or question. It will not appeal as strongly to the people as an independent investigating body if it is known that a commissioner, or the board, can sit on a matter in which they are personally interested. They should not have that right.


Arthur Meighen: The difficulty is this: No commissioner of high character would do so, but if a man is to be disqualified for interest a commissioner might, in a case, be interested as a consumer.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Undoubtedly he would have an interest one way or the other, even as a consumer, and there might be a technical case where a bona fide judgment would be overthrown when in the public interest it should not be overthrown. I think the public can depend upon any commissioner who is appointed not sitting in a case in which he has a proprietary interest.


Thomas Vien: By the wording of the clause it does not apply only to a commissioner who would be a consumer but it qualifies him when the clause says that "no commissioner shall be disqualified." That means that "every commissioner is qualified." Whether you say that he is not disqualified or whether you say that he is qualified, it comes to the same practical result.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Well then you say that every commissioner shall be qualified to act in any matter in which he is interested or if his kindred is interested. You say that whether his son or brother is interested in a concern or whether he himself is interested in a matter which is before him,

he is qualified to act. That is not a sound principle and it is not good legislation.


Arthur Meighen: That might be a cause for his removal. He may be removed for cause.


Levi Thomson: I rather think the minister would be well advised to allow this to stand and give it reconsideration. It strikes me that to the last proviso something might be added to the effect that where no objection on account of interest had been taken the decision could not be set aside. I think it would be well for the minister to give this clause a little further consideration.


Thomas Vien: I also think that the clause might be very easily improved. I grasp the point raised by the minister that if nobody objects to the commissioner sitting in a case where he may have a direct or an indirect interest the adjudication may not be attacked. But the suggestion of the hon. gentleman'(Mr. L. Thomson), I believe, would probably cover the point and the clause might be made to read in this way:
Provided that no commissioner shall be disqualified to act by reason of interest or of kindred or affinity to any person interested in any matter before the board and if no objection has been taken at the time of the hearing.
Or something of that kind so that it will leave an opening for objection to be taken when the hearing comes up.


Arthur Meighen: This is in so many statutes that I think it would be unsafe to change it. You might have a judgment upset on the ground of the merest technicality. It does not work any hardship and it is in so many statutes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not in so many statutes. It is in a few statutes, for instance, as to a stipendiary or police magistrate, stipulating that his decision shall not be affected because he is a ratepayer in the town and profiting by the fines that he may impose. I think the proviso might very well be left out and the whole thing left to the common law.


Arthur Meighen: Let the clause stand.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: This is the way I would
like to see the clause read:
Whenever any commissioner is interested otherwise than as a consumer in any matter before the board, or of kin or affinity to any person interested in any such matter, the Governor in Council may, either upon the application of such commissioner or otherwise, appoint some disinterested person to act as commissioner pro hac vice; and' the Governor in Council may also, in the case of the illness,

absence or inability to act of any commissioner, appoint a commissioner pro hac vice;
Then strike out the proviso.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 9-Whole time to be devoted to duties:


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I am at one with that, but still I hate to see a thing expressed in two different ways in the same section:
The commissioners shall devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties under this Act,-
You might stop there because it is mere
tautology to go on and say:
-and shall not accept or hold any office or employment inconsistent with this section.


Arthur Meighen: Sometimes it is better to follow the beaten path even if the beaten path may be improved. This is taken directly out of the Railway commission legislation. The idea is to warn them against taking directorships in insurance companies and the like of that.
Progress reported.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
Hon. Mr. CALDER:: With the unanimous consent of the House I desire, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to ask for leave to introduce Bill No. 178, to amend the Dominion Elections Act. Its purpose is to provide for the by-elections.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion requires the unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


MARGARET GREY DIVORCE BILL,
Arthur Meighen: I beg leave, with the unanimous consent of the House, to move that Bill No. 179, from the Senate, for the relief of Margaret Grey, be placed on the Order Paper this day for first reading, and that Rules 25, 28a, 96 (subsection 3) and 115 be suspended for that purpose. I believe there is no objection to this divorce, so far as any one has heard, and unless this course is taken the Bill cannot go through this session.


Thomas Vien: What rules will be suspended by the motion?


Arthur Meighen: The rules that provide for a day's notice to get the Bill on the
Votes and Proceedings, another day's notice to get it on the Order Paper, and another day's notice for its submission to the Private Bills Committee.


Joseph Archambault: I understood the minister to say there was no objection to this divorce.


Arthur Meighen: Not that I have heard of.


Joseph Archambault: If there is no objection on the part of the parties to the divorce there must be collusion.


Mr. BOYS:: I might say to my hon. friend that as a member of the Private Bills Cbm-mittee I was present at the hearing of the case and heard the respondent give evidence in his own behalf.


Thomas Vien: Then there is objection?


William Alves Boys: There is objection, but no collusion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion must be either accepted or rejected. It can only be accepted by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Alves Boys: I move that Bill 179 be placed on the Order Paper for this day and read a first time.
Motion agreed (to and Bill read the first time.
On the motion of Mr. Boys that Bill No. 179 be read a second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion requires unanimous consent.
Mr. MeKENZIE: I would only consent to the motion on the undertaking by the hon. member that if the respondent has counsel he be notified that the Bill is coming before the Private Bills Committee.


William Alves Boys: I will give my own undertaking to notify Mr. Gleeson, who acted for the respondent before the Divorce Committee of the Senate.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder the House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, July 4, 1919.