1919-07-04

INSIDE CIVIL SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. STEELE (South Perth) presented the fourth report of the Special Committee appointed) to inquire into the staffs of the Inside Civil Service.

[Stage Direction]
Twenty-seventh annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the year ending March 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.
Report of the Administrative Chairman of the Advisory Council of Scientific and Industrial Research for Canada for the year ending March 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Maclean.

Hon. A. K. MACLEAN moved:: That the report of the War Trade {Board which has been laid on the table of the House at the present session, he printed, and that Rule 74 he suspended in connection therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I beg to move that the motion standing in my name, which is to (be found at page 516i of the Votes and Proceedings be placed on Government Orders for to-morrow. The resolution is in these words:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide in the proposed Act to amend the Dominion Election Act, (Bill'17'8), now before the House, that the compensation of revising officers, registrars, enumerators and ali other officers and persons engaged' in or about the preparation and revision of lists, and all expenses consequent thereupon or authorized toy the said proposed Act, shall be paid out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated1 Revenue Fund of Canada, but such sums as shall be determined by the Governor ip Council and no more shall be allowed or paid for such services and expenses.
I also have the honour to announce to the House that this resolution has been submitted to His Excellency the Governor General, who has been pleased to express his approval of it and commend it to the consideration of the House.
The motion is in connection with Bill No. 178 and is necessary in order that that Bill may be proceeded with expeditiously. Motion agreed1 to.
EFFICIENCY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. Mr. M. STEELE moved:
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Fourth Report of the 
Special Committee appointed to consider the staffs of the Inside Civil Service, the proceedings of the said committee and the evidence taken by them be printed as an Appendix to the Journals, and that Rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
ATHABASCA, iGRANDE PRAIRIE AND FORT VERMILION RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. H. B. MORPHY moved:: That the Accountant of this House be authorized to refund the fees paid on Bill No. 72, intituled :	An Act to incorporate the Athabasca,
Grande Prairie and Fort Vermilion Railway Company, less the cost of Printing and Translation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I might explain that the Bill was thrown out by the Senate and therefore did not pass into law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. R. BLAKE (Winnipeg):: I would like to ask the Government if it has any information to the effect that Hallers' army, which I am informed was the Polish army in France, was allowed to go into Poland fully equipped with materials from the Allies and was used on the Ukrainian front against Ukrainians.
I would also ask the Prime Minister if the boundaries of Poland and Ukrainia have been determined' by the Peace Conference and if the religious liberties of the Ukrainians have been guaranteed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether or not this question can properly be put upon the Order Paper, but certainly it is not a question to be levelled at one point blank. My hon. friend may be assured that I will endeavour to give him, before -prorogation of the House, as full information as is available on these points. 1 promised that yesterday to my hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), and I am having a memorandum prepared with regard to the question which he then submitted. I am also endeavouring to provide some information in response to a question which was submitted to me privately by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. H. A. Mackie), and I shall add to that the question which has been put to me this morning by the hon. member (Mr. Blake). The hon. gentleman may be

assured that I will give him all the information available. If I find that it is not available to the extent that he would desire, I shall send a despatch with the view of securing any necessary additional information.



PROGRESS OF DEMOBILIZATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
\Hon. S. C. MEWBURN:	With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some information regarding the progress of demobilization. From the date of the Armistice up to the end of June we have demobilized 289,627 men. There are still in England to be brought back-this is a very close estimate-43,565 men, included in which are some 5,363 hospital cases. That number now in England would have been reduced by at least another 20,000 had it not been for the shipping strikes that took place on the other side. Those strikes are now at an end and transports are sailing rapidly, and I hope my original estimate will be realized, that complete demobilization, except for some delays in cleaning up, will be through early in August.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Mr. BUREAU:: Is it the intention of the Minister to keep any force in England so as to give the Government a chance to continue the War Time Elections Act?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



OTTAWA STREET RAILWAY STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. McKENZIE:: I would like to ask the representative of the Minister of Labour for some information in connection with what appears in the press as to the apparent hitch between the Department of Labour and the men who are out on strike in the City of Ottawa? The Minister is doubtless familiar with the announcement in the morning papers that the Board has withdrawn from the conferences, or that the negotiations have been suspended, and I would like, therefore, to know, if possible, how the matter stands.


Robert Laird Borden: I had a report made to me in regard to this matter by the Minister of Labour. The situation is a very simple one. A board of conciliation was appointed, and the law provides that until a report has been made and filed by the board no strike or lockout shall take place. While the board was carrying on its investigations, the men went out on strike. The
Minister of Labour reached the conclusion that to proceed with the Board of Conciliation under those circumstances was not consistent with due respect to the law of this country, and he therefore directed the board to delay any further investigation until the men had returned to their duty and obeyed the law.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.



DIVORCE OASES IN PRIVY COUNCIL.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the Acting Minister of Justice be good enough to give us his views or any view he may be pleased to furnish, in connection with the report published yesterday that the Privy Council has given its decision in Walker and Walker, and other cases, which have to deal with the jurisdiction of the western Supreme Courts in the matter of divorces, and what effect that judgment will have upon the Divorce Bill now before the House?


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):: The Department of Justice has received no report, as yet, of the decision of the Judicial Committtee of the Privy Council in any of the divorce cases recently before it. When the report, or the text, of the decision is received, I shall be pleased to answer, as fully as it can be answered, the question of my hon. friend.



INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Does the Government intend to take any action in connection with the report recently presented by the Industrial Commission?


Robert Laird Borden: (Prime Minister) :	Announcement in regard to the
matter will be made in due course and within a very short time.


Jacques Bureau: Before prorogation.



NEWSPRINT CONTROL-POWERS OF COMMISSIONER.


[Stage Direction]
On- motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance) the House went into
[Stage Direction]
Committee on the following proposed resolutions; Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide,-
1.	That the powers, jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner and Controller of Paper should be confirmed and extended to such extent as may be necessary to enable him to fully complete all work and investigations begun 'by him prior to the declaration of peace, under the provisions of the Orders in Council relating to such investigations, and to determine all questions and to make all necessary orders with respect to matters begun by or coming before him prior to the declaration of peace.
2.	That the powers, jurisdiction and authority of the Paper Control Tribunal under the Order in Council of September 16, 1918, (P.C. 2270), should be confirmed and extended as may be necessary to enable said Paper Control Tribunal to finally determine after the declaration of peace all matters pending before and not finally determined by it upon the date of such declaration ; and that the powers, jurisdiction and authority of the said Tribunal should be further extended to such extent as may be necessary to enable it to hear and finally determine all matters and questions brought before it subsequent to the declaration of peace on appeal from any act done by or order or decision of the Commissioner and Controller under the provisions of the foregoing resolution.
3.	That except for the purpose of finally completing all matters undertaken and determining all questions arising prior to the declaration of peace, the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the said Commissioner and Controller of Paper of the said Paper Control Tribunal shall cease upon the declaration of peace.
Sir THOMAiS WHITE:	The object
of these resolutions, and of the legislation which will be founded upon them, is to enable the Commissioner and Controller of Paper to complete, to the extent' that is necessary after the declaration of peace, the work and investigations begun by him under the Orders in Council under which he has been acting. Let me describe the present situation. The Commissioner and Controller of Newsprint Paper has, in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him, made orders respecting the price which is to be paid by publishers in . Canada for newsprint paper from July 1st of last year. Those orders of the commissioner are at present in appeal before what is called the Paper Control Tribunal, consisting of three judges appointed for the purpose of reviewing the findings of the Commissioner and Controller of Newsprint Paper. Some little time ago
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not catch what the minister said with respect to the three judges.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Probably my hon. friend is not as familiar with the situation as I had assumed, and I do' not wonder at it. There is at present a Commissioner

and Controller of Newsprint Paper whose duties are to make investigations from time to time and fix the prices to be paid by Canadian publishers to the manufacturers of newsprint paper, and to enforce his orders so that newsprint will be distributed according to the requirements of the Canadian press. It is also his duty to make orders, whereby the manufacturers of newsprint paper who supply less than their proportion of the newsprint paper required by Canadian publishers shall pay to those manufacturers who furnish more than their proportionate share, what is called the differential. That administration has been going on for two years, and the commissioner and controjler (Mr. R. A. Pringle, K.C.), has made many orders fixing prices, and also with respect to the payment of the differential.


Jacques Bureau: Would the minister state why Mr. Pringle was appointed to regulate the price of newsprint paper? The Committee will then be in a better position to understand the rulings that have been made.


Richard Smeaton White: The commissioner was appointed, and the powers which I have mentioned given him, for the purpose of securing to Canadian publishers during the war an adequate supply of newsprint paper at fair prices.


Jacques Bureau: At whose request was he appointed, and by whom was the appointment made?


Richard Smeaton White: The Dominion Government appointed him upon representations made that if the price of newsprint paper was not regulated, many newspapers in Canada would have to cease publication. Now, answering more particularly the question of the leader of the Opposition, dissatisfaction having been expressed by the newspaper publishers and the newsprint manufacturers as well, as to the orders made. by the Commissioner and Controller of Newsprint Paper with respect to prices, and with respect to the amount of differential which should be paid by some manufacturers to others, the Government created an Appeal Tribunal consisting of: Mr. Justice Middleton of Ontario, Mr. Justice Archer of Quebec, and Mr. Justice White of New Brunswick. The proceedings before the commissioner and controller, upon which his findings as to prices and as to the differential were based, are now before that Appeal Tribunal for review and judgment. It may be some time before their decision is rendered, and even after it is rendered

there will be matters of accounting which will take a considerable time to adjust. In addition to that, it is necessary to continue the powers of the Controller after the declaration of peace, in order that he may enforce his decisions, and the final decision of the Appeal Tribunal. In other words, unless this legislation is passed, jt is quite probable that the orders of the Controller of Newsprint Paper, and the decisions thereon of the Appeal Tribunal, will become null and void, and not susceptible of enforcement without retroactive legislation at a subsequent session of Parliament.
Let me point out the last provision of the resolution:
That except for the purpose of finally completing- all matters undertaken and determining all questions arising prior to the declaration of peace, the powers, authority and jurisdiction of the said Commissioner and Controller of Paper of the said Paper Control Tribunal cease upon the declaration of peace.
That is to say, the powers which we have given to him come to an end upon the declaration of peace subject to the carrying into effect of orders already made and the completion of work undertaken will be authorized by this legislation we are now asking Parliament to pass.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister is talking of the declaration of peace. Does he mean by that a declaration to be published in The Canada Gazette as described in the War Measures Act?


Richard Smeaton White: The British Empire at present is at war with four powers -Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. Preliminary peace has been signed with Germany, but officially and technically we are still at war with her. Before peace is an accomplished fact, and before a proclamation can be made that a state of peace exists among all the belligerent nations, it will be necessary that the peace treaties with the several powers with whom Great Britain and her allies have been at war, shall be ratified and approved by the several legislatures concerned. The Prime Minister made a comprehensive statement with respect to that the other day. While we do not know how long that will be, it may well be a couple of months. This legislation is absolutely necessary unless all the proceedings of the Newsprint Commissioner and Controller, and of the Appeal Tribunal, are to be nullified through lapse of their powers by reason of the expiration of the war.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Had the Paper Control Tribunal jurisdiction over the price of ordinary wrapping paper, such as manilla and other grades? The commercial interests of the country are very much interested in 'this matter, and, if the Paper Control Tribunal have no such authority, I would like to know why it is that the Government have shown so much consideration for the interests of the newspaper?


Richard Smeaton White: The action taken was by virtue of the jurisdiction of the Government under the War Measures Act. It was a war measure. The press of this country is not precisely in the same position as private enterprise. I think that no one in this House will seriously contend that it is. It has a private aspect, because the newspapers are privately owned, just as other businesses are owned; but, on the other hand, the press has a public aspect not possessed by any other business of which I am aware. That is especially so in time of war. It is vital in the public interest that at such time the newspapers of the country should disseminate information as to the war,-information from the front, and information on important measures undertaken by Government in connection with the prosecution of the war. Further than that, and even more important, the press renders a national service of the highest possible value in encouraging and inspiring the people to continue effort until the war is won,-and in tkat and other respects no press in the world has done more valuable service than has the press of the Dominion. It was not only a question of keeping the public informed as to the progress of the war by land and sea, but of encouraging the people and urging them to greater effort - maintaining that spirit which is so necessary for " carrying on" until victory is accomplished. Having regard to those" two aspects, I cannot imagine any greater calamity to the people of this country, short of something that would cause acute physical distress and suffering, than that the press of Canada, or any considerable part of it, should have been forced to close down. When the war broke out supplies of pulp which had been available from northern Europe to this continent were shut off, and the result was that the supply of newsprint paper was without that competition.


Mr. McCREA:: How much pulp from
northern Europe or anywhere else is imported into Canada?


Richard Smeaton White: I am speaking of the North American continent.


Francis N. McCrea: The hon. minister is talking of Canada.


Richard Smeaton White: I am speaking of the North American continent, (because as a matter of fact the question cannot be intelligently discussed unless the requirements of both the United States and Canada are taken into account. An abnormal situation arose under which it was possible for the manufacturers of newsprint papier to make very large profits by reason of the prices which they were enabled to get in Canada and in the United States. By reason of that same war condition the newspapers were put in a position where they were threatened with extinction. I do not say that all of them would have had to cease publication, but I have not the slightest doubt that many of them would have been obliged to do so, with great resultant loss to the Canadian public. In those circumstances the Government had not the slightest hesitation in intervening early in the war and fixing a price which enabled the press of Canada to continue their operations and to supply the publicity which was so necessary, as I pointed out, in connection with the war.
Now, so far as I know nobody has been hurt. I have looked carefully over the balance sheets of the newsprint manufacturers of this country, and on the whole they have done very well. I am glad they have. 1 have no criticism whatever tp make of our newsprint manufacturers in connection with the conduct, of their business. I do not allege that there is any combine or anything irregular at all, but by reason of the conditions that arose-the demand from the United States, the demand from Canada, and the limitation upon supply, they were able to make very large profits; whereas the newspapers were in a position, as I said, where they were likely to be obliged to close up.
Under the circumstances, and in the national interest as a war measure, the Government fixed the price of newsprint. Representations having been made on behalf of the manufacturers of newsprint paper that the price was too low, the Dominion Government appointed a commissioner and controller of newsprint paper. His duties were to make appropriate inquiry and investigation into the conditions governing the manufacture of newsprint paper, as to price, and as to distribution. He has carried out his exceedingly onerous and difficult duties over a period of two years with great credit to himself and with fairness to all concerned. We have had a 
considerable amount of trouble in connection with this matter, but it was war time, and trouble cannot be avoided by governments in war time. The fact that there is difficulty in dealing with a situation is no good reason why it should not be dealt with, if it can be dealt with, if the public interest so requires. We were able to deal with the newsprint situation because it is a comparatively simple business. There are not many engaged in the manufacture of newsprint; the business is carried on comparatively simply by distribution to the newspapers of Canada and by shipment to the United States. The entire amount of newsprint paper used in Canada is only about II per cent of the entire production of Canadian mills; the balance goes to the United States. The newsprint industry is one of very great value to Canada by reason of the fact that its exportable surplus materially assists our international trade balance and brings a good deal of wealth into the country. But so far as I am concerned that latter question does not arise. Because questions have been put forward, more especially because they have been put forward before in the House, and because there was some criticism of the course of the Government in fixing the price, I have thought it advisable to give this general explanation.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I appreciate the extensive explanation the minister has given in reply to my inquiry. I note, however, that he admits that newspapers are commercial enterprises just as other commercial industries in this country are, and I submit that while we are willing to agree with him in regard to the assistance and encouragement that the press should receive at the hands of the Government, we say that there is no just reason for discrimination as between commercial enterprises of various kinds. There has been a good deal of criticism of the commercial interests of this country in regard to the high cost of living.. The cost of wrapping paper may, in the estimation of the Government, be only a trifling affair so far as the high cost of living is concerned, but it is one of the items that bears upon that question. Wrapping paper costs to-day three times as much as it cost in 1914, yet the Government, through the Paper Cbntrol Tribunal, has taken no notice of that aspect of the matter. The commercial interests of this country during the last four years have realized that while the Government are prepared to protect the newspapers so far'as their supply of paper is concerned, they have taken no interest in the requirements of the commercial in.

terests, the large wholesale and retail concerns, so far as wrapping paper, which they use extensively, is concerned. That neglect has tended to increase the high cost of living, because all these little details go to increase the cost of delivering the manufactured article to the consumer. The newspapers are pretty well able to take care of themselves; although the price of newsprint paper has been arranged for them by the Government, they have increased the price of the newspaper to the purchaser by 100 per cent during the last four years.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I am always delighted to hear the Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White), especially when he is defending some proposition which in his heart and mind as an economist he knows is unsound, because then he rises to real heights of eloquence. His defence of the press of Canada this morning and his remarks about the usefulness of the press to the country would almost make one think that at one time he had been associated with that department of life. I objected yesterday to the Government paying money to the press, directly or indirectly; to subsidizing the press in any way out of the public money, because that is an unwholesome condition and is liable to vitiate the springs of public information. What does the minister say to-day? He says that although the war is over he proposes to continue a system whereby, at the expense of an important commercial interest, the papers shall get their-the minister shakes his head, but I think I am right -the papers shall get their newsprint at a price lower than they would have to pay if they had to go into the open market and buy it. There is no other reason for the control of the price. The control of price is not to make the newspapers pay more for their newsprint; it is in order that they shall pay less than the commercial rate. The minister saidi that newspapers would have gone out of business during the war had the Government not made this order. What does that mean? It means that the very life and death of the newspapers depended upon the Government's action. Is that a wholesome condidtion of affairs? The minister knows that it is not. No newspaper , should be dependent for its existence upon an order given by the Government that they should get their raw materials at less than a fair price. The war is now over; at least the fighting is done. Let us get out of the state of mind of the person who is running to a fire; let us get down again to a sound economic basis. Let the newspapers pay what they
should pay for their paper; do not order the people who manufacture paper to sell their product to one set of customers at a lower price than that at which they sell it to other customers. If the manufacturers of newsprint are making a great deal of money and are sending out of the country a great deal of paper-which is a very good thing, because it tends to make our exchange situation less unfavourable-then let the minister take a proper share of their excess profits, but do not cause the money which should go into the public coffers not to be collected simply because the paper manufacturers have to give to certain newspapers or to all the newspapers their raw material at lower than the cost price.


Mr. HOCKEN:: That sounds to me like . strange doctrine, coming from a free trader. The newsprint manufacturers enjoy special privileges in this country; they have been made large grants of public lands for their pulp.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: They paid for them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: They paid for them, but under very easy conditions.


Jacques Bureau: No at all; that is the best revenue of the provinces. My hon. friend's statement is unfair.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If any one has specially suffered during the last few years it is the newspaper industry. I could name a score of newspapers in Ontario that have had to go out of business. In cities like St. Thomas, Stratford, Chatham and Windsor, where there were formerly two papers, most of the Liberal papers have gone out of business because they could not continue under the existing conditions, and unfortunately the Liberal party is not properly represented through the press in those communities. That is due very largely to the excessive cost of newsprint, and if any steps are going to be taken to limit profiteering, a good start will be made by dealing with the newsprint mills. Under conditions that exist on this continent they can get a larger price in the United States than in Canada owing partly to the fact that the United States has practically worked out its pulp-wood area, and partly to the fact that it is exporting a large part of its product to South America.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. member
say that the United States had worked out its pulpwood area?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Not entirely, but practically worked it out in the same sense that the end is in sight.


Jacques Bureau: There is more pulpwood in the United States than there is in Canada.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Because the United
States supply of pulpwood has been practically worked out the newsprint mills are able to form a combine to-day, perhaps with a greater efficiency than any other industry that exists in Canada. The evidence shows that there is one selling organization for practically every newsprint mill in the Dominion, and with a condition of that kind they can boost the price to anything they like. Therefore, if there is one industry that should be under some kind of government control, it is the newsprint industry. That is sound reasoning from the standpoint of those who are against profiteering and combines, from (the point of view that it is desirable that the newspapers of this country should be cheap, and that the proprietors should be in a position to publish good newspapers and give good news to the people of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: Some of the newspapers need a change in that regard. Do I understand that by this resolution, the Minister of Finance intends to create a condition which will perpetuate Orders in Council passed under war conditions?
(Sir THOMAS WHITE: No.


Jacques Bureau: Or, if my understanding is right, is it not at the request of the newspapermen that the Government decided to regulate the price of paper, and then appointed Mr. Pringle to investigate the matter in order to see on what basis a regulation of the prices ought to be made? Mr. Pringle investigated; he made certain rules and orders; those rules and orders were appealed from. Of course, during that time they were suspended, if I understand rightly, and things have been going on as usual. What the minister wants is that, during the time of war, the paper manufacturers shall be subject to those rules and orders made by Mr. Pringle, if they are confirmed by the Appeal Tribunal, and that, at the cessation of hostilities or when peace comes, those rules and orders shall cease to have effect. Is that right?


Richard Smeaton White: Not quite. My hon. driend is right up to his last sentence. We intend that the power of fixing prices and distributing newsprint paper shall cease upon the declaration of peace, but with regard to carrying out the orders which have been made by the commissioner and controller of newsprint paper, as confirmed or

modified by the Appeal Tribunal, we desire the machinery to continue that will enable the commissioner and controller to give effect to those orders which, of course, are limited in their scope to the war period.
Just let me make that a little
12 noon plainer. Let us assume that peace was officially declared tomorrow. What is the position? The War Measures Act is at an end; the commissioner and controller of newsprint paper has made orders which are in appeal before the Appeal Tribunal which has not yet rendered its decision. Those orders relate to the price which should be paid by the publishers of Canada to the newsprint manufacturers from July of last year. They relate also to the amount of differential which should be paid by one set of manufacturers to another set of manufacturers.


Jacques Bureau: Does that extend to July, 1920 ?


Richard Smeaton White: No, during the war period. If this legislation was not enacted, under the condition that I mentioned, namely, that peace was declared tomorrow, all the orders made by the controller of newsprint would go by the board, and if the Appeal Tribunal rendered its decision to-day, there would be no machinery by which those orders could be enforced. Does my hon. friend get the point?


Jacques Bureau: That is what I stated.


Richard Smeaton White: Then my hon.
friend did not state it with his usual clarity, which is of a very high order.


Jacques Bureau: I think the minister
wants to disarm me with his sarcasm.


Richard Smeaton White: No, it is not
sarcasm, it is a compliment.


Jacques Bureau: What I mean is thisthose orders are executory, are they not? They are binding on the newsprint manufacturers as they emanate from the newsprint commissioner. When peace is proclaimed, shall the prices established by the commissioner continue?


Richard Smeaton White: No. When the
commission comes to an end except for the purpose of carrying out orders which will have already been made, and approved or modified by the Appeal Tribunal, the power of the commissioner will cease, and the price of newsprint will be determined by free market conditions.


Jacques Bureau: The prices established
cease to have effect with the signing of peace?


Richard Smeaton White: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: That is .all right, I do not object to that. I want to correct a few errors amongst the multitude which are committed weekly by the hon. member (Mr. Hocken) when he sits on the paper manufacturers for whom I hold no brief.
I must also tell him, in order to make his virtuous mind easy, that I own no stock in any paper concerned. In our province we make no large grants of land to paper manufacturers. They pay a high price for the areas, and the stumpage, which is the same as ground rent, is very high, and I . do not think those men get any favours from any one. I am in full sympathy with the newspapermen, because one of the pleasures I have in life is reading the news- [DOT] papers and informing myself as to what is going on in the world. They are not, however, the only pebbles on the beach, and every man who carries on - an industry should have some consideration. Some papers are very well managed and the owners make money out of them, in spite of what the' Minister of Finance says, and some of them make so much money that they become Lords and Sirs and anything you like. Others may make some money, but others, as the paper of my hon. friend (Mr. Hocken)-it is his business and he can carry it on as he pleases. -perpetuate strife and are the cause of trouble in the country. As regards such papers, I wish the price of newsprint was so high that it would put them out of business in a week. Then we would have peace-and harmony.


Mr. RICHARDSON:: I want . to say a
few words in reply to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) who claimed that the Government was controlling the price of paper especially for the interest of the newspapers. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend and the House will probably be surprised to know that two or two and one-half years ago there existed a large combine and trust which controlled the pulp and paper industry on this continent. I want to point out further that action was brought in the United States by the Federal Commission to put an end to this trust and combine to control prices, and the members -there were some five or six of them and several were Canadians, pleaded guilty of having a trust and combine and were each fined $2,500.
As a result of that combination the price of newsprint was enormously enhanced; in
fact, the intervention of the Government was due in a measure to the fact that this combination existed, but notwithstanding the effort to control the price of paper, it has been increased almost double in this country. The result was that the newspapers were obliged to raise the price of their newspapers to the subscriber, and the extra cost to the subscribers in the Dominion has been in the neighbourhood of millions.
I have not the figures with me at the moment, but during the last two years since this Government began to control the paper situation the manufacturers of newsprint have made enormous revenues and have paid very much larger dividends, ranging from 8 to 20 per cent. A large portion of those dividends was paid on pure water. The capitalization of one company, for instance, has been doubled and the dividends were paid on pure water. Another fact I wish to emphasize is that since the Government took control of the situation the value of the stock on pulp and paper companies in Canada has been increased by some $9,900,000 or $10,000,000. That is not all due to the fact that they have sold paper to the newspaper publishers of Canada, because, as the Minister of'Finance has pointed out, only eleven per cent of the product of our pulp and paper mills is sold in this country, the other 89 per cent going to the United States. Of course, we are not particularly interested in the price that they pay, but I do not suppose it is desirable or neighbourly that they should be expected to pay too. high a price. But that has nothing to do with the object of the resolution. That stands on its merits, and I have merely made these remarks in reply to what has been said to the effect that in instituting this paper control an effort was made to control not only the newspapers, but' all their subscribers throughout the country.


Francis N. McCrea: I wish to correct a few misstatements that have been made. Prior to the war many of the largest manufacturers on this continent, the International Paper Company, for instance, had not paid a dividend on their preferred stock for years, and the result was that the accumulation of unpaid interest on their preferred stock was almost equal to their preferred capital. Prior to the war the normal price of paper was around two cents, but when the war broke out the price of paper and everything else went up. Immediately the publishers of Canada came to' the Govern-



ment and represented, as the Minister of Finance has told us, that unless the price of paper was controlled, the publishers would have to go out of business. I do not wish to accuse the Minister of Finance of making a statement that was not correct but I think he must have get those representations a little twisted. I think the publishers told the Government that if the price was not controlled it would be the Government that would have to go out of business. That evidently had an effect upon the Government, and practically without giving the manufacturers any opportunity of being heard the Minister of Finance fixed the price of newsprint a't $50 a ton-an advance of 25 per cent above the normal price. At the normal price of two cents a pound it was only those manufacturers who had well equipped plants, well located with regard to cheap power and cheap labour, who could pay any dividends. The manufacturers objected to the price b^ing fixed, and after very lengthy discussions with the Government they succeeded in getting a commissioner, Mr. Pringle, appointed to investigate the cost of paper, and his finding was that the average cost of making paper was $57.50 a ton! We were therefore forced by the Government to sell paper to the whole press of Canada at $50 a ton, or $7.50 below cost. The manufacturers continued to make representations and fight for the right of doing business in this free country and at last the commissioner made another ruling, approved by Order in Council, whereby the price of newsprint was fixed for a further period at $58. At that time it was costing $57 to make it.


Richard Smeaton White: That was an order of the controller, I believe.


Francis N. McCrea: It is said that the press of Canada would have had to go out of business if the price of paper had not been fixed. I should like to know what branch of industry there is in Canada or any other country which has better facilities for putting before the public the reasons why they have to charge an increased price for their product. It was a very simple thing for the newspapers to tell their patrons why the cost of advertising space had to be increased and why the price of newspaper had to be raised to the subscriber. After the price of paper was fixed, did the newspapers continue to charge the same for their advertising space? No, they increased their rates. I believe that many newspaper publishers in this country within the last two years have

made a great deal more money and paid much higher dividends, or were in a position to pay them, than many of our manufacturers, but we do not hear anything about that.
After Mr. Pringle had been appointed commissioner he asked the Government for permission to investigate not only the cost of making paper but the publishing end as well because the manufacturers insisted that if they were going to be held to account and have their business investigated and the price of paper fixed it was only fair that an inquiry should be made into what the publishers of this country were making. Mr. Pringle was given power to investigate the publishers. , A committee of four members of the Government was also appointed to consider the situation, and I understand that Mr. Pringle in discussing the situation at one time with one of the members of that committee intimated that he would probably have to investigate the publishers to see whether they were making or losing money.
That gentleman told Mr. Pringle to keep his hands off the publishers and conduct no investigation in regard to them. This was verbal, but so as to put the matter beyond any possibility of mistake he went to his office and wrote him a letter forbidding him to hold any inquiry as to what the publishers were doing. He could investigate the manufacturers' affairs, but he must not put his hands on the publishers.


Richard Smeaton White: Who did this?
Air. MoCREA: The President of the Privy Council, and you will find that letter on the file. The minister has stated that eleven per cent of the newsprint manufactured in Canada is consumed in Canada, and the other eighty-nine per cent is sold in the markets of the world. The member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) has told you that there was a combine in newsprint, but I do not think he has proved it. It is true that several arrests were made in the United States and among them three Canadian manufacturers were charged with being in a combine in restraint of trade, and they were dragged to Washington to defend themselves.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Is it not a fact that they pleaded guilty and were fined $2,500 each?


Francis N. McCrea: These men went to Washington to defend themselves on a charge laid under the Sherman Act. They went there three or four different times to get a hearing and the case was adjourned from

time to time. Finally the publishers of the United States and the manufacturers came together and agreed on prices for a period, and there remained' for these men nothing but to go there and defend, themselves. They sized up the situation and their counsel said that the price had been fixed for a period and the only question was whether or not they were guilty of forming .a combine. If they pleaded guilty it was suggested that the fine would be in the vicinity of $2,500 and that would end the matter, and they could pay the fine and costs and go home. Two of the three manufacturers preferred to do that because, owing to the importance of their business, they could not afford to waste any time. The third, IMr. Gould, who is now dead, was defended by a different attorney, who urged that his client had violated no law of either country and was quite prepared to proceed. The prosecution withdrew the case, however, and Mr. Gould left that court a discharged and free man and he came back home. Those men pleaded guilty purely as a matter of expediency. Strange to say, although the press and the Government of Canada are supposed to further the interests of every industry in the country, their representatives were found in Washington in that court house beside the prosecuting attorney advising and assisting him in every possible way to obtain, a conviction against manufacturers and citizens of this country, -who were selling goods on the open market for the best price they could get. Every dollar they got for their products was circulated among the people of Canada, and yet,-


Richard Smeaton White: What press representative was there?


Francis N. McCrea: Mr. Imrie.


Richard Smeaton White: He is the president of the Canadian Press Association. You said a representative of the Government of Canada was there.


Francis N. McCrea: Is it not a fact that the authorities at Washington made a demand upon this Government to send down witnesses to prove certain things within the last year?
.Sir THOMAS WHITE: They made no demand.
Mr. MicCREA: The Government at Washington made a demand. It was not a case of "if you please," 'but it was a demand to send a man.
288i


Richard Smeaton White: I must correct-my hon. friend. Governments do not de

mand certain things of other Governments. It is a matter of courtesy between them. When any evidence is required a request is courteously made that witnesses be avail- able. There is nothing wrong about that,.


Francis N. McCrea: We are told that the press are supposed to disseminate information and do everything in their power to further the interests of the industries of Canada, hut. is it within the scope of their duties to assist in the prosecution of the manufacturers of this country in a foreign country for having sold their paper for alt the money they could get for it?


Richard Smeaton White: We did not do it,


Francis N. McCrea: The press did it. In connection with our own industry, a man, supposed to he from Washington, came to our office with a request to examine our books and inquire into our costs and that information we were assured would be kept private. But when we come to the question of fixing prices we find that information in Canada that this man had said was secured for the benefit of Washington. My impression is that the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States were working in close co-operation in connection with this matter, and it is very much out of place for either the Government or the press of Canada to put any obstacle in the way of an industry which brings a large amount of money into the country. Talk about profiteering! Suppose the manufacturers of Canada do- make money. Ninety per cent of their product is sold outside of Canada, and if we make profits, that money is distributed amongst the people of Canada. Is that a crime? Is it anything detrimental to Canada or the tax payers? In my judgment, it is not.


Robert Lorne Richardson: No one said it was.


Francis N. McCrea: I am glad to hear that this measure which is now before the House is intended .at some time to put an end. to this vicious and vile method of fixing the prices of an article, below cost of production at least. Only on two articles that I know anything about were prices fixed- wheat and paper. The price of wheat was fixed at $2.21 a bushel, which is at least one hundred and twenty per cent over normal. I have no objection to that, and I am not jealous about it. But the same Government fixed the price of paper at only t.wenty-five per cent over normal in. war time when the cost of production went up

one hundred per cent. The member for 'Springfield and the member for Toronto (Mr. Hocken) made allusion to the high cost of paper, which has nearly doubled. .Are you surprised at that? Are you aware that the price of pulp wood has at least doubled what it was in 1914 and prior to that? Are you aware that many other things that go into the construction of paper, for instance, Fourdrinier wire, which is one of the big items, have advanced enormously? We figured the matter, taking eighteen months prior to the war, and -wo find that the cost of this wire previous to 1914 was $212 a piece and the life of it *was almost six weeks,- but since that time the average cost of the same wire has been $490 and the average life less than three weeks. That means that it is more than double the price with less than half the life, and that is only one example out of many.
I am not surprised. The machine tenders prior to the war were only paid fifty-five cents an hour. To-day we are paying $1.35 to the same men and on an eight-hour shift. Not only that, but when one of these wires I spoke of breaks, that means calling out the whole force to make repairs, and it takes them three hours to change that wire and put on a new one. During that tune the whole plant is shut down. That occurs about once in three weeks, whereas it only used to happen once in six weeks. That adds to the cost. Furthermore, if the men we call out are engaged on that wire for two hours, we have to pay them for a six-hour period at $1.35 per hour as compared with the former rate of fifty-five cents and a payment simply for the actual time they were at work-that is if they were working for four hours, or three hours, we paid them simply for the actual time they worked. Do not be surprised, therefore, if you have to pay more for your paper than you formerly did, or if you are called upon to pay twice the price you paid in normal times, because the cost of making paper is twice the amount it was prior to the war.


Richard Smeaton White: Two or three [DOT]statements have been made by my hon. friend (Mr. McCrea) which I feel I must deal with. In the first place, he intimates that the Government at the beginning acted in a very hurried manner with respect to this question.
Mr. MeCREA: The Government acted quickly, and without proper information.


Richard Smeaton White: Let us see how quickly we did act. It was brought to my attention by the press that on account of the rising price of newsprint some newspapers in the country would probably have to close up. I at once convened a meeting of representatives of the newsprint paper manufacturers and of the press of Canada in my office, and talked to the representatives of both interests. The matter was very fully discussed, and I asked them to appoint a small committee on either side for the purpose of getting together in conference and seeing if they couM not reach a conclusion which would be fair to both parties concerned. They had more than one meeting, but failed to agree. I associated with this conference of the joint committees an official from my office, Mr. Breadner, who was very familiar with matters relating to the newsprint and other industries in this country. I say to my hon. friend that for a period of five weeks we laboured absolutely fruitlessly trying to bring the newsprint manufacturers and the newspaper publishers to a fair agreement respecting the matter of price. Think of it, five weeks.
Mr. iMcCREA:	You insisted, or rather
you wrote a letter, did you not, to Mr. Chahoon to the effect that if we did not agree on $2.60 you were going to fix that as the price. Are you surprised that the manufacturers would not agree to a price which was proven to be less than cost?


Richard Smeaton White: I do not recall
what I wrote to Mr. Chahoon, but I doubt very nfuch if I mentioned the price. What I did say to those people was: If you cannot agree, as the representatives of all the other industries that I called together during the war have agreed, I shall fix the price. I say the Government was right in doing that. If a situation arises in war time that calls for attention and if every effort that is made to try and gjet the parties together is fruitless, then I maintain the Government is justified in saying to them:	If you do not get together, we are
going to act.


Mr. TOBIN:: Does the minister remember a conversation I had with him one day when I told him, that a couple of paper men in this country would' accept $60 per ton if he would agree to it? His answer to me was that if the paper manufacturers did not want to accept ithe price of $50 per ton, he could not do otherwise than take over the mills.


Richard Smeaton White: I do not recall
the conversation, and I think it is very much to be deprecated that a conversation between members of this House should be mentioned afterwards as conclusive evidence as to what was in intention. We came to the conclusion after an investigation carried out by my department-not by calling witnesses, but an investigation which was carried out along what would be called ordinary business lines by Mr. Breadner-that $50 was a fair price; I am speaking of the situation early in 1917. Why the price of paper before the war had only been $1.90, which is $38 a ton. We came to the conclusion that the war wms threatening-and I use the word advisedly-to make the manufacturers of newsprint rich, which is not always an unmixed advantage, and was threatening to destroy the press of Canada. The result of it was I asked Mr. Breadner when we failed to get the parties to come together, to advise me as to what was a reasonable price for newsprint paper, having regard to the increase that had taken place in the price of raw materials and of labour, and we came to the conclusion that $2.50, or $50 a ton, was a fair price	at	that time,	and that was
the amount fixed. We did not fix the price precipitately, we fixed it after we had failed to get all the parties to come together. I have been in business many years, and have had a great deal to do with affairs in many lines of industry, and I say that a more unwise thing was never done by manufacturers in any branch of industry in this country, than was done toy the manufacturers of newsprint paper when they refused to compromise with the newspaper men at that time. Had they done so, all this trouble that we have had would have been avoided. You cannot in time of war look at this thing from a hard and fast business standpoint. If a war comes along-for which, of course, the newsprint manufacturers, or the press, are not responsible-and as a result of that war one set of men are going to become millionaires, and the other set of men, or some of them, are going to be put out of business, is there not room for a fair agreement? That is the way to look at it and that is the way it should be viewed at any time. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCrea) says the publishers came down here and put a pistol to the head of the Minister of Finance. Gentlemen, there is not enough in the public life of this country to permit me to tolerate any intimidation from the newspapers or any other interests in this
country-it is not good enough. The man. does not live who can intimidate me in. the discharge of my duty and nobody has ever attempted so to interfere. If a per- ' son attempted it once, he would not attempt it again-make no mistake about that. Then what did we do? After fixing the;, price, as I say, at $50 a ton, representations were made that the prices of raw material and labour were still going up, and we said: "We will appoint a Commissioner and Controller of Newsprint who will make a judicial inquiry, and call for evidence and hear the interested parties, and determine what is a fair price." Who can complain if a fair price is fixed? Nobody wants, or should want, more than a fair price, and it was the duty of the commissioner and controller to fix that fair price, and after hearing all the evidence he fixed what he regarded as a fair price. My hon. friend has said that the prices of raw material and of labour have gone up. So they have, but those facts were taken into consideration by the Commissioner and Controller ' of Newsprint in the price which he fixed. The price before the war was $1.90, or $38 a ton. He fixed a price of $68 a ton and for the West $70 a ton.


Robert Lorne Richardson: And made that price retroactive.	.


Richard Smeaton White: That is almost
double the price which prevailed betore the war.
Now, about a week ago I saw in the Montreal Gazette two statements-one the financial statement of the Laurentide Pulp and Paper Company, and a beautiful statement it was, and right alongside of it a diatribe against this Government by the manager and director of that company, Mr. Chahoon, as to the injustice of our action in fixing the price of newsprint paper, and the damage that had consequently been done to his shareholders. Right in the parallel column, in the first statement to which I have alluded, was a most beautiful comparison of profits-I use the word "beautiful" from the standpoint of the shareholders of the Laurentide Pulp and paper Company- showing that up to 1914 the company had made eight or nine hundred thousand dollars, and that during the subsequent years their profits had been about $1,800,000. Who was hurt in this matter? Was the Laurentide Pulp and Paper Company hurt very much?
Mr. MoCREA: Is the minister aware that part of the revenue derived by the Lauren-

tide Pulp and Paper Company comes from .its water-jx>wer and sulphide mill, which had no fixed price on its product?


Richard Smeaton White: Yes, perfectly aware.
'Mr. McCREA: The Lauren tide Company manufacture over 100 tons of sulphite pulp which they sell in the open market.


Richard Smeaton White: I am quite well aware that only a part of the revenue of the Laurentide Company comes from the sale of newsprint. But I see no reason for the most unwarranted and unjust attack which was made upon the Government by the managing director of the Laurentide Company when he had, as a matter of fact, a statement the best by far that he had ever been able to show to his shareholders -I think a million dollars more profit than he had before. Who was hurt in this matter? In war time does any body suppose that an appeal to this House and to the country is likely to have weight and validity if the parties making it say: It is true we made a million dollars more than we did the year before, but we might have made a great deal more but for the action of the Government? The Government in this matter had to see that something like justice was done-and we did. There is no political gain from that. You never gain anything from what you have done; it is only to-morrow that counts in politics. There is no gratitude for what a Government has done; there is only expectation of what it may do. Speaking for myself, from the political standpoint, I would rather never have had anything to do with She thing. We did it. We appointed Mr. . Pringle, and Mr. Pringle, as a judicial officer, fixed the price, which price is now before an appeal court of three judges of undoubted standing. As far as I can see, the action of the Government has been one of scrupulous justice between the two interests. Nothing else could be done if the press of this country was not to be put out of existence. Apart from war jurisdiction, it would not be a good thing for this country that there should be only a few wealthy newspapers. One of the safeguards of political freedom is the fact that we have Hundreds of small newspapers throughout this country which can take any editorial course of action they desire. That is a good thing. The ordinary newspaper man is not a business man at all. He usually is busy carrying on his paper, and When he looks at his balance sheet at the end of the year he finds very little profit indeed. A

few newspapers could have stood the high price of newsprint. But what would have been the effect nationally as the result of the situation that would have developed from our non-interference? You would have only a few newspapers that were rich enough to stand during the period of the war, notwithstanding the price of newsprints, and the others would be put out of business. That would not be good for the public life of this country.
My hon. friend has spoken about the press in the United States and Mr. Imrie in going down to Washington. I have no control over Mr. Imrie. This is a free country, and it was open to him or to any other member of the Canadian Press Association to go down there and take part in the proceedings. * My hon. friend himself could have gone down if he so desired. But I want to point out that the publishers of this country have an immediate interest in the price paid for newsprint in the United States, because in ordinary times the price paid here is determined by the price paid . there. Obviously, if you have a price, say, of $70 a ton in the United States, the manufacturers here are going to sell all their product there if the price here is not equal to the United States price. In other words, the price in the United States has a re-active effect upon the price in Canada; and therefore the newspaper publishers of this country have an interest in the price which is paid in the United States. Let us assume a case, I do not say it exists at all-I have been very fair in my statement with respect to combines. I never make a statement that there is a combine unless I have incontrovertible proof, and I do not think any one should, and I have not proof that there is a combine-but supposing there was a combine between the newsprint manufacturers of Canada and of the United States, and let us say they fixed the price in the United States at $80 a ton, where it should be $60 a ton. Does my hon. friend mean to say that the publishers of this country would not be interested in the fact that there was a combine, and that they would have to pay $80 a ton instead of $60? That is the position.
I want to say to my hon. friend that the Government has acted throughout this matter as guardians of the public interest, and not as a Government under intimidation by newspapers. It was a most monstrous statement to make that this Government acted under any such intimidation, and I resent it very strongly. There is not any one living who can intimidate me

or this Government. There is not enough in public life for any man of spirit to allow himself to be intimidated. We have carried this out because we considered it our duty to carry it out. If the same situation arose to-morrow I would do the same thing.


Francis N. McCrea: No.


Richard Smeaton White: But I want to say that if the same situation existed to-morrow, and the newsprint manufacturers of this country had in mind what has happened during the last three years, they would get together with the newspaper publishers and arrange matters as I advised them to do in 1917.


Francis N. McCrea: The hon. minister has given his explanation, but the fact remains that he fixed the price at $50 a ton, whereas when the commissioner got the evidence it wa.- proven that the average cost of making paper, to say nothing about profit at all, was $57.50 a ton, or some such figure. He now condemns the manufacturers because they did not accept his advice when they knew they could not make paper at that money.


Richard Smeaton White: They would have made a better arrangement than $2.50 per hundred pounds if they had been willitjg to fix the price.


Francis N. McCrea: The hon. minister has told us that the paper manufacturers of Canada * have made money. Is he surprised at that?


Richard Smeaton White: I am glad to see them making money.


Francis N. McCrea: What has the 11 per cent furnished at less than cost to do with the price? The fact that such concerns as the Laurentide made money is that they derive a large part of their revenue from the Shawindgan water-power, and in addition to that they make .a hundred tons of sulphite pulp per day that this Government did not fix the price on. The company I have the honour to be president of does not make any sulphite pulp; it has to buy it. And, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of this House, would you be surprised to hear that the sulphite pulp we bought to put into the manufacture of our paper that we had to sell at $50 a ton. cost us $70 a ton? Fortunately only twenty-five per cent of news paper is sulphite, the remaining seventy-five per cent is ground wood. Nevertheless, if the Government was going to fix the price of paper, why did they not fix the price on the whole line of paper? But that is not all. Here is the seiious part
of this business. The fact of the Canadian manufacturers having to supply paper at $7.50 a ton less than actual cost is not so serious a matter as the fact that eighty-nine per cent is sold elsewhere, principally in the United States. The publishers of the United States are practically the same class of people as we have here-they are clamouring for cheaper material, and when this Government fixed the price of paper to be supplied to the press of Canada at $2.50 .per hundred pounds, the publishers of the United States went to their Government and they said: Here, why do you allow the Canadian manufacturers to come into the United States and sell us paper at three and a half and four cents a pound when the Government of their own country says that two and a half cents a pound is a fair price? The outcome of that has been that the manufacturers of Canada have had to fight for their existence. We have had to spend over $500,000 in defending our. selves. In addition to that we. had to supply the press of Canada with paper at less than cost to the extent of $1,500,000. And then you tell us that the press is under no obligation to that Government which made such a law for them. I want to tell the minister, I do not know whether he will like it or not, that the press of Canada convinced the .Government that- the Government were going out of existence instead of the press if they did not concede its wishes and demands. I doubt very much if this Government would be in power if the press had taken the other side of the question in 1917.


Richard Smeaton White: Does my hon. friend suggest that the only issue at the last election was the newsprint issue?


Francis N. McCrea: Not entirely, but I want to say that the press of Canada was bribed, bought and paid for by this Government. They bought them with our money, to the extent of a million and a half dollars-the money not of the Treasury, but of the manufacturers, the people whom they were trying to crush, the people who were being made to pay the money to keep this Government in office.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The hon. gentleman has left an impression upon the Committee that is not exactly correct, though I do not think he intended to do that, He tells us that the Government fixed the price of newsprint at $50 a ton and rather leaves the impression that the manufacturers thereby sustained a heavy loss. The fact is that Mri Pringle fixed the price at $68 a ton and

made it retroactive, so that some industries in this country had to put up tens of thousands of dollars. The manufacturers, therefore, did not suffer from the fixing of the price at, $50 a ton.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is arguable that this legislation is not necessary. Section 5 of the War Measures Act reads as follows:
It is hereby declared that war has continuously existed since the fourth day of August, 1914, and shall he deemed to exist until the Governor in Council by proclamation .published in The Canada Gazette declares that it no longer exists; but any and all proceedings instituted or commenced by or under the authority of the Governor in Council before the issue of such last mentioned proclamation, the continuance of which he may authorize, may be carried on and concluded as if the said proclamation had not issued.
If I understand that provision aright, it means that an Order in Council shall continue in full force and effect until any proceedings which have been commenced under it are concluded. That is probably what Parliament had in mind when that section was put in the Act. However, if the minister has information to the contrary, I shall not argue the point any further.
The minister replied at great length to the charges made by my hon. friend (Mr. McCrea), but that hon. gentleman has made a more serious charge to which the minister has not replied. Commissioner Pringle was authorized by Order in Council to investigate the business of the newspapers as well as the business of the pulp and paper people. Having in view the principle of the responsibility of the ministers collectively for the acts of any one minister, my hon. friend made the charge that a letter was; written to Commissioner Pringle in which he was informed that he might investigate the pulp and paper business, but that he dare not investigate the newspapers.


Richard Smeaton White: That charge was made, not against myself, but against the President of the Council, who will deal with it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under our constitution the Minister of Finance is absolutely responsible for what is done by his colleagues.


Richard Smeaton White: I agree with that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not make the charge; it is made by a member of this House on his own responsibility. If it is not true the letter should be produced so that we may see what actually was said; and this resolution should not pass until that letter is produced. If things of this

kind are allowed to go on it would mean the end of all responsible government and of the decent conduct of public business. The Finance Minister has said that it is only to-morrow that counts with this Government.


Richard Smeaton White: Politically, I said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, this Government is a political institution. There was the greatest exhibition of politics in this House last night that I ever saw in my life. The people of the country are waiting for something to be done to cut down the prices of food, and when a Bill in that regard was before the House last night the heads of Government departments were doing their best to force hon. gentlemen on this side into opposition to that Bill. The Speaker had sense enough to see that there was nothing to it, and it was the flattest failure that I ever saw. Good old Unionists, good old Christian gentlemen, who would pray that the Lord would give them their daily bread, their food and their clothing, did what they could last night to induce us to oppose this Bill so that they might go back to their constituents and bear false witness against their neighbours. Yet we are told that this Government is not a political institution. It is a political institution, with all that that implies; and we have it from the Finance Minister that it is a Government of to-morrow.


Richard Smeaton White: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To-morrow is the thing that really counts.


Richard Smeaton White: It is a Government of yesterday, to-day and forever.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have often told my hon. friends on the Government benches that with them one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Anyway, I hope that their "forever' will come in a very short time. I repeat that the charges of the member for Sherbrooke should not go unanswered.


Mr. ROWELL:: The statement of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has been gossip in this House and in other places, but it is entirely without foundation; no such direction was made.


Edmund William Tobin: I have not under my hand a return that I moved for some time ago, but if I can find it I can prove to the President of the Council this afternoon that the commissioner wrote him and inquired whether he should investigate the business of the publishers, and the minister replied that, it was not necessary to do so.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is an entirely different question. We can discuss it on the Bill.
Resolution reported.
Sir THOMAS WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 180, to provide for the completion after the declaration of peace of work begun and the final determination of matters pending before the commissioner and Controller of Paper and the Paper Control Tribunal, or either of them, at the date of such declaration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 166, to constitute a Board of Commerce for Canada. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 10-ofiices and furniture, etc.:
Mr.   McM ASTER@: It would appear to me that there was no necessity for such a clause as this. In forming other departments, it is stated in the Act forming them they are to he supplied with stationery, offices, employees, etc.? Does not that go without saying?


Arthur Meighen: This clause is taken
from the Railway Commission Establishment Act. I perhaps would not have drawn it exactly as it is, but there is some advantage in following the precise wording.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-experts to be appointed:
Jacques Bureau: Would it not be well to have these experts appointed by the Governor in Council when the necessity for their appointment is shown by a report of the board to the Governor in Council?


Arthur Meighen: The board, of course, could not report to the Governor in Council. Only the minister can do that, but the proof of the occasion requiring it would come from the board, and the minister would base his report to council upon the report from the board.


Jacques Bureau: Well, then, upon a report to the Prime Minister. The clause says:
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, or as the occasion requires, appoint one or more experts or persons having technical or special knowledge of the matters in question, to assist in an advisory capacity in respect of any matter before the board.
'Would it not be well to have the appointments subject to a demand from the board?


Robert Laird Borden: I hopp the hon. member will realize that no Prime Minister would appoint experts unless he had some report from the board indicating that they were necessary.


Jacques Bureau: We are always acting on assumptions. Why not have it put in the Act? It may be all very well for the Prime Minister to say he would make no appointment unless he had received a report from the board, but this board is appointed for a special purpose and the minister, in this case the Prime Minister, is to be a kind of supervisor of the board. I do not think it would hurt to have that stated in the Bill.
Mr. iMoMASTER:	Would the minister
explain why such experts would, not be appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
I noticed the Civil Service Commission advertising the other day even for a man as expert as one learned in law. When the minister wanted a solicitor for his department he had to go to the Civil Service Commission -to get one, and by a strange coincidence the Civil Service -Commission furnished him with the very man he wanted.
. I-f the 'Civil Service Commission undertakes to select men who have such special qualifications as lawyers -must have, why is the choice of experts required by this board- not left to the Civil -Service Commission?


Arthur Meighen: The experts as contemplated here will be appointed merely for a temporary period-a cost accountant, or a man of that kind. Whenever the Civil "Service Act provides that the Civil Service Commission shall make appointments, -that Act will apply to all permanent appointments made under this Act. There is no difference in this from any other Act in that regard.


Jacques Bureau: No appointments under
this A-ct would come under the Civil Service Commission, not even the staff.


Arthur Meighen: If they are permanent, the Civil Service Act would apply.


Jacques Bureau: The staff is not included in the Act.


Arthur Meighen: 'The bid Act applies in any event. I am quite prepared to have the Civil Service Adt apply in the case of these appointments as in the case of any others.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the board
themselves should call in the experts they

require. If this board is to be of the importance of the Railway Commission and we are to have the confidence in it that we have in the Railway Commission, I think we should trust them with the appointment of such experts as they may require in their investigations all over the country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior know very well that whenever a judge sitting in admiralty wants an assessor to sit with him on the bench he has power under the law to call him in, and the assessor sits' with him and advises him on [DOT]expert questions. If this hoard is going to travel all over the country it would be very awkward when they wanted an expert to have to communicate with Ottawa. The board which is on the spot should call in the experts they require.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman's
reasoning is wrong for the reason that his premise is wrong. In the event of the Railway Commission requiring an expert they go to the 'Governor in Council; in fact, this clause down to the word " board " is precisely the same as clause 21 of the Railway Act, which is the corresponding clause as regards the Railway Commission.
The principle is that the Governor in Council must exercise a supervision over expenditure. They cannot be allowed do write cheques against the Treasury at will. The latter part is as to the establishment-*of an advisory council to the board. It is unpaid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand this section to mean that experts would te called in to deal with special cases. If the Governor in Council is to appoint experts to travel around with this court, they should be permanent officials of the court. But if it is only a matter of calling in a man for a special case, whose services will be dispensed with and who will form no part of the court when the case is over, I do not see why the court itself could not call him in and discharge him when they were through with him. Perhaps the minister will explain.


Arthur Meighen: I said before that they were temporary ^ and I still think it is better for the Governor in Council to exercise supervision, otherwise you would be enabling the body itself to write cheques against the treasury without any oversight from responsible administration. It is the very same with the Railway Commission, and I do not think that this body should

be put on a higher status than the Railway Commission.


Mr. JACOBS:: I do not know that the minister has explained why persons "skilled and experienced in matters affecting industry" who may be named by the advisory council to assist them, should be unpaid.


Arthur Meighen: As to the advisory council, the precedent for that is in connection with the Food Board. They had an advisory council unpaid. They were not put to any expense, and much was not asked of them. It did good work. In dealings affecting a certain trade there might be a man especially acquainted with that trade whose advice would be of very great use. Such men were used to advantage in connection with the Food Board, and the idea of the draftsman was that the same course might be followed here. There is no need for pay.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the indulgence of the committee to make a motion that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again this day. The reason is that a message has just come from the Senate as to which immediate action is expedient. It will only take a minute.


[Stage Direction]
Mqtion agreed to, and progress 'reported.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have the
honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate accedes to their request for a free conference to consider the 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 amendments which at such conference it may be desirable to make thereto, and have appointed the Honourable Messieurs Bos-tock; Power; Lougheed, Sir James; Mc-jMeans; Michener; Pringle; Ross (Middleton); and Thompson, as managers on their part at said free conference.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg to move, with unanimous leave, seconded by Mr. Meighen:
That Messrs. Chisholm, Lemieux, Loggie, Meyers, Pedlow, Rowell, Stacey, Steele, Trahan,

White (Sir Thomas), and Wliiclden, he appointed managers on behalf of this House of the free conference with the Senate with respect to Bill 107, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill No. 166, to constitute a Board of Commerce for Canada, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 15-secretary:
Mr.   McM ASTER@: You have allowed your
commissioners to reside in Ottawa or within five miles of the city, or at any other place where the Governor in Council m'ay grant them-leave to reside. Would it not be right to give the secretary the same latitude?


Arthur Meighen: It would not do any harm. I thought it was rather remarkable to allow the commissioners to reside within five miles. That might be taken for granted, and I do not think any one would find fault with the secretary if he moved out to Aylmer overnight. I do not think it is necessary to amend the section for that purpose.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It is a great mistake to put any enactment on the statute book and when objection is raised to it to say, "Well, it will not be literally enforced." I do not think it should be done.


Mr. NESBITT:: Should he not reside in Ottawa? He must have some central place where he can be found.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Salary of commissioners:
Arthur Meighen: I had the Bill printed without salaries being inserted. I beg to move-and I do so for the purpose of discussion in Committee; I think it is a subject for discussion, and I am not wedded to any particular figures1-that the salary of the chief commissioner be fixed at $7,000, and the salary of the other two commissioners at $6,000 each. The Prime Minister reminds me that it will require a resolution to make provision for the payment of these salaries. However, I suggest these salaries for discussion and I beg to move as follows:	,
That sub-clause (3) be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Such salaries shall ibe paid monthly out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose.	\
Then I propose to move that the words "seven thousand" be inserted in line 34, and the words "six thousand" in line 35.


Georges Henri Boivin: That would not be in order at the present stage unless the hon. gentleman first proceeds by way of resolution.


Arthur Meighen: It is in order, I understand, providing sulb-clause 3 is changed, because the salaries must be appropriated by Parliament before they can be paid.


Samuel William Jacobs: For the purpose of comparison I would like to know what the salary of the Chief Railway Commissioner is:


Arthur Meighen: The salary of the Chief Railway Commissioner was originally fixed,
I think, at $10,000. Some years ago it was raised to $12,000 which is the amount he draws now. The other commissioners draw $8,000 each, except the assistant chief commissioner, who is paid $9,000.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: If you fix the salary of your chief commissioner at $7,000, will you not run a risk of creating a feeling of soreness in the minds and hearts of all your deputy ministers? There is, for example, the Deputy Minister of Public Works who is entrusted with responsibility for millions and millions of dollars, and there is the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It does seem to me that the salary of a man who is the head of a purchasing commission should not be bigger than that of a deputy minister. When it is remembered that the stipend of Solicitor General, a position which has been occupied by men of great eminence and learning in this country, is only $5,000 a year it does seem to me that the salary proposed in this case is a large one.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is a Board of Commerce which is to be appointed under the Bill, and not a purchasing commission. This board demands men of as great capacity as we have in this country -
Mr. JACOBS': Hear, hear.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: -or else we are going to have trouble. I do not think the salaries mentioned by the minister are sufficient to secure the services of the type of men that we require for this board. I think the salaries paid to its members should be equal to those which the judges in the higher courts enjoy. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Nickle) suggests the salaries paid to the judges of the Court of Appeal

or the Supreme Court, for purposes of comparison. That may be, personally I do not know how to designate the courts because I do not appear in them any oftener than I can help.


Francis N. McCrea: You will have to go there oftener.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would suggest that the initial salary for the chief should be at least $8,000 and $7,000 for each assistant.
Mr. JAC0RS: I would go even further than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt). I have always gone on the principle that it is necessary in making appointments of this kind to secure the very best men that can possibly be got. You cannot induce any person of eminence to leave his profession, or his business, and enter the Government's service for such a sum as $8,000 a year. I have in mind, of course, the fact that many of our judges are glad to ascend the Bench for a salary of seven or eight thousand dollars a year; but here we are appointing an entirely new board and it seems to me that if the Chief Railway Commissioner receives $12,000 a year salary, the president of this board should commence with a stipend of $10,000 a least. Otherwise, we will have applicants for the position who would be nothing more nor less than failures in their own business, and we certainly ought not to inaugurate the creation of this board by appointing men of that kind. Of course, the Government may have in mind the appointment of ministers who are about to retire from the Cabinet, or other people for whom it is seeking to obtain positions.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I think the minister is on pretty safe ground in adhering to the salaries he proposes, rather than to adopt the suggestions of hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this subject, and who have advocated that higher stipends shall be paid. There is one thing we may rest assured of: If the salaries are found to be inadequate, it will be a very easy matter, judging from past experience, to augment them-
Mr. JACOB'S: Not too easy.


William Cameron Edwards: -but a very difficult matter to lower them if they are once placed too high. I think it is a very serious reflection on the judiciary of this country in my opinion, entertaining as I do a very high regard for that judiciary-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Cameron Edwards: -to say that a salary of $7,000 will only attract to the Bench men

of mediocre ability. We have many judges in Canada who are not drawing salaries any higher than that, and who, I believe, would fill these positions with eminent satisfaction. In rriy opinion there are lots of men. in the Dominion who would be glad to accept the position of chief commissioner, proposed under this Bill, at the salary suggested. If you make the salary any higher there will be a terrible scramble, and the-worries of the Government, which are already great enough, will be greatly magnified. It is a funny thing, but it seems to be the fact, that the higher you fix the salaries attached to these positions the larger the number of men that apparently are qualified to fill them, judging from the rush that takes place when vacancies have to be filled or appointments have to be made. I think. there has been too much of a general tendency to add to the salaries of men who are already being paid far more than they are worth, if we consider, the duties they discharge as compared with what other men are doing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: There "has been too much of a disposition to augment the salaries of men who are getting five times the amount: paid to others who are doing just as good and efficient work.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) will admit there is some distinction between a judge on the Bench and the President of this Board. A judge has a certain position of dignity in the community which is given to him merely by the fact that he occupies a seat on the Bench. I have in mind the case of Mr. James B. Dill, who was at one time chief counsel for the United States Steel Company, and who organized that gigantic trust. Mr. Dill was appointed Chief Justice of New Jersey, where he receives the munificent salary of, I believe, $3,000, whereas formerly he must have earned $500,000 as a practising lawyer. But he was willing to accept the office simply because of the fact that it was a position of great prominence and he wished to be Chief Justice to round off his career.
I wish to resent the statement made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) that there is any reflection upon the judiciary in my remarks, when I said you cannot get the best men for a paltry salary. I have always taken the ground in this House that the judges of the high courts should receive a larger salary than they are now getting, which is entirely inadequate. When we are creating these new positions of such importance.

we ought to see that we make the salaries attractive. Although there may be a scramble for the chief commissionership, we must have the very best man possible for such a position, if the duties of the office are to be carried out properly.
Personally, I may say that I am entirely against the organization of this board at the present juncture, and that is not only my own view but the view of very many people inside the House and out of it, and if I may be permitted, I would like to read a letter which has been addressed to me on the subject by the Montreal Board of Trade.
I would have read it yesterday but I was called away from Ottawa, and this is the first opportunity I have since had of doing so. The letter in question reads as fqllows:
The Montreal Board of Trade,
Montreal, July 2, 1919.
Dear Sir,
I am directed to ask for your support of this hoard's protest against the- enactment of legislation creating a Board of Commerce during the last few days of the present session of Parliament, and without the public, who are so vitally interested, being afforded an opportunity to consider the provisions of the Government's proposal.
The following telegram was to-day addressed to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Premier-
"Montreal Board of Trade protests most -strongly against passage of. legislation creating Board of Commerce in closing days of session and without affording the public opportunity of studying provisions of a measure of such importance. Board urges that Bill be printed and circulated as widely as possible and that consideration thereof by Parliament be deferred till next session."
I am, dear Sir,
Yours truly,
J. Stanley Cook, Assistant Secretary.
S. L. Jacobs, M.P.
That expresses the opinions of people whose views, I think, ought to be considered valuable, not only here but throughout the country. I am pretty sure it is also the view of many other large bodies and corporations in the country.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee but I think you really will not get the type of men you require for this board unless the salaries are made sufficiently large. So far as our judges are concerned the remuneration they *enjoy is little enough for the high type of men necessary for such positions and very frequently we do not get the right kind of man that is needed. I am not saying anything against the judiciary, but very frequently the higher class of men are not willing to leave their professions in order to ascend the Bench.
This is a very, very important thing that we are doing here to-day. It is all very well to say there will be a scramble for the positions. There may be a scramble for a certain type of >
men, but they .are not the type of men, as I understand, that the Government want to appoint. Therefore, I think the very lowest figure at which the Government should fix these salaries is what I have suggested, $8,000 and $7,000.
I would be in .accord with my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Jacobs) that we put the chief commissioner at $10,000, if it is satisfactory to the House, because of the fact that I want the best man we can get to preside over this board; otherwise we are going to have tremendous trouble For these positions we want broad, liberal-minded men, men. of knowledge, men who have had business experience, and therefore I do not believe that we will want to appoint men who will scramble for the positions-the position ought to seek the man in this case.
Mr. LALOB; I quite agree with the remarks of the member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt). This is a very important commission and I think you want the best men that can be got for the positions, .and therefore the salaries should be sufficient to induce men. of the proper standing to accept these responsibilities. I think the man at the head of this commission, should be paid $10,000v I do not think that $6,000 or $7,000 is sufficient to attract the right class of men. There will be a great scramble for this position among men who are probably worth $7,000, but the man we want to apply for it is the $10,000 man.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We do not want him to seek the position; we want the position to seek him.


Mr. LALOR:: It is the same as in one's own business, the best man you can get is the cheapest man, and for a position of this kind I think $10,000 'is not too much.
Mr. JACOBS; Possibly the Government expects that this board will be able to so reduce the cost of living that $7,000 and $6,000 will be attractive.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: When I spoke last, Mr. Chairman, I did not appreciate that this is to be a court. Being a court, I cannot very well see how the minister can be prepared to pay the professional members of that court a higher salary than is paid to the judges of other courts. I am afraid he would find himself in hot water with all the judges if he started at the inception of

this court to put its professional members on a higher plane as regards salary than other judges.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about the Chief Commissioner of the Railway Commission?
Mr. McMA^TER: True; but the value_of that commission to the country has probably justified the high salary paid. But as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has very well said, it is easier to put salaries up than to bring them down, and I am inclined to think that the suggestion of the minister is a proper one and that it should be accepted (by the House.


Arthur Meighen: After hearing the views of the Committee my intention was to have this clause stand. I may say to the hon. member for Brome that consideration for the feelings of the judges towards myself and the fear of bringing down their ire will not have very great effect, because I am in that position now.


Samuel William Jacobs: So am I.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another thing to be considered in connection with judges' salaries,-a judge goes to the bench usually after a good many years' active practice, he accepts the high office as a life work, and at the end of his judicial career, if it is terminated by physical disability, or if it extends to the period of fifteen years or more, he retires with a pension. But this is a very different position, and I should hope that no judge would feel aggrieved by the fact that a higher salary was given for discharging duties of this character which are essentially different from the work of a judge. I think the Acting Minister of Justice is well advised to let the clause stand so as to consider the suggestions which have been made. I was a good deal impressed by what was said by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) and by the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt), and the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor). It has been repeatedly said in this House and in this Committee that the utility of this legislation will depend very largely indeed on the quality of the men who are selected to give effect to it. It might be difficult for the Government to obtain the service of men of the quality desired without fixing the standard of remuneration somewhat higher than that proposed by the minister.
Section stands.

On section 20-Salaries of staff how fixed:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the appointments to this board be subject to the decision of the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Meighen: I am advised that the Civil Service Act applies without any special reference to it in this Bill. However, I am quite prepared that a clause be added to the Bill to provide that the Civil Service Act shall apply.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Salaries to be voted by Parliament:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We passed- the question of salaries, but I wish to ask the minister what advantage does he think he is going to get by having three commissioners instead of one. I am sure that if a man is going to sit as a court investigating cases coming before him on evidence, he is a much more effective court than a court composed of three men. A personnel of three or four is all right for a Court of Appeal, .but in the case of a trial court it is infinitely better to have one man than three.


Arthur Meighen: That point has, I think, given me more concern than any other phase of this Act. Indeed, I did have clauses drafted at one time providing for a court of one alone. But after consultation with' other members of the Government and with hon. members of the House I came to the conclusion that it was better to recommend to Parliament a court of three. The reasons are these: First, it is very probable that members of the court will require to be in different parts of the country at the same time, for the same reason that different members of the Railway Commission are required to be in different parts of the country at the same time. Secondly, if there is but one commissioner and he is a judge, then the other elements of the population are not represented. It is more appropriate that in a court of this kind there should be an infusion of the business element, because it is a business court; and, if possible, of the labour element, as peculiarly representing that portion of the consumers mostly affected. It will be very difficult, I know, to include in a court of three such men as can be said to represent wholly and adequately all portions of the population first affected, but the best will be done that can be done. Any way, you can do it better with a court of three than with a court of one. Lastly, it is felt that the attitude of the public

toward the court will be better, the degree of confidence reposed in it by the people will be higher, if the court is composed of three than if it is composed of one.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the Government in
view the appointment of at least one member of the board who can speak the two official languages?


Arthur Meighen: That point came up
yesterday, and I realize the importance of the suggestion. But if you must have a man who can speak both French and English, a ipan who will represent labour, a man who will represent business, a man who will represent, perhaps, the returned soldiers, it will be difficult to get a man who will fulfil all these requirements. But the best will be done that can be done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-jurisdiction:
Samuel William Jacobs: Is it proposed to have a
special prosecutor or investigator attached to this board?


Arthur Meighen: Not at its inception at any rate. In my own judgment-and for the information of my hon. friend (Mr. Vien), I may say, in the judgment of the draftsman'-there is no prospective need now for such an official, though one may ultimately become necessary. But we are very anxious to avoid being legitimately charged with seeking to create an office for a friend.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is the charge, anyway.


Arthur Meighen: I know that we shall be charged with it, anyway, but people will put no stock in that charge. It is believed that there is no need of relieving the provincial authorities of the responsibility of prosecuting, particularly when the Dominion goes to the extent of picking out the offender, securing the evidence, and handing it on to the Attorney General of the province.


Samuel William Jacobs: How do they propose to pick out the offenders under this Act?


Arthur Meighen: That is the province of this board. Having found that a man or a company is violating its rules as to fair prices and good business practice, the board secures the evidence and hands it over, with the name of the man or the company and all other necessary information, to the Attorney General. All the Attorney General has to do is to present these facts to a court, and if he can show that the offender violated
an order of this board, the offender must be found guilty. *


Samuel William Jacobs: Would not an amendment to the Criminal Code effect all that, without the necessity of a board ?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no. This has to do with some remarks made by the member for Kent (Mr. McCoig), who seemed to think that if you simply appointed a Crown prosecutor and told him to go after people, everything would be all right. But you must have legislation which defines what the offences are; otherwise, what is the Crown prosecutor or anybody else going to do? The legislation which is to be introduced following this Bill will define what constitute offences, based on the principle that the board, after investigating a given case, can fix the line of conduct that individuals, companies or sets of people must pursue, and if they do not pursue that line of conduct they are offenders.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Act passed a few years ago in connection with combines and restraints of trade is . operated now under the sections of the Criminal Code, and the local courts have jurisdiction.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but that Act is inoperative because there is no continuing body, no watch-dog at the gate, to see that if one order is evaded another is passed to deal with the situation, and that if orders are persistently evaded, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General for action. This board is empowered by the State to perform just that task. If one order is evaded, another is passed which the offender cannot evade; or, if he succeeds in evading it, another is passed, and all the time publicity gathers round him and he cannot very well escape from it. It is partly in that way that the correction which we seek will be gained.


William Cameron Edwards: If a firm charged with profiteering is brought before this commission, I assume that that person or firm may employ counsel to present their side of the case?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: And the case is then to be tried by this board only to the extent of determining whether or not a true bill can be found against the person or firm concerned. If they find sufficient evidence to convince them that the person or firm has been guilty, they hand the matter over to the Attorney General who hands it over to

some judge, and then I presume they would have the right to bring their proof up again before the court, and the final adjudicature would take place before the court and not before the commission. In other words, the commissioners could not carry the matter to a finality.


Arthur Meighen: In most respects the
hon. member is right, but there is one fundamental fact that he o'mits. If a charge of unfair prices is made against a firm, and a commissioner is convinced that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation, he issues an order .upon that firm to appear and defend itself, and the investigation takes place. The chief commissioner has to raitfy the order. After investigation, if the evidence is sufficient to warrant it in the opinion of the commissioners, they issue an order restraining the man from following that practice; they define the limits within which he may gp. If he disobeys that order, he is guilty of an offence and liable to the penalty herein imposed. The facts are then submitted to the Attorney General with the names of the witnesses and of the man who is accused, and all that the Attorney General has to do is to present those facts to the court and show by those facts that that man has disobeyed an order issued against him by this board. The court does not try the matter all over again; the court has nothing whatever to say as to whether the order is right or not; all that the court inquires into is whether the man obeyed the order of the board or nbt. If he disobeyed it, the man is guilty of an offence.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: The jurisdiction
seems 'to be limited according to the Bill as I understand it. Clause 27 says:
The board may, of its own motion, or shall upon the request of the minister inquire into, hear and determine any matters or things which under this Act, or under the special Act, it may inquire into.
That means that the board has the right, if it knows of a violation of the law, to commence proceedings of its own motion. It also has the right, when the minister makes a reference to the board, but it does not give the ordinary citizen, who has a complaint against any particular branch of trade, the right to write a letter or to make a complaint direct to the board. He has got to go to the minister, and the-minister might or might not give permission to the ordinary man who wants to have a complaint investigated. I can imagine such circumstances in which the minister might not grant permission. Any

citizen of Canada who has a complaint -against railway freight rates or any other question coming within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, can write a letter to that pommission and have the matter investigated and adjusted.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the hon. member is. referring to. Certainly the ordinary citizen can come to this board and ask for an investigation; the Government does not control the board nor the citizen. 1


John Howard Sinclair: What is the
section?


Arthur Meighen: I think the specific
section in that regard is in -the Combines and Fair Prices Act, but there is nothing here to restrain .a citizen. Is the hon. member referring to section 25?


John Howard Sinclair: Section 27.


Arthur Meighen: We are only at section 25 yet. I will speak to section 27 when we reach it.


William Cameron Edwards: Supposing the Railway Commission issue an order and that order is disobeyed. Would they deal with the offender regarding that, and if they do, why should not this board be constituted with the same powers?


Arthur Meighen: They do not. If the
Railway Commission did that, they would have to have a set of sheriffs, bailiffs and constables. As regards a man who violates an order of the Railway Commission, there is provision made for his prosecution, for correction, for following him up, but the Railway Commission have not an organization to do that. That is done through the ordinary process just the same as this.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: Am I right in
supposing that this board has no power to enforce its own orders, and that they must be enforced by the courts?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Levi Thomson: As regards what the hon. member (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) said, clause 6 of Bill No. 167, states:
Any British subject, resident in Canada and of full age, who is of opinion that a combine exists or is being formed may apply in writing to any member of the board	
' The application, as I understand it, is made direct to the commissioner, although it may be made to the Government.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. In further reply to the hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) an order of this board may be made

a rule of the Exchequer 'Court, or of any court. The procedure is defined in the Act as simply taking the order before the court and making it a rule of the court. Then immediately the machinery of that court, criminal and civil, is at the disposal of the board for the enforcement of its authority, instead of duplicate machinery being established.


Mr. FRIPP:: Section 25 seems to be merely administrative; it is not compulsory for the board to do certain things. I had the impression that the object of this Bill was to form a commission, the members of which would have to investigate certain
4 p.m. conditions in business houses.
Under this Bill they are simply given the power to do certain things; I think it ought to be stated that the jurisdiction should be a duty imposed upon them to investigate business dealings of commercial houses. Is not that the purpose of the Bill?


Arthur Meighen: That is the Bill, too.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That is not what it says.


Arthur Meighen: The word " may " must be used because you cannot put it into the power of any crank to come to the board and compel an investigation where there is no cause for it. You must place it within the discretion of the board to say whether that investigation takes place or not. 'Consequently, the word " may " is used, but they are charged with that duty.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: My objection is that they are not charged with the duty. This simply means that the board is constituted and may or may not, as it sees fit, investigate any particular business. That is not the purpose of this Bill; its purpose is that the board shall investigate so many times during the year every concern carrying on business in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Yes. The duty of this board is surely, if it has any duty at all, to find out whether any profiteering is going on, if any excess profits are being made. If the board is going to do any effective work it should have a board of examiners on its staff to go into any person's office and say: We want to examine your books in order to see what profits you are going to make out of your business. If this board is to be constituted and is merely to sit down and wait until somebody comes in and makes a complaint, that is, so to speak, passing the buck. It ought to be the primary duty of
this board to investigate once or twice each year every mercantile institution in this country, to send its examiners in and say: We want to see your books in order to find out what profits you are making. Otherwise you will simply have a commission that will never do anything unless a complaint is made. People object to making complaints because they have to assume a certain responsibility.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what appropriation the hon. member would be ready to make to this board, but they would need something like the demobilization vote to do the work he seems to think they should perform. Why, the courts of the provinces are commissioned to try offenders, but they are not instructed to go around to the home of every citizen and inquire what each did all the year round to find out whether he committed an offence or not. This board is charged and directly charged with the enforcement of the 'Combines and Fair Prices Act. It can act upon information given to it, or of its own motion. How can you go any further than that?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: What was our experience under the old Combines Act? It has been in force for the last fifteen years but there have been only two prosecutions under it, one the prosecution of a grocer in Ontario. The same thing will happen in this case.


Arthur Meighen: That old Act was a failure.	,
Mr, FRIPP: Yes, for the reason I mentioned. No one would take the responsibility of laying information. I say it should be the duty of the board of its own motion to start these investigations.


Arthur Meighen: So it will, if it has any reason to believe that offences have been committed.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Who is going to give them reason to believe offences have been committed?


Arthur Meighen: I must assume the hon. member's well known powers of reasoning have not deserted him. Surely he does not suggest that this board .must investigate every institution in Canada, big or small, whether they have any reason to suspect that an offence has been committed or not. Surely he does not suggest that this should be continually digging at the roots of our industrial life. I could not describe such a suggestion as that. It is true that the old Combines Act was not a success partly for the reason the hon. member



gives, but mainly for t/h'e reason that when it was in vogue adequate remedies could not be reached. I have given twice to the committee what in my judgment was the secret of the difficulty, namely, the absence of a sort of judicial police, a continuing body in pursuit, to watch for evasions and stop escapes. In this Bill we-provide that, and we provide full power for the board to act of its own motion. There is no possibility of going further.


Mr. HENDERS:: It seems to me there is some difference between the powers given to this board and the powers given to the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission, as I understand it, when it finds certain conditions, orders certain things to be done, and has power to enforce its orders. For instance, a short time ago in the West we had trouble over cattle getting on the railway tracks through their not being fenced, and a great many cattle were killed. Complaints were laid, and the Railway Commission ordered the railways f to fence their tracks. I remember very well that in one case the chairman of the commission stated to the railway company: "I order you to build that fence by such a time." Has this -board similar powers to make orders, and to see they are enforced?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. The way the Railway Commission enforces its orders, in general-I will not go into any particular case -is by making its orders a rule of the court, and then the machinery of the courts of the country are at its disposal to enforce that order. That is exactly the case here. An order of this board can be made a rule of the court, and thereupon it is a mandatory order of the -court enforceable through the machinery of the court.


Jacques Bureau: Who will pay the expenses of the execution of that order?


Arthur Meighen: The court.


John Howard Sinclair: I am in agreement with my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp) that if this board is going to do any good it will have to be aggressive; it will have to look for violations of the laiw. If it waits until complaints are made, it will do very little good because complaints may not come to the board. The board should go in search of violations of the law. My hon. friend knows what is taking place in connection with prosecutions under the Inland Revenue Department. To-day special detectives are going around the whole of Nova Scotia calling on the small dealers and buy-
IMr. Meiglien.]
ing a tin of talcum powder or something of that kind to see if the stamp is put on, and there are frequent prosecutions under the law. This board should search out violations of the law in just the same way.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's idea is perfectly right. The, only statement he made that was wrong was when he said he was in agreement with my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp). He is not at all. It is certainly the duty of this board to go into the highways and byways to find offences; it is empowered and directed to see that there shall be no violations of the -Combines and Fair Prices Act. But we are not embodying in the Act a mandatory order that the board must investigate the business of every person in Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not think my hon. friend need worry about complaints. There will be plenty of complaints laid; the only question will be whether there is any basis for them.


Levi Thomson: I think my hon. friend from Guysborough is mixing two things that are not alike. The cases he mentioned were charges of defrauding the revenue by not putting on the necessary stamps. The public is not very much interested in that. A nearer parallel would have been the enforcement of the Criminal Code. How are prosecutions started under the Criminal -Code? Almost always by information laid by a private citizen, and any of u-s who have had to- do with the enforcement of the code know that we have not so much trouble in getting complaints, as in checking them up. There are a good many busy-bodies going around making complaints which never should be made. There is very little neglect on the part of the public in the matter of laying the necessary information to start proceedings under the Criminal Code, and it strikes me that we shall' have plenty of complaints made under this-Act. Those who -are injured by the actions, of certain firms- will be only too ready to-make complaints. The trouble will be there-will be so many complaints that the board will have to work overtime to investigate-them all.


Mr. MO  WAT@: I think it would improve-the clause if the minister would change the-word "may" in line 27 to "shall." It would then read "the board shall of its own motion or shall upon the request of the minister." I think that would fulfil the desire of several hon. members who have spoken, who

think the board should act upon the complaint of any citizen. '
If a citizen complained to the Prime Minister it is highly probable that, should he come to the conclusion that there was something in the complaint, he would make a request to the board, as contained in the second line of the clause. I think that the Act could be improved and the minister would attain the result he manifestly desires, if we made it compulsory for the board to act, rather than to leave it optional by the use of the permissive " may." There is no doubt that some of these boards that are created do get somnolent at times and do not act unless there is some definite complaint. If we use the word " shall," then after the discussion we have had here, it will be clear to the board that their duty is to investigate without waiting.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The wording of this Bill seems to be taken very largely from the Railway Act. The Railway Act provides that the board " shall have full jurisdiction to inquire into, hear, and determine any application by or on behalf of any party interested " who complains that any company or person has failed to observe certain regulations. This says that the board shall have jurisdiction to investigate, inquire, etc., under the Combines Act, so that it is practically identical with the Railway Act. I do not think that any one will charge the Railway Commission with having failed to fulfil all the obligations that were expected of them. That Act is one that redounds to the credit of the late Administration, and there has never been a body that has given more satisfaction than the Railway Commission. Exactly the same procedure is required in this case as in the case of the Railway Commission. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale were adopted, it would simply mean that on some man in a by-town writing a post card to the commission that John Smith had been guilty of profiteering, the commission would have to investigate, and they might be engaged ih a wild goose chase all the time. If there is a case of profiteering and reasonable evidence is brought before the commission, they will not be doing their duty if they do not investigate it. But I think that a prima facie case should at least be made out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-may inquire into any matter referred to it, etc.:
289J
John Howard Sinclair: This clause does not seem to be satisfactorily worded. It says that the board may " of its own motion, or shall upon the request of the minister


Arthur Meighen: This is in regard to inquiries on the part of the Government. There is a clause in the 'Combines Act in regard to inquiries by individuals. If the word " shall " were substituted for " may ", the board would have to inquire into the business of some little comer candy store in Cape Breton, say. With the word " may ", it has power to do so, but if the other word were inserted the board might be compelled to go and examine into trifling ipatters and waste its time all the year round. Its duty is to prevent excess profits, and the only way in which it can perform that duty satisfactorily is to aot when it has good reason to do so.


Mr. MOW  AT@: You could provide that the board " shall when it believes that there is good ground ", and so on.


Arthur Meighen: That is exactly what this means. They may do it.


Mr. MAHARG:: I gather from the minister's remarks that this board will not have any machinery but is going to be entirely dependent on the individual, the consumer for information.


Arthur Meighen: No.


John Archibald Maharg: That is the impression-I have gathered so far.


Arthur Meighen: You should read the Bill.


John Archibald Maharg: It leaves it te the minister.


Arthur Meighen: No, the board " may, of its own motion ", without any one saying anything; and it " shall " upon the request of the minister.


John Archibald Maharg: Who is going to bring the information to the minister?


Arthur Meighen: If the information
doesn't come to the minister it will go to>
the board, and if it does not it is the duty of the board to find it out. But you cannot compel the board to go into every corner of the country to hold investigations without reason.


John Archibald Maharg: I am not going so far. From what source do you expect to derive your information?


Arthur Meighen: The board will be composed of human beings the same as the rest

of us. The hon. member belongs to that class. Has he not within the last six months got information that would induce him, if lie were empowered and if it were his sworn duty to do so, to investigate this, that or *the other thing? The board will get this information in the same way, perhaps not by formal application and perhaps not even by letter. But it will get this information under a constantly operating machinery *and a system of inquiry which the board doubtless will constitute, because the Act makes provision whereby they can obtain from every "person doing business in the country any information they require as to cost, expenses, selling price, goods in store, etc. They will always have before them an array of facts as to individuals that will enable them to decide where special investigation is needed.


John Archibald Maharg: Change that word to
" shall," and you will have effective machinery.


Arthur Meighen: If tlie word " shall "
is used instead of " may " the commission will have to ipry into everybody's business even if they see no cause whatever.


John Archibald Maharg: Not at all.
, Mr. MEIGHEN:	Certainly. The word
" may " means exactly the same as " shall, if they see cause." We tell them it is their duty to keep down unfair prices and we give them certain powers by the use of the word " may." If we use the word " shall " they will have no discretion and will have to be digging at the roots of the business of every person. In that way 'they will only dissipate their energies without any good cresult.


Mr. MOWAT:: They must be supposed
to be reasonable men. There is a difference between the two words. If you say that the board " shall," when they have reason "to believe that action is necessary, you do *not make it compulsory for them to investigate without cause. It would be absurd to suppose that the board would investigate without complaint. It seems to me the Bill would better carry out the manifest intention if we used the word " shall." They would act when they saw cause.


Arthur Meighen: That is precisely what
is provided. They are directed to act in such a case. They have to do their duty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-stating a case for the Supreme 'Court of Canada:
X Mr. Meighen. ]
Mr. CAHILL:: What will be the offences under this Act? Will they only have relation to combines? For example, .what does profiteering mean?


Arthur Meighen: That is defined by the next Bill, No. 167. The offences are constituted under it and it is that Act which this board is directed to enforce. It is the duty of this board to enforce the Combines and Fair Prices Act.


Frank S. Cahill: That is putting the cart before the horse?


Arthur Meighen: No, this is the horse that draws the cart.


Frank S. Cahill: You do not yet know what is in the cart.


Arthur Meighen: The offences.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 36-interim ex parte orders may be granted:
Mr. ARlCHAMBAULT: Why not provide for a period of delay in connection with this clause? It reads:
but no such interim order shall be made for any longer time than the board may deem necessary to enable the matter to toe heard and determined.
Why not provide for a delay of ten days or two weeks for the interim order.
Arthur Meighen: Of course, the circumstances would differ in every case. For example, if, on affidavit or otherwise, it were shown that some practice was impending; or some combination was being formed, at Vancouver, it would take a considerable time to bring that to the head of an investigation, but if it were at Toronto it would take much less time. A maximum, I suppose, might be fixed, but the board is here directed to allow no further time for the operation of the interim order than is absolutely necessary to hold the investigation. I do not think there could be a more binding provision than that.
Mr. ARlCHAMBAULT: If there was thirty days' delay, surely in that time the board would be able to give proper notice to the company or to the parties interested.


Mr. VIEN:: I would point out to the minister that this is an interim ex parte order.
Mr. iMcMASTER: I would suggest that the period should be thirty days.


Arthur Meighen: I have no objection to the maximum of thirty .days, but I would be afraid in case it should transpire that the investigation could not be completed in
(


that time. The order would go out of effect and perhaps harm would be done.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: It would be
easy during the thirty days to give official notice according to the ordinary procedure.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It would remain an
interim order but it would be no longer an ex parte order. Thirty days should be long enough in the case of an order that is interim and ex parte.


Joseph Archambault: And the interim order can be removed.


Arthur Meighen: Thirty days or even,
thirty-five may not be enough, and it must be the least possible time that would serve.


Thomas Vien: I think we should amend
this clause so as to provide:
iNo Such interim order shall he for any longer time than thirty days.
We must not forget that on any information which may be brought before the court an interim ex parte order will issue directing any concern in Canada to stop during the thing complained of, and when the hearing takes place it may be discovered that there is nothing in the complaint, that the information was wrong. Then if two or three months elapse before the hearing takes place, these people will have been put out of business for that period on a wrong information. It seems to me that for an interim ex parte order a preliminary hearing should take place inside of at least thirty days following the order.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I have drafted a clause here which I think meets the ministers' objection, and it reads as follows:
But no such interim order shall be made for any longer time than the board may deem necessary to enable the parties to be brought before it, and in no case for longer than thirty days.


Arthur Meighen: The difficulty would
be just this: If that clause were to be accepted as it is worded, that immediately the' parties come together and the investigation opens, the interim injunction falls, and they are back just where they were. The investigation might last for two or three weeks. Hon. gentlemen will see the matter must be heard. Once it is heard, then of course the interim injunction shall be made. If it is only to last until they are brought together, harm will be done.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I will meet the minister's objection by providing that no such interim ex parte order shall be made for any longer time than an interim order can
be made for. After that, if the parties have an opportunity of being brougm before the court, they can always be brought before a court in this country within thirty days.


Arthur Meighen: I really think the clause would be better as it is, but I do not want to be obdurate in the matter. If it is to be' altered, it should be rather along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) because the matter must be determined before any interim order can issue. I would not object, if it is considered better by hon. gentlemen, to inserting this condition at the end of the clause:
Providing no such interim order shall have; effect for a longer period than forty days.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 38-Decision may be made rule or decree of Exchequer Court.
Thomas Vien: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to subparagraphi (5) of this-cl-ause. He said a minute ago that he intended not to provide any special machinery for the execution of the orders of the court, and yet this paragraph says that not only can a judgment of the board be made a rule of the Exchequer Court, but it shall be optional with the board, either before or after its decision or order is made a rule, order or decree of any court, to enforce such decision or order by its own action. Not only can the board make its decision or order become the decision or order of any court of record, but it can also provide-for the necessary machinery-sheriffs, and so forth-for the enforcement of its orders.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the effect of sub-clause 5'.
It shall be optional with the board, either before or after its decision or order is made a rule, order or decree of any court,, to enforce-such decision or order by its own action.
That is to say, the decision of the board may be made a rule of court by the action of the board, or anyone interested in it' can proceed and make it a rule of court-Then after it is made a rule of court, the court by its own action can enforce it, but, if so, it utilizes the executive machinery of the courts, and if anybody else wants to enforce it he uses the same executive machinery, just as in the case of an indictment for disobedience of an order.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. minister convey the idea that any interested person may request that a rule or. order of the

Efobard become an order or rule of any *court?
iMr. MEIGHEN:	Yes, any person can
'take an order of the board and make it a rule of court.


Thomas Vien: But it does not say it may be made at the request of any interested party.
Mr. MEIGiHEN: The next section indicates that. Any one may get from the secretary of the board a copy of the order, then he can get that filed and make it a rule of court.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
'On section 41-Appeals from commissioner :
Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, I request the reading of that section.
'The CHAIRMAN: Does the Committee desire that clause 41, a page and a half in length, be read by the Chairman?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispensed with.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Chairman, I request that the clause be read, or that I be allowed time to consider it carefully. This section is most important, for it undoes everything that the Bill has done up to now it gives the Governor in Council power to nullify all the rulings or orders of the board. I think it is only fair and proper that the Committee should read it carefully to know what the enactment is. If the Chairman is too tired on account of the hot weather and the late sittings during the past week, I shall do his duty and read the section to the House.
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 board under special circumstances may allow, or 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 ; and any order which the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto shall be binding upon the board and upon all Parties.
We will first examine that subsection, Mr. Chairman. We have said repeatedly since the principle of this legislation was introduced that this was simply to throw -dust in the people's eyes, that the Government did not intend to carry out the purposes of the Bill, that it would continue to have direct control over those who had the duty to put this legislation into effect.
iMr, Vien ^
We have given to the hoard the right to regulate, to issue orders and rulings, and to see that such orders and rulings may be made the orders andrulings of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of any other court of record.
By paragraph 1 of this section we give to the Governor in Council the widest power to rescind, to nullify, to destroy the effect of any regulation or ruling of the board. If the board, after full investigation, decided that a certain firm was engaging in unfair commercial practices and issued an order prohibiting those practices, the Government could nullify the action of the board if such ruling or order was directed against some one who was near to the Government. This paragraph is not necessary; it is inconsistent with the general provisions of the Act-and with the Government policy upon which this legislation is based, and for that reason I contend that paragraph 1 of section 41 should be struck out.


Samuel William Jacobs: I desire to support the
remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Vien). The public is given certain protection with one hand which is take'n away with the other. Why should the Governor in Council interfere with the judgments of this board? Now I can understand why it was first suggested that the members composing this board should receive such modest salaries; the reason is because their judgments are not to be worth the paper they are written on; the Governor in Council can treat any ruling of the board as a mere " scrap of paper." If this provision is adopted, the whole purpose of the Bill is nullified and the enactment is rendered worthless.


Arthur Meighen: This clause received
rather violent criticism yesterday, to which I did not refer in the very few remarks which I made. It was described as " camouflage;" as evidencing clearly that the whole thing was dust in the eyes of the public, even by those who afterwards joined in voting for the Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: ' I was not here yesterday, so that I cannot be placed in that category.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. member would have been a wandering sheep, even if he had been here when we were all unanimous in approval of the Bill.


Samuel William Jacobs: I might have been a wandering Jew.


Arthur Meighen: A clause similar to
this one was. put in the Act constituting the Railway Commission, and is in it to-

day. The board that we constitute here is not going to have any higher status or any .wider powers than the Railway Commission. It was thought fit when the Act constituting the ^Railway Commission was passed-not for purposes of camouflage or deceit;
I hope hon. members would not suggest that against the immaculate Administration of that day-that this control should be exercised. The reason, in this case as in that, is that the functions of the board, while mainly judicial, are at the same time in a great degree legislative as well; that is to say, a portion of what is ordinary legislative jurisdiction is taken from the Parliament of Canada and placed here. It was thought fit, therefore, when the Railway Board was created seventeen or eighteen years agq, to place a residuary or appellant power in the Governor in Council, exercisable according to such rules as might be thought best and as were proved to be based upon experience. In connection with the administration of the work of the Railway Commission the Governor in Council has followed about this rule, if I am able to define it correctly, they would not interfere with a judgment of the Railway Commission unless it appeared that certain elemental and relevi facts had not been taken into consideration; in which case- -so far as I am aware, always, but I know, very generally-they referred the case back for the renewed consideration of the Railway Commission. Whatever reasons existed for the retention of that appellant or supervisory power over the Railway Commission exists in this case, particularly in the earlier stages of the operation of the Act; it is a sort of balance wheel that may be' called into play where that appears to be absolutely essential in the public, interest. Every year since I have been a membeT of the Government cases have come before it arising out of this provision in the Act creating the Railway Commission. Very rarely is any action taken at all; always, to the best of my recollection, the action taken is a reference back, although there might be cases where there should not be a reference back. I repeat that the principle followed is to interfere only where it appears that important, essential factors in the determination of the matters that were brought before the commission were in some way overlooked or ignored.	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: There is a court of appeal; why not take cases of that kind to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: The Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction only in questions .
of law, in this case as in the case of the Railway Commission. The Governor in Council's jurisdiction is exercised only in questions of fact.


Samuel William Jacobs: Without having heard the evidence?	(


Arthur Meighen: We have the evidence before us. We do not undertake to determine the credibility of witnesses; that is for the board. The Governor in Council merely says: These men have brought before us relevant facts that did not appear in the record. Or it may be that after the decision of the board is made something happens that causes the carrying out of the order to be against general public policy, in which event it would be wisdom on the part of the Governor in Council to interfere. But the range of cases of interference is very narrow indeed, necessarily so in connection with this board. No Government is going to usurp the functions of the board; such a course would be fatal both to the Government and to the board.


Samuel William Jacobs: It leaves the door open to criticism.


Arthur Meighen: Every action the Government takes leaves the door open to criticism and to abuse. But for the purposes of correction in special cases such as has been exercised in connection with the operations of the Railway Commission it was deemed wise that this clause, which was embodied there, should be embodied here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does this provision follow the language of the Act creating the Railway Commission?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Thomas Vien: The minister surely does not ignore the difference between the administration of the matters coming under jurisdiction of the Board of Railway 'Commissioners and the administration of the various matters which are to be dealt with by this board. In the operation of the railways of Canada the general policies of the country are involved.
But some private concern may commit offences against Bill No. 167, the Combines and Fair Prices Act, and if they are friends of the Government, they may induce the Government to interfere with the orders of the board, and to rescind or to nullify them, by an Order in Council.


Arthur Meighen: I do not yet see the reason for the distinction made by the hon. member- I suppose railway men might be friends of the Government, too. In fact, if

my memory serves me aright, I believe I heard hon. gentlemen broadly hinting some time ago that certain railway men were friends of the Government, so that those reasons might possibly exist in the case of the Railway Act just as in this case. Indeed,. railway men might become such friends of the Government that they would be knighted by the Government, and in that case there would be great disposition to interfere. In a word, to repeat, the cases are precisely parallel; whatever reason subsists in the one case subsists in the other.


Thomas Vien: But two wrongs do not make a right.


Arthur Meighen: It is strange that the hon. member will now contend that the evil existed in the other Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: If the board were to find that certain parties charged had committed a crime by violating the provisions of this Bill, does the minister contend that the Governor in Council would have power to rescind that judgment of the new board ?


Arthur Meighen: The board, of course, does not decide that anybody commits a crime; the board decides what is an offence and what is not. It makes the rule, and then the court decides whether or not the rule is violated. If it is, that is an offence against the Act, and once the court decides, the Government, of course, could not interfere.


Samuel William Jacobs: Between the time the board decided that an offence had been committed and the court actually passed on the offence charged, the Government might interfere and rescind the order of the board?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, but if an offence had been committed, while it existed the offence would still be intact and punishable. After the recision, then no one, by violating the order, could commit an offence. The Government might, of course, rescind an order of the board. As I say, the Government is not going to do so except on the principles it has followed in connection with the Railway Commission, and that policy has proved in the interest of the country and it should so prove here.


Samuel William Jacobs: The distinction is so subtle that, I think, the minister has used his finest ingenuity on it.


Joseph Archambault: Will the Government not interfere after an order has been given by the court?


Arthur Meighen: The order is given by the Board of Commerce.


Joseph Archambault: When the court has rendered its judgment and made a rule for enforcement, could the Government interfere?


Arthur Meighen: The Government could not interfere with the court. The case the hon. member brought to my attention was that of an order. An offence having been brought to the attention of the Attorney General and the court having decided that the offence had been committed, any interference on the part of the Government after the man had committed the offence, could not affect the matter .at all.


Joseph Archambault: Clause 41 says:
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 board under special circumstances may allow, or 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.-*
But during that month, there may have been an order or a decision of the Superior or Exchequer court. What effect would the interference of the Government have with respect to that order?


Arthur Meighen: Once a reversal was made of an order, then no further proceedings could be taken on that order; or if an order was varied, except in accordance with the variations.


Joseph Archambault: Would it stop the proceedings already taken?


Arthur Meighen: No, proceedings already taken are taken.


Joseph Archambault: The proceedings could be taken and not completed. For instance, if there is an execution in the Superior court against goods or valuables of the firm or corporation, would the interference of the Government prevent that execution from being carried out? Would it stop the proceedings?


Arthur Meighen: No, the execution could go on because the execution could not have started unless proceedings in regard to the offence were started in the court. When th6 offence is once established, that goes through; the man- is guilty and he has to pay the penalty.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 42-rules of procedure:
Herbert Macdonald Mowat: This should form a subclause of clause 26. It seems to be a repetition.


Arthur Meighen: I -will let this clause stand in the meantime and see if we can follow the hon. member's suggestion which seems to be a good one.
Section stands.
On section 44-services of process:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there anything in the Bill making officials of other courts officials of this court. For instance, will the sheriff of a county or an official of the Supreme Court of Ontario be officials of this board?


Arthur Meighen: No, but in carrying out their duties as officials of their own court, they are really executing the orders of this board, because the orders of this board are made rules of their court.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The sheriff of a county is, I think, an official of the Exchequer Court.


Arthur Meighen: Then he would be at their disposal because any order can be made a rule of the Exchequer Court, and all the officers would be empowered to carry it out.


Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that service may be made-:	_
By mailing by registered letters, postage prepaid, addressed to the. president, managing director and secretary at the head office or chief place of business of said company.
Supposing that head office is in the United States, and there is a local or branch office in Canada, would it not be. sufficient if this notice were addressed to the local office in Canada rather than to the head office if the latter be situated outside of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: That might be the better way, but I think that is provided for in the latter part of paragraph (b).


Samuel William Jacobs: Paragraph (b) says:
Provided that if in any case within the jurisdiction of the board it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the board, that service cannot conveniently be made in the manner above provided,-
The board may then summon by newspaper, but that, I think, scarcely covers the objection I have raised. For example, if the head office happened to be in India, at Bombay, or in South Africa, at Cape Town, why should the board have to wait two months when notice could be served on the local office of the company?


Arthur Meighen: I think the Act as drafted is right, but it is not printed quite right. If the word " provided "-and I move this amendment-is placed out in line with the extreme left hand line of the page and thus made applicable to both (a) and (b) that will take care of the situation, because the board can effect service merely by publication both in the case of incorporated companies and in the case of partnerships and firms.	,


Samuel William Jacobs: I think that would improve it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am very strong on the question of service. I do not like to have anybody put in jeopardy through not being served. I am not satisfied with this registered letter business, because I am afraid there might be a miscarriage of justice very often. I think there should be personal service, through a representative, every time.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, if possible.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 47-costs:
Samuel William Jacobs: I notice that the costs of and incidental to any proceeding before the board may be taxed. Taxed by whom?


Arthur Meighen: That would be covered by the general regulations which the board is empowered to make.


John Howard Sinclair: If a private individual makes a Complaint which does not result in a conviction, will he have to pay
the costs?


Arthur Meighen: Not unless he was assessed with the costs by the board. If he acted bona fide throughout, no doubt the board would not assess him for the costs.
Air. AIcKENZIE: Is the prosecution at the instance of the Crown by So-and-so?
Air. A1EIGHEN: Oh, no.
Mr. AIcKENZIE: Is it a private action every time?	[DOT]
Air. A1EIGHEN: The prosecution is by the Crown, when it gets to the stage of prosecution. If the board comes to the conclusion that an individual has offended against an order of the board and submits the case to the Attorney General, prosecution proceeds through the regular court channels. Information is laid and the man is prosecuted. The facts are all there to establish a case. Any individual can go to the board and initiate an investigation lead-

ing to -conviction if an offence has been committed and to an order.
Mr. MeKENZIE: When a summons goes out for a man against whom a complaint has been laid to appear before the board,- in whose name does that summons go out? In criminal proceedings it would be in the name of the King, .by So-and-so. There are very few people who care to put their names in this manner to an expensive investigation if they are liable to foe assessed for the costs. A man may think that his grocer is charging too much. He has the right under this Bill to go to the board and say: "Mr. Smith is charging far too much for groceries, and I want you- to make an investigation." The man who gives that information to the board would not want his name to appear in the legal proceedings. He is giving information to a public institution whose duty it is to investigate.


Arthur Meighen: The public institution, as my hon. friend calls it, or the board-, is empowered, without revealing the name of its informant at all, to order Smith to appear. The order may be issued simply in the name of the board1. They could use the name of the King if the regulations call for it, or the summons could be simply by letter from the secretary, and the man would be bound to appear and an inquiry would be held. If the facts are established, he may be enjoined.


Joseph Archambault: If the facts are not established the complainant pays the costs.


Arthur Meighen: If he has acted mala fide he would likely 'be assessed, but that is in the discretion of the board under section 47.


Joseph Archambault: He is taking
chances.


Arthur Meighen: Some chances, yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Section 6 of Bill No. 167 dealing with the investigation of combines provides:	.
Any British subject, resident in -Canada and of full age, who is of opinion that a combine exists or is being formed may apply in writing to any member of the 'board' except the Chief Commissioner for an order directing an investigation into such alleged combine and fixing a time and place for the hearing of the applicant or his counsel.
Then it goes on to specify what is to be done: "The applicant may appear on such hearing in person or by his counsel." That seems to require that the man who makes

a complaint should employ counsel and carry on the prosecution.


Arthur Meighen: Of a combine. That can be done, but the -board is empowered to act even under that Bill without any individual taking the responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: I wish to say that the suggestion of the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Mowat) was really better, but to adopt it would require renumbering all the sections, and it would have no different effect from the present; so I think we had better Jet it stand as it is.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I would suggest that
when the rules and regulations governing the board are drawn, care should be taken that the board shall have the right to go into any office and seize the papers or take precautions that they shall not 'be disposed of. That proved very important in one prosecution under the former Act, where the Crown Attorney had officers go into the office and say " Every paper must remain as it is," and got an undertaking that such would be the case. Otherwise there is no certainty that incriminating papers which would show combination might not be made away with.


Arthur Meighen: The suggestion is no doubt good and will be acted upon. As to section 19, which has been allowed to stand, the chairman takes the view that we cannot fix the salaries by this Bill. While my information was that we could so long as we changed subsection 3, to read as I suggested, making the salaries payable out of such moneys as Parliament appropriates, I think that in view of the chairman's opinion and of the fact that the Government is not at all out of accord with the general views of the committee on matters of salary, it would be better to change clause 19. to read:
The chief commissioner shall he paid such annual salary and each of the other commissioners such annual salary as the Governor In Council may determine.
I separate them for the-reason that if they were put together they would all have to be paid the same salary. The second subsection will remain as it is, except as regards the maximum; that will be struck out. The third subsection will read:
Such salaries shall he paid monthly out of such moneys as Parliament may appropriate for the purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 4-appointment:
Arthur Meighen: Subsection 1 will read:
** One of such commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor in Council, chief commissioner." Subsection 2 will remain as it is. I move that we strike out subsection 3 altogether; and subsection 4 will read: "A commissioner shall have all the powers of the chief commissioner," etc.


Samuel William Jacobs: With regard to subsection 2, ''any person may be appointed chief commissioner who is or has been a judge of a superior court of Canada." Will that apply to a judge of the Appellate Court?


Arthur Meighen: I think the Appellate Court is included in the term "superior court." "Superior court" in this subsection refers 'to' any of the higher courts'; it is spelt with a small "s."


Samuel William Jacobs: Superior court will include Appellate Court?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
On section 6-Quorum:


Arthur Meighen: In subsection 2, the
words "assistant chief" will have to be struck out. The subsection will read-: "and a commissioner,' in the absence of the commissioner," shall preside, etc.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-where interested in matter, [DOT]etc., Governor in Council may appoint another person to act:
Arthur Meighen: This section is all right, but after considering the other suggestion of the hon. member for Brome, I am disposed to accept it and to do away with the title "assistant commissioner."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do you not think that clause 7 is contradictory? It says that when it is -found that a commissioner is interested, the Governor in Council appoints another man in his place. Then we put in a proviso at the end saying that he Is not disqualified.


Arthur Meighen: That is in the event of the Governor in Council not having taken action. There is a similar provision in the Railway Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think you will search in vain in any of the higher courts for any such language. The minister is quite well aware of the extreme sensitiveness of the common law on this point.


Arthur Meighen: It is exactly section 13
of the Railway Act-	i


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That may be, 'but I am not familiar with the Railway Act.


Arthur Meighen: -and after thinking it over and discussing it with	some
others, including the Prime	Minister, they seemed _ to think it would be dangerous to take that proviso out-that there would be cases where perhaps great inconvenience would occur.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.
COMBINES, MONOPOLIES TRUSTS AND ,	MERGERS.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen, Bill No. 167, concerning the Investigation and Restraint of Combines, Monopolies, Trusts and Mergers, and the Withholding and Enhancement of the Price of Cbmmodities, was read the second time, and the House .went into Cbmmittee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair.
k On clause 2-definitions. " Combine.":
. Mr. McKENZIE:	Perhaps the work of
the committee might be abbreviated by the minister stating wherein this Bill differs from the old Combines Act or is it practically the same?


Arthur Meighen: No, it is very different. I think, however, the committee already has a pretty full idea of the intent and scope of this measure from the discussion in a previous Act. I direct the attention of the committee to the clause:
The expression " combine " is used in this Act with intended relation to articles of commerce, and it shall be deemed to have reference only to such combines, immediately hereinafter defined, as, with relation as aforesaid; have, in the opinion of The Board of Commerce of Canada (or of a single member thereof acting under authority of and for the purposes of section eight of this Act) operated, or are likely to operate, to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, consumers, producers or others, and, limited' as aforesaid, the said expression as used in this Act shall be deemed to include,-
(a) mergers, trusts and monopolies, so called,-
That is to say, the scope of the operations of this board as affecting combines shall be directed against such combines as are detrimental to the public interest. In other .words, this Act recognizes the fact that there may be combines, and there may be purposes of combines, that are in full accord with the public interest, in the interest of the country. For example, combinations of capital, and of combinations for the purpose of working together towards increasing export trade. The greater our export

trade the better for the country. That is a good, laudable practice and a good reason for amalgamation, because there are times when it can. be better secured, indeed almost always, by that means. But if that same combination operates for the- purpose of keeping down the wages of its employees, combines for that purpose, or for the purpose of putting up the cost to its consumers, above what is reasonable to those purchasers, that is detrimental to the interests of the public, and for so doing a combine comes within the operations of the Act and is answerable to this board. Now, Part I of this Bill deals wholly with the duty of the board in relation to combines, mergers and combinations so called. Part II deals with the duty of the board in relation to unfair prices and unfair practices. The Bill is divided into those two parts, and such is the scope of each part.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would the minister explain what he means by the words "or are likely to operate?" Are the board given divine insight?


Arthur Meighen: No, but there may be evidence that the purpose of a certain Act, or even a certain combination itself, is to operate against the public interest, which may be set out, for example, in communications that pass between the various bodies that are about to combine, and though no harm may be done there may be ample evidence that harm is intended, and the board is empowered to anticipate and prevent such harm.


Frank S. Cahill: Would the board be empowered to investigate the watered stock, or so-called watered stock, of companies, and determine the rate of return on the actual investment?


Arthur Meighen: In respect to such companies as come within the scope of the Act, it would.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What is the reason for limiting the operations of this Bill to articles of commerce? There may be combines of various professions. For instance, there may be a combine amongst doctors, or amongst lawyers, or amongst dentists, that might be detrimental to the interests of the public. If the public, cannot obtain the services of these men at reasonable cost, combines of that kind would be detrimental to the public interest. In that event, why not include them under the operation of this Bill?	'
fMr. Meighen.]


Arthur Meighen: Of course, a Board of Commerce is a Board of Commerce, and we have to deal with the first offenders first.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not know that. There is a possibility that those who deal in commerce may not be the first offenders.


Arthur Meighen: I rather think the demand of the country at the present time is to .deal with them first. The country, of course, may be deceived, but we will find that out.
Section 2-Definitions-"Combines". Expression to include Mergers, Trusts, etc. Control over business of others. Contracts, agreements, arrangements or combinations. "Combine" not to apply to workmen or employees. "Minister", "Board".


Frank S. Cahill: Would subsection (c) as to the fixing of a common price or a re-sale price apply to companies who fix the resale price of their goods? I understand that the Ford Motor Company, for example, fix the prices of their automobiles to their agents and customers.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: They would be breaking
this law if they continued the practice?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it not a common custom all over the world for certain manufacturers to fix the retail prices of certain commodities.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know how common it is, but if it is done, that operation may be reviewed by the board.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would it not improve subclause (b) to add after the word "person" in both places where it appears the words "firm or corporation"?


Arthur Meighen: The Interpretation Act covers that. It defines person to include firm or corporation.


Frank S. Cahill: Do I understand that the fixing of a retail price might be investigated by the board, and that if it were not found to be detrimental to the consumer or to the public interest a person would still be allowed to continue the practice?


Arthur Meighen: I presume so, if it was not detrimental to the public interest or unfair to the consumer. The actual fixing of prices would not be wrong merely in itself.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think great difficulty
will be found in enforcing the clause re-

garding the fixing of a common price. On large numbers of commodities the price is fixed by the manufacturer, for instance, on patented articles, and the price in that case may or may not show a large percentage of profit in the transaction, but in many instances there is reason for a larger percentage of profit than on the staple lines of merchandise. In advertising and placing an article of that kind on the market the inventor incurs a very large initial expenditure, and he must recoup himself from the [DOT]sale of the article, and consequently he must get more than the ordinary rate of profit. They have a similar law in the United States, and I know they have found great difficulty in working it out. It has entailed serious hardship on many lines of merchandise such as I have referred to. Newspapers and magazines fix their selling prices. How are you going to deal with that practice?


Arthur Meighen: I have just stated that the fixing of the price itself is not an offence, but should the board find that it is fixed too high and is unfair to the consumer, they can issue a prohibition; but if they find the price is fair, they do not enjoin against it. One office of this Act is to put the imprimatur of the board upon a practice which is odinarily unfavourably looked upon, but which the board may find in actual fact to be in the public interest In a word, the fixing of prices will not be '*condemned as wrong merely because it is a fixing of prices, unless the prices are unfairly fixed.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I think the clause would apply equally well if that section were omitted. It is absolutely unnecessary.


Arthur Meighen: No.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Because you reserve the right to interfere in any case, whether the price is fixed or not fixed. Fot instance, books are published at a fixed price and subsequently they are sold at a lower price, and the same remark applies to many other things that one. cannot think of at the moment, and the cla'use it seems to me is not necessary. It has a deterrent effect, but it does not help the section at all, which would apply just as well without it, because the board reserves the right to investigate without that provision.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is necessary and fair. It is questionable if the fixing of prices as carried on is not criminal under the code. But this is designed to divide
the sheep .from the goats,-to ascertain where a fixed price is unfair and where it is not, and to leave alone the men who are all right and go after the others. There can be no complaint about giving the board power to do that.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: But you legislate against fixing a common price?


Arthur Meighen: No, we do not.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: There is no discretion given in the Bill.


Mr. STEVENS:: If the hon. member will read in clause 2 a little higher up: "Have, in the opinion of the board operated, or are likely to operate, to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, consumers," etc., he will find then that this comes in as included there. I might just add, while speaking on this point, that the Committee in considering this generally during the last few weeks certainly felt that this particular clause should be retained.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Would the hon. member name some specific cases that came under the consideration of the committee?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could give a number, but I do not wish to delay the committee.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: One case, if you will, please.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose this section would take care of the case of a producer selling his commodity to a trader with the distinct understanding that the price would not be lower than that fixed, and in the event of his selling at a lower price the producer would refuse to have further dealings with him?	,


Arthur Meighen: Yes. That operation is a combination or combine within- the meaning of this section, provided that the board find it is detrimental to the consumer in a particular case. They look into what is done in the particular case and they say: Now, because of the fixed prices they come within- the meaning of this sec- [DOT] tion, and we may deal with them if we find that the particular fixing of prices was detrimental to the public; but if we find it was not, we will not touch it.


Samuel William Jacobs: We have a case in Montreal, where the Macdonald Tobacco company refuse to sell their goods to people to whom they take a certain dislike-they may not like the color of their hair. Would this Bill get after a company of that kind?


Arthur Meighen: That, of course, is not touched on here, but there is a clause in part 2 of this Bill that covers the case. I would not like to say in advance whether it makes it compulsory on the man to sell to anybody. I would be glad to consider an amendment to that effect.


John Howard Sinclair: Take the case of a large concern' such as Swift and company with its headquarters Sn the United States. It dictates to butchers and meat dealers in Canada as to prices. Would this Bill reach a company of that kind? -


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. We could prosecute their agents here.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I return to the point I raised before, Mr. Chairman, although it does not seem to impress the Acting Minister of Justice. There are firms in business that by the method of putting their goods before the public have a vested interest in a particular product, and they have a right to say, I think, what price should be obtained for .that product. In placing it in the hands of the retailer they fix the price at which that article must be retailed. Surely they have the right to determine the price that they should obtain for their product, especially if the public are willing to pay that price; I do not think it is fair that this board should interfere. For instance, a line of silks is widely advertised under a certain name by a certain, firm, and obtains prominence and standing in the community for class, quality, and so on. I do not think that the privilege of fixing the retail price of that commodity should he taken away from that firm under the operation of this Act.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot express my amazement upon hearing the views of my hon. friend. For two sessions now he has been very declamatory about profiteering, and his appeals have really been so heartrending that at last we have yielded to him. Now he wants profiteering to go unchecked; any man, he says, should have the right to fix the price of his goods; he protests against any interference whatever. Why, he is the worst profiteer in preaching I have ever heard.


Samuel William Jacobs: He protests only for Renfrew.


Arthur Meighen: Just for Renfrew, yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I challenge the minister to point to one word that I have uttered during this or any other session by way of protest along the lines that he has sug-
[Mr. Jacobs.!
gested. An insane and hysterical cry against profiteering is going about the country at the present time, a cry which has no foundation in fact. The cases in point referred [DOT] to by the Chairman of the Cost of Living Committee the other day show that he does not know whereof he speaks, or that he has not obtained the information he should have obtained when the -witnesses were before him for examination. He referred to evidence given by a witness before the committee who stated that a certain line of merchandise, the manufacture of which cost $4.37^ a dozen was handed out to the consumer at 75 cents for each article; and he cited this as a case of profiteering. Evidently he is ignorant of the avenues through which a line of merchandise must pass before it reaches the consumer; otherwise he would not have stated that profiteering obtained in that case. That line of goods would not be sold direct to the consumer, or even to the retailer; it would be sold to the wholesaler. The Cost of Living Committee should have obtained from that witness further evidence as to the various stages through which that article passed before it reached the consumer. For instance, it goes from the manufacturer to the wholesale house. Any one who knows anything about the wholesale business knows that an article which cost $4,371 a dozen to manufacture could not be handled by a wholesale firm and sold at a fair profit at less than $6 or $6.50 a dozen. Then, when the article is put into the hands of the retailer, the Tetailer must pay freight, packing charges and so on, and he could not possibly sell the articles at less than 75 cents and still make a legitimate profit. Yet it is alleged that this is an item in connection with which profiteering obtkined. Futther, the same witness gave' evidence that a line of goods which cost $10.50 a dozen was sold at $2.50 for each article. That witness should have been able to tell the committee of the avenues-through which that particular line of merchandise passed before it reached the consumer. But the information left the Cost of Living Committee in that way and the impression was given that 'the spread was a large one between the cost of production and the ultimate cost to the consumer. We are not informed what price was obtained by the wholesale house to which that line of goods was sold by the manufacturer; consequently, an unfair impression has been left on the minds of the public, and for this the Cost of Living Committee is responsible. The same may be said of boots and shoes. Evidence was

elicited from a retail boot and shoe man who appeared before the committee that on a certain line of boots he obtained 50 per cent profit. Any one who knows anything about retail merchandising knows that if a merchant buys fancy boots at $12 and advertises them at $18 he is not attempting to obtain any too much profit, for rarely is it possible to sell the whole of a line of merchandise like that at the larger price; the dealer has to sell many of those boots and shoes at $15, $12, or possibly even for less than he paid for them. So that the statement which has been issued is not borne out by an actual calculation of the results in a year's transaction. If I remember correctly, the business of that witness amounted to a turnover of $51,000 a year on a capital of $16,000. The impression was given that he made 50 per cent profit on his entire turnover, but evidence was elicited from that man to show that his net profit on capital on the year's turnover was only 5.22 per cent. If he does not make a better return than that on his capital, he will be out of business in a very short time; for it is not enough to allow for losses, shrinkage in value of stock, and so on. But the point I make is that the impression has been allowed by the Cost of Living Committee to go abroad that the boot and shoe merchants and retail men have been making undue profits. I am sorry that I did not know that this Bill was coming up for discussion, because I have memoranda and data concerning a large number of similar items. 'However, I think I have said sufficient to show that the impression given out as a result of the investigations made by the Cost of Living Committee have had an unfavourable effect upon the minds of the public, and that this impression would have been created had the actual facts been obtained from the witnesses who appeared before that committee and had those who examined the nesses known how to go about the work that they had in hand. Some of the criticism that has been levelled against the Cost of Living Committee by the press has been justified, because the evidence was there if they had known how to obtain it, and they would have obtained it had they sufficiently posted themselves on the work that they had in hand and had dealt with it in a businesslike manner.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: If the data the hon. member has and which he is so anxious to lay before the Committee is as reliable as the data which he has just given
to the Committee, I am sure that it will be exceedingly enlightening. If the hon. member had taken nearly as much trouble to follow the evidence taken by the committee as he has done to follow the press report, he might have been a little better informed.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The House has not had the evidence placed before it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will just take up the two cases specifically. The hon. member stated that the Chairman of the committee used' these figures on the floor of the House to show cases of profiteering, stating that a line of goods produced in 1914 at a cost of $4,374 per dozen and sold to the consuming public at the rate of $9 per dozen was evidence of a case of profiteering. The hon. member cannot find in anything the Chairman of the committee has said anything that will bear out that statement. What the Chairman of the committee said was that the fact that goods produced in 1914 at $4,374 per dozen, reaching the consumer at $9 a dozen, or a difference of 100 per cent, and produced in 1919 at $10.50 per dozen, reaching the consumer at $30 a dozen, or a difference of 250 per cent, was an evidence of profiteering. If the hon. member will take the pains to get the evidence-and it is available, all he has to do is to ask the clerk of the committee-he will'find that the witness who gave that evidence was questioned closely as to all the channels through which those goods passed. The hon. member states that the committee gave out evidence that was misleading with regard to profits made by a certain company that had a capital of $16,000 and that sold boots at a profit of 50 per cent. The committee gave out no such evidence. The committee got accurately the detailed evidence as to all the channels through which these goods passed, the cost of doing business, the gross and the net profits, and neither the chairman nor any member of the committee has made any statement that the profits made by this retailer of shoes were either just or unjust. The hon. gentleman is carried off his feet by statements made in the press. If he will just take the pains to get the actual facts, he will find that the committee got a little more accurate information than he has taken the trouble to obtain.
* Mr. PEDLOW:	I have taken all pains
possible to obtain the evidence adduced before the Cost of Living Committee, but without success. The evidence is not today printed and distributed. That evidence should have been printed and distributed

amongst the members of this House from day to day so that they would not have to rely upon press reports. The reporters have informed me that the press reports are absolutely correct in every particular.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have the
honour to inform the House that the following message has been received from the Senate:
Resolved that a message be sent to the House of Commons by one of the clerks at the table to inform that House that the managers of the Free Conference on the part of the Senate will meet in the Senate committee room No. 70, at 10.30 o'clock, a.m., the fifth day of July instant.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest that the Clerk of the House send a formal notice to the managers on behalf of the House of Commons of the time and place of meeting suggested 'by the Senate for the free conference upon Bill No. 107, as many of the managers are not present?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: With the consent of the House, before Private Bills are taken, I should like to move:
That Mr. Cooper and Mr. Davis be substituted for Mr. Stacey and Mr. Whidden as two of the managers on behalf of the House of Commons at the Free Conference respecting Bill No. 107, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
The reason for the change is that Mr. Stacey and Mr. Whidden have left, or are about to leave, and will not be here for the balance of the session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), to incorporate The Victory Trust Company.-Mr. Nickle.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Wesley Galbraith.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecilia Agnes Thomasson Lukis.- Mr. Green.
[Mr. Pedlow.l
Bill No. 171 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Augusta Warke. -Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 173 (from the Senate), for the relief of Blanche Gray Law.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 170 (from the Senate), for the relief, of Burton Mattin.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 172 (from the Senate), for the relief of Flora Burrows.-Mr. W'allace.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved that Bill No. 168, respecting electric and pow^r companies, be read the second time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair.
Mr. FIELDING:: What is the effect of the Bill?


Mr. J. D. REID:: The other evening when we passed the Railway Act I said I would introduce a special Bill, which would embody clause 374 of that Act, and would also strike out the words " including compensation if any " in the telephone clause. I am now asking the House to pass a special Bill so that the matter may go before the Senate again in this way, and peftiaps they will reconsider their decision reached in connection with the Railway Act.


Jacques Bureau: What does this deal with?


John Dowsley Reid: Just the power clause.


William Stevens Fielding: At the time the matter was last before the House the minister and myself had one view and the majority of the House had a different view. Which of those two views is given expression in this Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: I am embodying in this Bill the view of the House in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Mowat), and which refers only to the power question.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to say, with all due respect to the wish of the House and the majority, that I regard the step taken as a great breach of' faith with an established interest in this country. I care nothing about the particular company concerned, and I do not know anything about them. But this is a breach of faith, and if passed by both Houses it will do infinite harm to the public credit of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: If I remember rightly, this is a Bill brought by the minister against the views of the minister himself.

The last time this question came before the House, the question was whether or not we should confiscate certain property belonging to the Toronto and Niagara Poyrer Company. Is it the object of this clause to curtail the rights which were granted that company by this House in 1992?


John Dowsley Reid: When the Bill came from the Senate there was an amendment to subsection 5, section 374, with reference to the power question. The Bill was referred to a special committee which made a report hack to this House agreeing to the amendment as it came from the Senate. When it was before this House the member for Parkdale moved an amendment to the clause. The amendment by this House was then sent on to the Senate and they refused to concur. In taking .clause 374 oht of the Bill I promised to introduce a special Bill that would embody the clause as passed by this' House, and we could then fight the matter out entirely on the one subject. I think that what the hon. member (Mr. Bureau) refers to is the fact that the other evening I suggested a different amendment. I stated that if the House did not agree to the amendment proposed by the member for Parkdale I was prepared to move one to provide that if the municipality should refuse to allow the company to enter, the matter could be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners who should have the power to decide whether the company should have the right to enter the municipality or not. However, as the (Bouse refused to consider that amendinent, I feel I am in duty bound to present this Bill containing the clause as it was passed by this House in the Railway Act.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This proposed legislation is the same as that which was carried on thg other night by a poor vote with a sparse house. I do not see any sense in sending that same thing back to the Senate, when they refuse to change their views. If the minister included the amendment he proposed the other night there might be some reasonableness in sending it back. But to send it back as it was, with clauses 5 and 6 just as moved; by the member for Parkdale and carried in a committee of this House by a vote of 56 to 52 or something like that, hardly a majority in a small house, we are just wasting our time.


John Dowsley Reid: If the House wishes to continue the effort to remedy the grievance of the people in Ontario as well as that which might be felt by other provinces, I think we should persist in bringing before the Senate as often as we can a Bill in connection with this matter, and perhaps in time the remedy might be effected. There is every possibility that the clause as it is in the Bill now will not be concurred in by the Senate in view of their refusal even after the conference. But it is my bounden duty to submit the Bill, and the House can amend it in any way it sees fit. If the House thinks it should be sent to the Senate in a different form I am willing to consider any amendment.


Jacques Bureau: When the Bill containing this clause came before the House it was submitted to a sub-committee for special study and the committee made a report. The clause as approved by the Senate was that recommended by the sub-committee. As stated by my friend from Pontiac (Mr. . Cahill), when the Bill came before the House it was the old fight of the Toronto people against the Toronto Power Company. I objected to that, and one of my reasons was this: If the Toronto people have any grievance against a particular corporation on the plea that the Dominion Parliament has granted to it excessive powers and now want to diminish those powers, let them come before Parliament in the ordinary way and we will have a fight on the straight issues involved in this Bill. There is nothing to prevent any citizen of Toronto advertising the fact that he intends, with that object in view, to ask amendments to the charter of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company granted in 1902. Then we shall know where we stand. But I for one will not in any way acquiesce in the insertion of a provision in the general law affecting the railways of Canada in order to meet the views of a particular clique in Toronto or anywhere else. Let the Toronto people pursue the course I have suggested and not endeavour to accomplish their purpose by slipping into the general railway law an amendment which simply affects this particular company. But the advocates of the city of Toronto raise the cry that the rights of the municipalities are jeopardized unless we accede to their wishes. That is simply throwing dust in the eyes of the people. No such rights are jeopardized as is claimed. The fact is that a fight is being waged between the HydroElectric Commission and this particular company. Now I was one of the members of the Committee that granted the charter to the Toronto and Niagara Company in 1902, and so far I have seen no reason to recede from the position which I then took.



But I think it is unfair, however, to detain members of Parliament here at this stage for the purpose simply of inserting in a general Act a provision which has relation only to a fight between the Toronto and Niagara Company and the Hydro-Electric Commission. Such a principle is absolutely wrong. I do not believe it to be the function of this Parliament to serve the interests of any body of men or any clique, nor to interfere with 'the powers granted in a special Act by making an amendment to the-general law. If powers of too wide a character have been granted to this company, let them be attacked in the ordinary way, but do not seek by means of a measure such as this to accomplish that object. . It is said this company is encroaching upon the autonomy of the municipalities. We do not permit that in the province of Quebec. If an electric or power company sought to ransack our streets in order to promote their enterprises, our municipalities would say: "You will not get any patronage from us; we never encourage those who want to make themselves a nuisance in our midst. More than that, we have by-laws that provide against such nuisances." I think I can detect the kernel of the whole question. The HydroElectric Commission is under the control of the Provincial Government, and the latter has limited the freedom of the municipalities by compelling them,, when an outside company is desirous of entering upon their streets, to submit the necessary by-laws to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for approval. In that way, the Provincial Government, or the Provincial Legislature, have restricted the absolute control which an Ontario municipality should have over its own streets. If such legislation as that were introduced' into the legislature of the province to which I belong, I would oppose it to the utmost of my power. It is an encroachment upon the basic principle of municipal administration. The provincial authorities virtually say to the municipalities, and at the dictation of Sir Adam Beck, "We are going to take from you your rights in this matter, and if you want anything done in the way of transmitting electric energy you must go to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for permission." What does that mean? That means obtaining the consent of the Hydro- Electric Commission, behind which stands Sir Adam Beck. T ask those who say that we, by our legislation of 1902, have encroached upon the rights of the municipalities, to bear that in mind.

I was talking a few minutes ago about the effect that such legislation as is now proposed will have upon the credit of Canada. I say that such legislation is immoral, and I use the term advisedly. In 1902 the members of the House of Commons, and of the Railway Committee, were just as intelligent as hon. gentlemen who are members of the House and of the committee to-day. After hearing all the parties connected with the undertaking it was decided to grant the powers asked for, and there were good reasons for adopting that course. The committee who dealt with the Consolidated Railway Act heard Mr. Beck state the position of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company-not Sir Adam Beck, but Mr. Beck, of New York, who represented the bondholders of the company. What did he say? He declared that the powers granted to this company were granted' at a time when it was looked upon as an adventurous undertaking. They did not know whether they would succeed or not, they were ignorant of the extent of the outlay that would be involved, and people at that time were very reluctant to put their money into such enterprises unless there were special inducements that would tend to make the enterprise a commercial success. The application of the laws of electricity was in an experimental stage. No great transmission lines existed at that time-in fact, the only one then in operation was to be found in the riding which I have the honour to represent. It was the first long-transmission line that was ever built, covering a distance of twenty-three miles.
They were willing to risk their capital, and they had to induce others to risk their capital for that purpose; therefore they had to get wide powers and great advantages to secure the necessary financial strength. We granted those powers to them. Experiments have been made, and to-day we have found the way to transmit electricity, and are harnessing every power that can be harnessed in Canada. The province of Ontario have decided-and I have no criticism to offer, because it does not concern me; what concerns me is the honour and credit of this Parliament-to establish a system of electric power to be developed, distributed, controlled and handled by the province. They find they have a competitor in the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, and they want to have an advantage over this competitor by saying: We shall have the control of streets, alleys and public squares in the province of Ontario to

extend our lines, but you shall not. Now, this proposition was made, and it was answered immediately. It was asked: Why not go and submit your plans to the Railway Commission? Here is the answer of my hon. friends, the Acting Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways. We had the Canadian National Railway Bill before this House, and I objected to the expropriation powers, because all the Canadian National Railway Company had to do was to deposit their plans signed by a surveyor, and immediately title vested in the Crown. They said: If we were to file those plans with the Railway Commission, what would be the consequence? Immediately people would rush to those lands, buy them, and we would have to pay a higher price. That is the answer to this thing. Immediately the Toronto *and' Niagara Power Company deposit its plans the Hydro Electrie will go to work and establish their lines on the very territory which the private company cover on the plans it deposits.
I know that the position I am taking to-night is not popular-with the element in Ontario; let me qualify it in that way. I have received requests from friends of mine in Toronto, saying: Of course, you do hot belong to our province, and this is a matter for us; say nothing about this Bill, swallow it, let the clause go through. Before rendering service to my friends- and if there is a man willing to go the limit I am so far as I am only personally concerned-before rendering service to my friends in my personal capacity, as a member of this House representing this country I want first to see that I do not hurt my country's reputation and the reputation of this House. I know that all the Toronto papers are going to say I must have been bought up by somebody. Well, I will ask, them this time to abstain if they do not want to be guilty of a falsehood, and I would say to them: Do not measure Jacques Bureau's robe by your own yardstick. He is not on the market and does not sell.,
I am speaking from a sense of honour, a sense of conviction, and I say that we cannot fool in this House. We have had these clauses in the general Railway Bill time and again before the House, we have had them for three years running, and they have always been held up. Why? Because this purpose of trying to take away the rights of the Toronto and Niagara Power *company could not be served by this public legislation, and therefore it could not go through. To-day the general Railway
290J
Bill is through. Why should we bow down to any set of men who have any particular interest in any particular thing? I say no. The credit of this country is pledged to the fact that when it passes legislation, if the legislation is wrong, or if conditions have changed in any way so it requires amendment, special legislation shall be passed, and there shall be no attempt to put in public legislation such terms as will affect private legislation to serve the interests of certain individuals-interests which are not for the benefit of Canada, but for the benefit of a few.
It may be, Mr. Chairman, that this was not the view taken by a majority of the members of this House when they voted on it because they were not directly interested. It is just like the case of any sentimental or any emotional question you put up. I might cite prohibition. Your prohibitionists are very active and are willing to do anything they can. They will pass the plate at any meeting to encourage the other fellow to talk prohibition. But you will not see that with the anti. He is satisfied with the way things are going, he thinks that individual liberty ought not to he infringed, and assumes that every man thinks as he does. It is the same here. Those who are against this Bill are very active. I have been flooded with letters, I have received numerous telegrams, I have had interviews with personal friends asking me to abstain because it did not concern the province of Quebec. But, 'Sir, it concerns the Dominion of Canada, it concerns the Parliament of Canada, it concerns every ma'n who sits in Parliament, and it concerns every elector who sends him here. What are you going to do? Are you going to tell the people who got this charter: We are going to take it away because you are coming in the way of Sir Adam Beck or the Hydro Electric? I say, no.
' Sir SAM HUGHES: Would the hon. member kindly explain what the effect of these clauses may be?


Jacques Bureau: The effect of them is to restrain certain powers which were granted to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. I say that if you restrict those clauses without calling those people here to dieuss their charter and show what the conditions were when it was granted, you are not doing the right thing. My hon. friend who puts this question to me was in the House, he was in the Railway Committee when that charter was granted in 1902, and heard the argument

which then took place. Nothing has come to light since then to give me any reason to change my views, or his views, except the fact, as I have stated-and I repeat it again-that a new baby was born, called the Hydro Electric, and one would think, according to those gentlemen, that every right and every power granted ought to give way to that new baby. It is a breach of faith. It is immoral to repudiate any right you have given, as it is immoral to repudiate your debts. It is not because you have power to do a thing that it follows when you do so that it is always moral and right. I for one, Mr. Chairman, do not [DOT]see why this legislation is introduced tonight. Here we are at the end of the session, we desire to prorogue to-morrow, we have important legislation in front of us in the Franchise Bill to provide for by-[DOT] elections, we have Estimates to look into, .and yet to please a certain number of men -who have never given us a valid reason, except that this Toronto and Niagara Power Company was coming in conflict with the Hydro Electric-we are asked to pass legislation to amend a law of 1902, which is in itself a private law, without giving a chance to the people who received the benefits and powers granted by it to come before us and explain their position. As I have said, it is only a very small question. There are many millionaires in Toronto. Let them put their hands in their pockets-let them pass the hat if they want to get money to advertise in the Canada Gazette and the various newspapers that they are going to present a Bill to amend Act So-and-so; that is, the Act of the Toronto $md Niagara Power Company, and in that way give these people a chance to come before the committee. Then if the House sees fit, after going through the regular procedure, to curtail any of these powers, I say, well and good. But I will not submit to this-to use public legislation to serve the purposes of a few men to establish, as I have stated and as I repeat, the immoral principle of repudiation and of throwing to the dogs vested rights which have been granted. I for one will vote against the Bill.


Mr.   HOWELL@: When the Eailway Bill
was before the House on the question of the action that the House should take on the report from the conference that was held between the Senate and the House of Commons, the Minister of Eailways (Mr. J. D. Eeid) stated that the Government had decided that the Bill should be divided in order that the general Eailway Bill might 
be saved this session The Bill was divided; the general Eailway Act passed through the House with certain amendments and went to the Senate. It has now been approved by the Senate and will become law, so that good purpose has been accomplished; the Eailway Bill will go into effect when assented to by His Excellency. But the Minister of Eailways also stated at that time, as also did the Prime Minister, that a Separate Bill would be introduced to cover the power portion of the legislation which was embodied in the general Eailway Bill and that it would be submitted to the House in order that it, too, might be sent up to the Senate.


Frank S. Cahill: Is this a Government
Bill?.


Mr.   EOWELL@: Of course it is a Government Bill, introduced by the Minister of Eailways.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister knows that
scarcely a member of the Cabinet is in favour of this legislation. Why is it brought in at this time?


Mr.   EOWELL@: ' I can tell my hon. friend why it is brought in: because the Government, in order to save the general railway legislation from failure, considered that it was essential to divide the Bill, and gave promise on that occasion that a separate Bill would be introduced to deal with this matter.


Frank S. Cahill: That they do not believe in.


Mr.   EOWELL@: The Government are doing what they believe to be right in introducing this Bill and thus respecting the judgment of the House.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Suppose this Bill
does not pass, will the general railway legislation, when assented to by the Governor General, stand as it is on the statute-book?


Mr.   EOWELL@: The general railway legislation will stand as it is. The Government have introduced it in the form in which it passed the House as part of the Eailway Bill. The Government simply divided the Eailway Bill into two sections; they put in the Eailway Bill all that related exclusively to railways, and they took out of it that which related to power. Now they submit to the House the power clause in the form in which this House passed it; and I submit that the Government is doing right in respecting the judgment of the House.

457T
The House expressed its opinion in the matter and the Government are carrying out what the Prime 'Minister promised last week when the Bill was before the House-that the Government would submit a Bill carrying out the decision of the House as embodied in the Railway Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Against the report of the committee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because the House overruled the report of the committee. If the House had decided in some other way, then the Government would have submitted the Bill in a form which would be in accordance with the decision of the House.


Jacques Bureau: By a majority of four, too. There were very few in the House.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I myself was in the
minority on that occasion.


Jacques Bureau: It was smuggled through.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the duty of the Government to submit to the House what the House itself decided and to act in accord' ance with what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways stated to the House.


Samuel Hughes: When did the Prime Minister or any one else in authority present this Bill to the House and state that it would be passed? This is. not what I understood would be brought in; this is not the kind of legislation that I understood the Prime Minister promised.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is what I understood the Prime Minister promised; that is all I can say.


Samuel Hughes: No.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I was going to say that 1 voted against the Mowat amendment when formerly before the House for this reason: For two years the railway legislation had failed by reason of a conflict of opinion between the two Houses, the Senate having taken one view and this House having taken another. As the Minister of Railways intimated on that occasion, he believed, from the information he had, that the Senate would not accept the proposal embodied in the Mowat amendment, and that, quite apart from the merits of the proposal, it was inadvisable to risk the loss of the whole Bill by adopting that amendment. Personally, I would have been glad to support the amendment suggested by the Minister of Railways or the amendment suggested by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), or the amendment suggested by the member for South Simcoe (Air Boys)
in the hope that the Senate, as a settlement of this long controversy, might accept the amendment. But the House did not adopt that course; the House took the other course and adopted the Mowat amendment; therefore this Bill is introduced to carry out what the House itself decided.
Just a word or two with reference to the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau). This is more than a local dispute, and whatever one's opinion may be on the merits of the dispute in Toronto, we must face the question in the light of the larger issue as to what control the Parliament of Canada or the public should have over power companies operating throughout Canada-because this company's charter is not limited to Toronto or to Ontario; it extends throughout the whole of Canada. Personally I am not concerned, I am not troubled about what took place when the Bill granting this charter was passed by this-House in 1902. I think it is quite clear from the record in Hansard that at the time it was passed nobody thought the Bill gave the company the powers which the Privy Council has decided that the company has. But I am not basing any view that I entertained upon what took place then, I entertain . this view-and I think it is the fair view-that no company, no matter what its charter rights may be, should be permitted, under the conditions prevailing to-day, to enter upon the streets of any city at its own sweet will, uncontrolled by any power, government or municipal.


Samuel William Jacobs: But if the Parliament of
Canada gave them the authority to do so?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just as the Parliament
of Canada originally gave the railways the authority to do certain things and afterwards appointed the Board of Railway Commissioners to regulate and control those railways, thereby regulating and limiting the exercise of their charter rights, so I believe that Parliament is entitled to regulate and limit, in the public interest, the exercise of the charter rights of any power company.
, Mr. JACOBS:	Not without compensation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If an agreement were reached between the House of Commons ,and the Senate along the lines of the amendment suggested by the Minister of1 Railways or the amendment suggested by the member for Shelburne and Queen's, then you would be regulating the rights and powers of this company, you would

not be confiscating them, but you would at the same time be protecting the municipalities and conserving the public interest. Under such an amendment this company could not enter upon the streets of the cities or towns in any part of Canada .without the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners. We may assume that the board would only grant that privilege if	it	was	in the	public	interest,to	do	so.	I would	hope	that if
the House passes this Bill and it goes to the Senate, the Senate would see their way clear to end this controversy by a fair compromise that would protect the municipalities and at the same time would not confiscate the powers that may be necessary for the operations of the company. If the Senate would agree upon an amendment requiring that before a company could enter upon the streets of any city or town, the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners should be secured and that the company could enter only under the terms and conditions provided in an order of the board, I believe that that would be a reasonable compromise as between the views of the Senate and the views of this House, and that this long controversy would be ended. I do think that the Minister of Railways was right in submitting the Bill to the House in the form in which he has submitted it, because the Prime Minister stated to the House that the intention was to divide the Railway Bill, send the Railway Bill, upon which the House and the Senate had agreed, up to the Senate in order that it might be put through, and submit the other relating* to power in the form approved by the House to the House in order that it might be dealt with by the House and the Senate.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER:: This matter appears to have originated about the year 1902. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was a member of the House at that time, and he is no doubt familiar with the action taken by Parliament in 1902. It was felt that the Bill, as it passed the House in that year, protected the rights of the people throughout the Dominion. Members representing some of the western ridings took a great interest in the debate and tried to protect the rights of the various municipalities and were of the opinion that they had succeeded in doing so. Some years after the Bill passed the House, there was a fight between the city and the Niagara Power Company, and on the matter 
going to the Privy Council, 'the company discovered that they had greater rights than they understood they had when the Bill passed the House. On the basis of that, they apparently issued a large amount of stock, on which they are now claiming that there are vested rights.


Jacques Bureau: The assertion has been repeatedly made that the rights which were granted in 1902 were not fully understood by the company until a number of years later. What is that assertion of fact based upon?


Thomas Foster: Surely what developed after 1902, namely, the appeal to the Privy Council and the interpretation of the Act, is what they based their claim on.


Jacques Bureau: What was the decision of the Privy Council?


Thomas Foster: The company issued stock notwithstanding that interpretation, and now they claim vested rights. Surely the municipalities have vested rights just as much as this company has. Surely the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the various municipalities throughout the Dominion have vested rights in those municipalities. They are only asking that that company should come into the municipalities under the direction of a tribunal, but the company 9 p.m. says: No, we have a right to go in and do what we like, place unsightly poles on and take possession of the streets in your cities without any consideration as to what your cities may want. The hon. member stated that this measure passed the House with a small attendance of the members. I do not know what took place in 1907, but I think it carried with quite a large majority with a very good House. Surely the members of the House of 1917, which carried this Bill by a majority, had as much intelligence as is possessed by the House to-day and especially by some of those on the Opposition side who claim that they have exceptional intelligence in dealing with matters of this kind. The Bill also passed by a majority of those in attendance in this House in 1919, and surely that is an indication of the feeling of the representatives of the people. It comes back to this House, and we claim that it is no't only a Toronto matter, but one that affects all municipalities throughout the Dominion, from, east to west, and there are objections from large numbers of municipalities-I think, from 100 to 170 of them who, at a representative gathering a

short time ago, gave expression t-o their opposition. Surely the people representing those 100 to 170 municipalities know what they want, and they object to this company having those exceptional rights and claiming vested rights as against the vested, rights of the people of the municipalities. It is only a reasonable thing, when this Bill has passed this House of Commons twice by a majority, a fair expression of a majority, of those in attendance having been given, to expect that the members here to-night are not going to sit idly by and allow two or three members of the Opposition to get up and shout "vested rights," and then to say that they have no interest in this matter; that they are not fighting for the interest of vested rights. No doubt, they presume they are right, but the fight that some members are putting up in this matter suggests that there is something more than protecting vested rights. This is a company, that as I have said more than once, has a great influence with public representatives throughout the Dominion and also with parliaments. It seems that they have sufficient influence to come to this Parliament under any government and get almost what they like. Surely it is time that the people's rights were protected by their representatives. People's rights have -been protected by a vote of this House twice; but there is a shout to-night that this should be all changed for the benefit of vested rights of this corporation that is not confined to one or two branches but to many, and that, as I have said before, is the greatest exploiting company that was ever produced in Canada or, indeed, in America, and their hand has been shown to-day and has been shown continuously. Surely to-night we shall cease to show that an exploiting corporation is going to have this influence over members of the House and to prove that the vested rights of the people are going to be protected by a majority of the House.
-Mr. BUREAU: Do 1 understand the hon. member to say that the stand taken by certain members- on this side of the House creates a feeling in his mind that they have something more than tire public interest at heart, and that there is suspicion?


Thomas Foster: I have said that the very great interest some members are taking in these debates looks very suspicious, not only to 'myself but to many others. .


Jacques Bureau: Will the hon. gentleman name the members and say what kind of
suspicion he has? He is a man of honour; he sits in this House, and if he is referring to any man in this House, I want him to give the name and to state what his suspicions are.


Thomas Foster: I am not naming members.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is a gratuitous insult.


Jacques Bureau: It is my right to ask that of the hon. gentleman or that he take back his statement. T am one of the members of the Opposition, and if the hon. gentleman wants to point to any of my colleagues on this side, he ought to be manly enough to get up and name him. If he is not, he ought to be manly enough to get up and apologise.


Thomas Foster: There is no apology forthcoming.


Jacques Bureau: And the hon. member has no names to give. Then the argument coming from that stamp of -man will not convince me nor any man of my brand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: There is no hear, hear. A man who is going to suspect my motives must tell me why, and if he does not do so, I have a right to suspect the heart and mind of such a man, and I have a right to despise him. I do not belong to any clique nor to any band; I am an honest man; I stand here as such, and do not, want any man to cast any suspicion on my honesty or my honour, especially when he can only insinuate and then sit down and hide his face in shame; when he is not manly enough to get up and name those whom he wants to accuse, when he has no ground for his suspicion, but it is only a little bit of spite on his part to talk about protecting public interest. 1 pity the people who entrust their protection into the hands of men such as he is.


Samuel William Jacobs: He is a little overcome by the heat.


Jacques Bureau: It is not the heat that overcomes men who make such insinuations in this House. The heat is only skin deep, but these insinuations start from lower down and deeper than the skin. There is something below the skin and inside the carcass-that something which ought to be in every man, and which is called heart, but which cannot be found, any more than honour, in the member who has just spoken. He will not come down to facts, but deals in generalities. He says that the

municipalities have vested rights which must be protected. I say that his argument is just as good as the accusation he has just made.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend, I think, is exceeding the hounds of the rules of order in his remarks. There should of course be no insinuation made against the honour of any hon. member of this House.


Jacques Bureau: If the minister will take upon himself to have his supporters withdraw the nasty and low things they have said against us and apologize to us, I am willing to bow to his ruling, but if hon. gentlemen on one side of the House sling mud at hon. gentlemen on this side,, I for one am not going to stand for it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is for the Chair in both cases to direct what shall be the procedure of the House.


Jacques Bureau: I shall listen to the Chair and not to my hon. friend, and I shall go on as I like until the Chairman calls me to order. The hon. member (Mr. Thomas Foster), who used such sweet language, spoke of the vested rights of the municipalities. The municipalities have no vested rights in the province of Ontario so far as the Hydro-Electric is concerned.


Mr. SHEARD:: Have the municipalities no rights in the streets which they have laid down, .and paved? I am not talking about the Hydro, but about the municipalities.


Jacques Bureau: We are discussing the Hydro now. The municipalities ought to have unlimited and absolute rights, but before they can make any agreement respecting the transmission of power it has to be submitted to the Lieutenant Governoi of the Province, if I understand the law aright.


Charles Sheard: I beg to correct the hon. gentleman. We are discussing the rights of municipalities, and not the Hydro.


Jacques Bureau: We are discussing the rights of municipalities as affected by this Bill, in respect to the transmission and distribution of power.
(Sir SAM HUGHES: Under the provincial law creating the Hydro-Electric Commission what rights have the municipalities as against the Hydro in the matter of poles, for instance? I say they have no rights.


Jacques Bureau: It has been frequently stated by Ontario members in this House,

by Ontario lawyers, that any agreement with regard to the transmission or distribution of power has to be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor for his approval. Is that right? Therefore I say they have no absolute rights, for those cannot be absolute rights which are subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor. The rights are restricted in that way. Furthermore, the amendment presented to the House by the Minister of Railways to-night is the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Parkdale, and there was never any understanding that that amendment should be accepted by the House. Therefore T beg to move to amend clause one by striking out subsections 5 arid 6 of the said clause and replacing same by the following subsections :
Any specific powers inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and conferred on any company by any special or other Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada or of any province shall not be affected by the provisions of this Act, but if any municipality complains to the board that any company whether incorporated by special or other ^Act or authority of the Parliament of Canada is exercising its powers oppressively or in bad faith the 'Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada may hear such complaint and if it sees fit supervise the exercise of such powers: Provided always that whenever any company incorporated by Special Act of the Parliament of Canada acquires the assets of a company operating within a municipality, which said municipality has the right by agreement to purchase any of the assets of such company, then and in every such case the municipality may enforce its rights under such agreement as fully as if such purchase had not been made, and may enforce against such purchaser the provisions of such agreement as if it were the original party entering into such agreement with the municipality.


Charles Sheard: This Bill is not a fight, as my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) would fain make out for the interests of the city of Toronto, but a fight for the municipalities throughout Ontario and largely throughout the West. With reference to my hon. friend's statement regarding the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale, that amendment was submitted to the House and was debated for a whole afternoon and the greater part of the evening; a vote was taken upon it, and the amendment was adopted in preference to any other amendment and in preference to the report of the committee to whom the Railway Act had been referred. So, when my hon. friend says that this Bill has been smuggled into the House, as I understood him to say-


Jacques Bureau: If I did not say it, I
meant it.


Charles Sheard: I judge you did. I can only excuse .such an assertion by thinking he must have been absent on that particular day 'when the Railway Act as it left the committee was so strenuously and successfully opposed in this House. As my hon. friend well knows, the power and telephone clauses were separated from the Railway Act, and the Prime Minister promised that those clauses would be included without any changes whatsoever in a separate Bill to be introduced in the House later, in order that the balance of the Railway Act might be .passed and become operative. The Bill is now before us, as promised without any alteration.
I contend, therefore, that the position taken by the member for Three Rivers is altogether wrong and is aside from the question, and I can only excuse the earnestness of his plea by attributing it to the high temperature from which we have all suffered to-day. As to the merits of the Bill itself, there has been a tendency on the part of the hon. member for Three Rivers to lay at the door of the city of Toronto responsibility for all the trouble.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear. I do not recede from that position, either.


Charles Sheard: Well, that is a very contracted and narrow view, and I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should entertain it. It is not a fight by the city of Toronto alone, by any means. True enough, it is the city of Toronto which is the first large metropolis that has been attempted to be exploited by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. It was the one nearest its grasp and a prize most earnestly desired. For that reason and owing to the unfortunate name which the incorporated company bears-the Toronto and Niagara Power Company-there has been charged to the city of Toronto and its representatives all the trouble that has accrued from the legislative measure passed by this House in 1902, which was not understood by the members of the House, and which I venture to say was as little understood by-the member for Three Rivers, who I believe was a member of the House then, as he understands the real situation regarding this matter to-day. I want to illustrate the .modus operandi of the company which the hon. gentleman is so earnestly defending. The Toronto Electric Light Company acquired originally a franchise


Jacques Bureau: I am not defending a company. I am defending a principle.


Charles Sheard: Well, I will say principle then. The justice of this Bill can stand absolutely upon its merits, when you consider broadly the influences which this Bill will exercise throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion, and particularly in Ontario. Originally we had in Toronto an incandescent light company which had a charter for the distribution and manufacture of electric light. This charter was acquired by the Toronto Electric Light Company which has distributing power for the distribution of light, heat and power in Toronto.
It produced its energy by steam-power. It was subsequently acquired by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, which had constructed transmission lines to conduct power developed at Niagara Falls to the city of Toronto for the purpose of supplying the electric light company of Toronto and the Toronto 'Street Railway Company. For that original purpose the Toronto and Niagara Power Company got from the Federal 'Government a charter to issue bonds amounting to a million and a half dollars. It is important that we should consider why the Hydro-Electric Company in Ontario was developed. The Toronto and Niagara Power Company, or the Toronto Electric Light Company, which was a subsidiary, had the arbitrary and absolute power at that time to distribute light, heat and power in the city of Toronto and to exercise discrimination practically as they pleased. They said they would give power or would not give it as they saw fit, and every one knows what that means. Is there any manufacturer in this House who will not say that it is an advantage to a manufacturer to have electric power when his competitor has to operate his business by ordinary power developed by steam? For a time in the city of Toronto they held the manufacturers' interests in their hands and discriminated as they pleased. I happened to have for the city of Toronto at that time the operation of a large machine shop, where we manufactured our own carts and wagons, brushes and brooms, and was refused by them the introduction of electric power, and for a long time steam had to be used. To that extent the discriminating power rested in the hands of the Toronto Electric Light Company, and it was for such reasons as this that it became evident to the municipalities of Toronto and others that some opposition would have to be developed and that some other means would have to be provided in order to distribute light, heat and power, not only to the city

of Toronto, but to the various municipalities throughout Ontario, in order to get away from the grasping greed and controlling avarice of the company which at that time practically monopolized all power distributable anywhere near the Niagara Falls. After the matter was discussed the HydroElectric came into existence under splendid control and management and with the prestige and support of the Ontario Government, not simply to oppose this Power Company, but to give the people of Ontario the liberties to which they had a right, and to release the manufacturers from the ,bondage which otherwise they would have suffered under the influence of the controlling characteristics of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company and its subsidiaries. It is all very well to accuse Adam Beck of being avaricious and desiring to put this company out of business. This company never was menaced. The cry about bonds and vested rights is a bugaboo, nothing more nor less. They issued bonds to the extent of a million and a half.
, Mr. McOREA: Is that all?


Charles Sheard: That is all. That is the total bond issue, under the Act of Parliament giving the charter to the Toronto and Niagara Power Company. Their bond issue has 'been increased, not under that Act but by the fact that they acquired subsidiary companies, the Electric Light Company with its indebtedness, and the Electrical Development Company at Niagara Falls, with its indebtedness.
- 'Mr. McCREA: You say the original indebtedness is a million and a half; what is the total indebtedness of the whole combination?


Charles Sheard: Taking into consideration all the subsidiaries, the Electrical Development 'Company, the Toronto and Niagara Power Company, the Electric Light Company and certain other companies they have incorporated, the total indebtedness to-day is thirty million dollars or thereabouts. That, however, is not under the Act we are discussing with regard to vested rights. That is due to other companies [which they raked in.
\ Mr. McOREA: Did the charter ghe them the right to acquire these other companies?
: Mr. SHEARD:	As far as I am aware,
the other companies were direct purchases, and the company undertook to assume the liabilities of the subsidiary companies which they acquired and which do not 
menace t'he assets of this company .as limited by its, original charter. I will go further and say that the whole of these assets have been assigned to the Toronto Street Railway Company, and I am not making any insinuations at all when 1 say, and I believe I am correct in saying, that the great amount of the stock and bonds of that^company-who after all own these companies indirectly, for they have taken over all their securities and assets, to the extent of ninety per cent are held in the city of Montreal and vicinity, and that is where the interlocking directorate and the interlocking interests hinge, there is no question or doubt about it.
Now to come to the exact situation as it affects not only Toronto but the whole of Ontario and particularly the western part of the province. The company had under the old clause to which the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) moved an amendment, the right to go into any and every municipality they saw fit anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. Now that may be thought by some only to refer to the city of Toronto. Not a bit of it. There are hundreds of charters in various municipalities which lie dormant to-day which that company has secured. These charters have been held in abeyance but any one of them could be brought out, revitalized, and operations carried out under them by reason of the original clause in the Consolidated Railway Act, and thus result in competition with the Hydro-Eleetric system in Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: Is it possible that
a municipality in Ontario has no rights as against the Hydro-Electric Commission, if that concern wanted to enter that municipality? In other words, can the Hydro-Electric Commission go into any municipality it likes in the province today and interfere with other companies which seek to enter that municipality. and to operate against it?


Charles Sheard: I do not say the municipalities would seek to help them to operate. What I am, saying is that under the old clause this particular company would have federal authority to go into any municipality and operate as they saw fit.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman does not understand my question. Can any municipality in Ontario to-day object to the Hydro-Electric Commission going into it?


Charles Sheard: I do not think it can.


Samuel Hughes: That is the first question, now for the second. Can any municipality to-day give to any other company rights in that municipality against the Hydro-Electric Commission? No, they can not.


Charles Sheard: No, I do not suppose
any municipality desires to do so.


Samuel Hughes: Lots of them do.


Charles Sheard: That is not the question. The question is, whether or not the Government is going to give to this company rights which the municipalities themselves have not got. That is the crux of the situation, and that is the reason we are here to assert our opposition. I contend that the right possessed by this company is a menace to municipal independence, it is a menace to the investments which the municipalities themselves have in the HydroElectric system, for the municipalities have an interest in that system and they want to see it made a success. I contend that this Bill is absolutely in accordance with the pledges which the Minister of Railways gave on the floor of this House, without any variation or deflection whatsoever. It also fulfils the pledge of the Prime Minister that a Bill embracing the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) as this Bill does would be brought down as a Government measure. To-day, we are asking the Committee to carry that Bill as a Government measure in defence of the freedom, the liberty, and the rights of the municipalities everywhere throughout the Dominion.


John Dowsley Reid: When I introduced this Bill I hardly expected that we would have a revival of the former debate. At this late hour of the session I thought the measure would go through in a few minutes and then be again sent to the Senate for them to decide whether they would still insist on the amendment which they made to the Railway Bill. I think the House will agree with me that we should not re-discuss the whole municipal power question at this late hour of the session.


Francis N. McCrea: Why not act on that yourselves?


John Dowsley Reid: My remarks will be
brief, and five minutes will suffice me for the purposed The Senate inserted an amendment into the Consolidated Railway Act to which a majority of this House would not agree. From the Senate it went to the special committee of the Commons who did concur in it. However, upon the
measure returning to this House, by a majority vote the members agreed to pass the amendment which is now in the present Bill. I suggested that if the amendment of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) did, not pass, I would have another amendment which perhaps the Senate might be induced, to agree to. However, the amendment of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mowat) having been, resolved on, I had no alternative, I simply had to let the Bill go through. There is no doubt that the Senate will reject the amendment of the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), and I am also of opinion that the Senate will reject the provision in this Bill. The only question then is, will the House stand by its amendment and bring it forward from session to session until the situation is cleared and the difficulty removed, or would hon. gentlemen prefer to accept the amendment I intended to move, and which is to be found in Hansard? Would they prefer to send that to the Senate and see if the Upper Chamber would agree to it? I am not particularly wedded to the amendment contained in the Bill and if the House wishes to adopt any other form I am quite willing to agree and let it go forward to the Senate. Undoubtedly it would be a very important matter to the municipalities of the whole Dominion if the charter of this Company were to remain in force for all time. But I have already stated here my belief that before another session comes around that charter will be absorbed, probably by the Ontario Government, and the present difficulty will disappear. This charter will become null and void, and there is no other company in existence with any such extensive powers applicable to the whole of Canada. Therefore, I do not think the matter is such a serious one after all. What we should do is to reaffirm the stand we have already taken in this House. That is the only thing I am anxious to do, and, therefore, if we pass the Bill in its present form, or in the form it would be with the amendment I have in contemplation, I think we should be adopting a proper course. The Bill in its original form contained my amendment but I struck it out and inserted the amendment of the hon. member for Park-dale. I did that because it was intimated to me that otherwise my action might be misconstrued, and I might be accused of not acting fairly in the matter. Having stated the situation may I ask that we lose no more time but proceed to vote on the different amendments, and whatever decision

the House comes to will be promptly forwarded to the Senate for their adoption.


Samuel Hughes: 
Charles Sheard: I know of no collusion.


Samuel Hughes: We will say, openly -have been openly seeking to compel the. company to hand over all Their rights and property to the Hydro-Electric. Let the HydTO-Electric come out in the open and play the game fairly and squarely. Let them say: We want this company and we are willing to pay a fair price for it. I have nothing to object to if they adopt that attitude. But do not put this company at the mercy of the Hydro-Electric, to he wiped out of existence by their ruthless tyranny. The Hydro-Electric have the most outrageous charter that was ever granted to any. company in the world. Let us have a suitable amendment to settle the question quickly and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, and if the legal

lights of the Government cannot put it in proper form, we will hire a lawyer's clerk in the city to do so.


William Stevens Fielding: I would be exceedingly glad to have the question settled quickly if I was. quite sure we knew all about it. I think many matters have been imported into this discussion which might very properly have been left out as having nothing to do with the vital question before us. We are not concerned about the Toronto and Niagara Power Company-except for what has .been said in this House I do not know who they are; we are not concerned with regard to the relations between the Hydro-Electric and Sir Adam Beck and the Government of Ontario; they are not* considered in this matter at all. And I am, not concerned to insist that this is a Toronto matter, I am going to accept the view that it is a matter affecting all the municipalities of Canada because the Bill touches them all. I sympathize with the difficult position of the Minister of Railways. He undertook to bring down a certain Bill. Really what he undertook to do was to separate this' disputed matter from the other portions of the Railway Bill which were not disputed. But I did not understand that when he agreed to separate it and bring it forward! in a distinct Bill he was committing the House to what that Bill should be. I do not understand that we were bound by any previous decision of the House. Surely-my hon. friend must have meant, when he said he would bring the matter before the House for further .Consideration that it was for open consideration and for free debate. And it is worth while remembering thalt while the House did decide on a certain point-and I bow with great respect to the will of the House-it was not a majority; that is to say, it was a majority of half the House. It is quite possible- I have no reason 'to think it is so-that the House as constituted might have a different view. And it would have the right to have a different view; it is not bound by the decision reached at that particular time.
It seems to me 'that really the vital question is the matter of public faith. I think we are not concerned about this particular company, but I appeal to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to agree with me when I say that we are concerned to keep faith when we pledge ourselves to a charter in this way. I do not care,-if you like I will admit-that the charter granted in. 1902 was unwise and 'improvidenij, and.

that we would not grant it to-day. Nevertheless we granted that charter, and although it may have been improvident, although it may have been unwise, I say it we are going to proclaim to the wide world that a charter which the Parliament of Canada gave to a body of men, and on the faith of which they invested their money, is not to be respected by this Parliament, then we do a great wrong to the public of Canada. I do not care about the interests of the company, but I say that every man who has occasion to go to the money market of the world for a private enterprise, or a corporation enterprise, or a municipal enterprise, or a provincial enterprise, aye, or a Dominion enterprise, has an interest in seeing that tne public faith in charters granted by this Parliament shall not be destroyed. That is the question. Are we going to treat our charters as scraps of paper? What have we been fighting for over in Flanders and France? We have been fighting against the Prussianism which -tore up a treaty and said it was a "scrap of paper." Do not let us tear up charters which this Parliament of Canada grants. If we made a mistake, it is our fault; it is not the fault of the men who got the charter. At a time when credit, private and public, municipal, provincial and Dominion, is so important we should do nothing to impair it.
I beg the Parliament of. Canada, if this question is open to us to-day, to vote in such a way that we shall maintain the rights granted to a company by a solemn charter.
Mr. M'OWAT: I was the mover of this amendment, and I do not want to go over the same ground again. But I wish to point out, in answer to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) that the charter he speaks of as having been given, which he now says ought not to be treated as a " scrap of paper," ds exactly the reverse of what he describes. The charter we granted to this company was a charter which required that the consent of any municipality which the company wished to sell electricity to should be first secured. Nobody disputes this. By a mistake in drafting, when we came to 1903, that great protection of the municipalities was left out, and the company is now seeking as the result of a mistake to get more than we gave them. In a western city about ten days ago a man employed by a company at $18 a week found when his pay envelope came to him at the end of the week that it contained $32. He said
nothing about it but kept the money, and when the mistake was discovered, made the excuse that he thought the company had intended to give him $32. But the law said, no, and it laid its hand upon his shoulder, and he is up before a magistrate now trying to explain why he kept that extra money. The trwo cases are precisely parallel. This company did not get the charter that my hon. friend says it got; it got another charter altogether, and by a mistake. It ds now claiming what really is the result of a legal and grammatical mistake.
Sir SAM HUGHES; Where may the evidence of the hon. member's statement be found?
Mr. MOWAT; In the Privy * Council report.


Samuel Hughes: No, no.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The dispute was between this company and the little town of North Toronto-not Toronto at all. I would point out the unfairness of my friends, who are mostly on the other side of the House, stating that this is Toronto's case only, with the idea of working up whatever prejudice they can find between one city and another.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Never.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Yes. This company we are now discussing is not owned in Toronto at all. The bonds were given in 1903 to the Electrical Development company, then in 1911 or somewhere about that time-you can see the exact date by referring to the trust mortgage which I produced in the House the other night-it is quite evident that all these interlocked companies became the property of the Toronto Railway company.
* The Toronto Railway company's stock is owned not by Toronto people but by people in Montreal, mostly the friends of hon. members opposite.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Will the hon. member indicate what friends of hon, gentlemen on this side he is alluding to?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I could procure the stock list if I had time, but I have not time tonight. Why was it not shown where the bonds of this company are, where its stock is? They have withheld that information from this House; the general statement has been made that the company is a Toronto concern. There are always men in this House who are prejudiced against some large city; they call Toronto " Hogtown,"

and Montreal some other name, of a like character. You can always work up a certain amount of local feeling against these cities; but that is not a fair way to legislate. As a matter of fact, it is not Toronto that is interested in this company; it is Montreal. It is fair to say that my hon. friends opposite who come from Quebec, where Montreal is, are interested in opposing this thing, because Montreal money is risked in it. It is just as proper for us to make that charge as it is for hon. gentlemen opposite to say that it is the Toronto people who are interested. We must legislate on the merits' of each case that comes before us. Here an absolute mistake wras made, and we have the power to go back and correct it in favour of the public and to restore the rights that were, in this mistaken way, taken from the public. This contest involves far more than the rights of this particular company; it is a contest between the union of municipalities of Canada and interlocking companies. If you reverse the action taken by this House in 1917, and again last month, you strike a blow at municipal and public rights that will be regretted for many years. Strong arguments have been made by corporate interests against interference with what are called vested rights, but those arguments should not stand. It might be said that " vested rights" are not vested rights. In the case I mentioned of the mistake in the pay envelope, the procedure followed would not be that of saying: Oh, let this man alone; labour is scarce; we must not interfere; .keep the law off him. No; the law says that we must put a strong hand on anything which involves other than an honest intent; and it should be the same with this com-' pany. I protest against local prejudice being aroused; let us decide this question upon the charter of the company as it was originally given.


William Stevens Fielding: About the pay envelope. The hon. gentleman says that the law puts its hand on the shoulder of -this man. Let Toronto take all the law unto itself, but do not let it come here and ask for new law to turn men out of court.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I have as much regard as any one has for the sanctity of contracts at law or charters which may be granted by this or any other Government. But I point out to my hon. friend: (iMr. Fielding) that the real issue is not a question of confiscation, as he suggests; it is a question of the Dominion Government exercising its juris-
[Mr. Mowa.t.1
diction in connection with the regulation oi public service corporations. During my hon. friend's term of office in the Government of that day and during the term of office of subsequent Governments, legislation has been repeatedly passed in this House taking away from public service corporations rights and privileges which they enjoyed by virtue of their charters and by virtue of the common law. If a railway corporation is by its original charter granted the right to charge whatever rates it chooses for freight and passenger traffic, has the Government no right to step in and say: You shall charge a certain rate and you shall charge no more? When we do that we take away from the corporation the right to increase its earnings by taking a step which they were permitted to take under their original charter or at common law. We are not confiscating any of the rights of the Toronto and Niagara Power Company; what we wish to do is simply to pass legislation which will have the. effect of regulating the exercise and enjoyment of those rights. They had the power under their charter to sell and distribute electricity in this country in wholesale quantities. When they appealed to the Privy Council they ascertained that they enjoyed a right which was not anticipated when their charter was granted. The Government now say: We are not taking away your right to sell and distribute power to towns and villages in wholesale or retail quantities; we are imposing upon you a condition with which you must comply before' you exercise the rights which you received under your charter. It is simply a matter of the regulation of the manner In which they should carry on their business as a public utility throughout this Dominion.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before the question is put,
I desire to ask the minister three questions, the replies to .which I wish to obtain for my own personal guidance. Is it true that the Power Company Act of 1902 granted the Toronto and Niagara Power Company the right to enter any municipality in Canada without permission?


John Dowsley Reid: There is a difference oi opinion on that point. It is claimed that the Toronto and Niagara Power Company has the right to operate in any part of the Dominion, in which case it would have the right to enter a municipality without the consent of that municipality.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Were the rights and privileges assumed by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company under this Act

the result of an error made in drafting the Act granting this charter in the year 1902?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot answer for the Parliament of that day.
Mr. PED'LOW: Is it known to this House, or to the minister, whether or not the original stock issued by the Toronto and Niagara Power Company was disposed of before the company discovered the full powers conferred on them under the terms of this Act?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know when they disposed of their stock.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understand that all the facts covering these questions are at present in the possession of the Government, having been secured on the examination of wiU nesses under oath before a special committee of the House of Commons. Why has this information not been printed and distributed among the members of the House for their guidance on this most important question?


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
. (Mr. McKENZIE: It is not such a simple matter for hon. gentlemen to cast their votes upon this motion. It is only fair that everybody should have an opportunity of knowing why and how we are voting. It looks now if some hon. gentleman on this side of the House who, a few nights ago found themselves voting with the Government on this identical question, will .vote against the views of the Government to-night. When this matter was before the House the other night, the Government to a man voted for the motion that they are to-night to vote against. It is only fair that the people of this country should understand the situation. We are going to be told to-morrow in the newspapers, that we are all for corporations, because we voted against the Government. A few nights ago, when we voted with the Government, we were told that we were all for corporations because we voted for the Government. If there was ever such a position as endeavouring to put hon. gentlemen between the devil and the deep sea, that is the position taken by the Government to-night. I for myself wish to make my position perfectly clear. I understand that this company was given certain rights in 1902; that those rights were confirmed by one of the highest courts of Ontario-


Jacques Bureau: The highest.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -that the matter was first tried out before one of the judges and the rights of this company confirmed; that it went on appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ontario; that the 'Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the single judge; that the matter went from the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council who reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restored the judgment of the single judge. The law to-day is on the decision of the Privy Council stating that all the rights of this company are proper and right and granted to them by this Parliament. Upon those rights the matter came to the Senate this year and the matter was threshed out before a committee, both sides being heard. The decision of the Privy 'Council was confirmed by the Senate, if I can put the matter in that way. The matter came down to us, and a committee of this House, after hearing pros and cons, confirmed the decisions of the judges of the Supreme 'Court of Ontario, of the Privy Council and of the Senate, and sent hack to this House the Bill as it left the Senate. When I vote to [DOT] stand by those decisions of the highest courts of the land, and of the Senate, they having heard the evidence and having dealt with the subject on its merits, I do so because I do not feel called upon to vote or justified in casting a vote here to-night that would reverse the decision of the Senate. While I stand as much as any man for the
10 p.m. rights of any municipality in this country, I must insist upon right and justice and the proper trend of the decisions of the courts in this country and the decision in another body of men who are equally responsible with ourselves, and I can do nothing 'but vote in the same way as I did when this identical question was before the House on a previous occasion.
Mr. CAtHILL: When this question was up before, I took some part in the discussion, and I want merely to put myself on record as regards my intended action here to-night. The minister who is in charge of the Bill tells us that he does not expect it to pass the Senate. This is merely to let the Government out of a hole, and, at the best, it is a sorry spectacle for this Parliament to be voting on a subject that the Government is itself against, bringing in a measure to try to let some of its supporters out. As far as I am concerned, it is my intention not to vote for the motion, nor against it. Let us get the matter over as quickly as possible.


Samuel Hughes: I think the House is entitled to hear the views of either the Acting Minister of Justice or the Minister of Railways on this matter.
Amendment (Mr. Bureau) negatived: yeas, 40; nays, 61.
Section agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 167, concerning the investigation and restraint of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers and the withholding and the enhancement of the price of commodities.
On section 2-definitions:
Arthur Meighen: I move to amend this section by inserting after the word "Prime Minister" in the 12th line the words "or such other minister as the Governor in Council may designate for the purpose." It may be better to put the Board under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Just before the House
rose at six o'clock I called attention to certain matters that had been placed before the House by the Chairman of the Cost of Living Committee. He charged the retailers of this country with profiteering and when I so stated he said that it would be impossible for me to produce evidence of any such charge. I find on page 4450 of Hansard the following which I should like permission to read.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I am very sorry but I cannot allow the hon. member to read a single line of a speach which was delivered in another debate in the present session. It would be absolutely against the rules to permit it.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The hon. member challenged me to produce proof.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The hon. member can refer to the page number of Hansard if he so desires.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The proof of my statement will be found on page 4450 of Hansard. The Chairman of the Cost of Living Committee has received many compliments from the members of that committee, and I have no desire to detract from them in any way. The hon. member for East Algoma is undoubtedly full of enery and it

was evident to everyone of us, and especially to the members of his committee, that he worked hard and unceasingly in and out of season to produce results. But I contend that it was impossible for any good results to be obtained by that committee from its very composition. It was composed of fourteen members, three of whom were lawyers, two agents, three farmers, two publishers, one a merchant, one an educationist, one a broker, and one a lumberman^ The idea of appointing such a committee to investigate a commercial proposition seems to me ridiculous. You might as well appoint a committee of blacksmiths to investigate a case of malpractice on the part of a doctor, and the result of their deliberations would be just as effective. I notice in the report of that committee this admission: "Your Committee have not yet reached a point in their investigation that would warrant them in submitting final conclusions." Then the report immediately goes on to enunciate the conclusions the Committee have arrived at. The member for Shelburne and Queens and also the Chairman of the committee insisted that the publicity obtained by this Cost of Living Commission was of great value to the country. On the contrary, I think it has intensified the unrest that obtained prior to its appointment, and instead of allaying the suspicion which a great many people entertained it has only increased it. The Chairman of the committee held that if members of the House wanted to have information at first hand they should have the evidence, buit that evidence has never been circulated. At any rate, I have made many unsuccessful atterhpts to obtain copies of it. The O'Connor Report two years ago and the McFall Report subsequently if acted1 on by the Government would, I submit, have covered the situation just as effectively as the Bill before the House. I understand that only on two occasions lias there been any attempt to invoke the Act which was passed in 1910. That Act, as far as I can see, makes provision for the same purposes as the Act now before the House, and with the exception that one is a little more extensive in some respects, the machinery is much the same. If the Government had been sincere and not afraid to enforce the provisions of that Act they might have prevented a great deal of the difficulty that now exists. The report published by Dr. McFall and the particulars given therein are entirely misleading. For instance, that report says:

In many instances, -Canadian cloth for suitings and overcoats is going forward for sale at an eight to ten per cent -decrease. Apparently the middlemen are loaded with old stocks of the higher priced materials which they desire to sell to the public at the old prices.
The man who makes that statement may, he a learned doctor and all that sort of thing, but he has no knowledge of commercial conditions at the present time. A man occupying his position, a commissioner in the employment of the Government, should make sure of his facts before making a statement of that kind, which is so alarming, because such reports made without any attempt at thorough verification have an injurious effect. The hon. member for Red Deer speaking on this subject the other day put his finger on the right spot and I think that the Government would do well to heed his words and turn its investigations in the direction suggested. If the Minister of Finance would consult with the Minister of Customs- he would ascertain to a great extent the cause of the high cost of living. He would see that on merchandise imported into this country the customs tariff is, without question, to a large extent, responsible for high prices, and the present discontent. Members of the committee may doubt this statement, but I will submit one or two facts to show that the consumer pays the customs duty in every case, as well as the profit that is added. I have an advertisement taken from the Saturday Evening Post of an article of interest to the farmer and the mechanic alike. A brace and bit advertised for sale in the United States at $3.50, costs in Canada $5. The Canadian consumer pays that difference. Another item is a garden rake advertised in the same journal of another edition. The price in the United States is $1.50 and in Canada $2. The gardener in Canada has to pay the duty. Here is an item that is not of much interest to me, but may be to the Acting Minister of Justice. It is a Gem iSafety Razor. Those who are not so barefaced as the acting minister will have no use for this instrument of torture, but for the information of that hon. gentleman I will quote the price, which is $1 in the United -States and $1.50 in Canada. Then I see a fire extinguisher costing in the United States $10 and in Canada $12.50. I take these items promiscuously and not through any particular arrangement. Here is something of interest to every householder-Campbell's vegetable soup. It is also advertised in the Saturday Evening Posit and can be bought in the United -States at twelve cents a can, whereas 291
the householder in Canada must pay eighteen or twenty cents. This all goes to show who pays the duty. I want to emphasize this point, and I would like it to be emphasized in the press also, because it is very enlightening. The question is often asked: Who pays the duty? I think these illustrations show conclusively ' who does. The next item is Congoleum art rugs, the Canadian price being twenty-five per cent higher than that in the United -States. Then there is liquid cement, bought at 80 cents in the United States and $1 in Canada. For the Oliver typewriter the price is $57 in the United States and $72 in Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that from these facts it will ibe easy for the Minister of Finance, as I indicated before, to consult with the Minister of Customs to decide what he and the Minister of Customs should do in order to remove or allay the dissatisfaction that prevails in this country at the present time. I also wish to place before the House some other facts in connection with the report on which this Bill is founded, and that is in regard to hosiery. From my own personal knowledge I know that the inference that has been drawn from the evidence submitted -to the committee on the cost of living is absolutely unfair. That is to say in the application of that evidence, as handed out to the public in general, there seems to be a disposition on the part of the investigators to place the onus and the responsibility on the retail trade of Canada. I submit, Sir, that that is neither correct nor fair. Take a line of ribbed wool hose that cost $2.25 per dozen in the year 1914-15 and sold retail at 25 cents per pair. The cost of those articles at the present time is $9 per dozen, and the retail price $1 per pair. Take a second lin-e: Worsted hose, cost $4.50 per dozen in 1914-15 and retailed at 50 -cents per pair; the same article to-day costs $12 per dozen and retails at $1.35 per pair. Take a third line: Fine wool hose. The cost of these in 1914-15 was $6.50 per dozen, and they retailed at 75 -cents per pair. The same line costs to-day $15 per dozen, and retails at $1.75 per pair. Take still another line of heavy worsted hose for boys' wear. The cost in [DOT]1914-15 was $8.50 per dozen, and they retailed at 85 cents per pair. The same line costs to-day $20 per dozen, and they retail at $2.25 or $2.50 per pair. This particular line can be bought in any retail store on Sparks street, Ottawa, at these prices. Then take another line of fine ribbed cashmere hosiery, manufactured in the city of Hamilton. This is a standard line and has been


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the political conscience of my hon. friend can

be like. I cannot understand, if he believes this legislation will be no good, why he does not oppose it? Much of his remarks I could not hear, but I understand he was comparing high prices in Canada with prices in the United States by reading a catalogue which I presume was his own. The attention of the board should be dravsm to the case of this store in Renfrew.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I desire to correct the
Acting Minister of Justice. I gave as my authority certain statements which I obtained from the Saturday Evening Post that no sane merchant living in Canada would attempt to advertise in. Those prices quoted are the prices paid by the consumer in the United States in the one case, and the other prices paid by the consumer living in Canada, in the other case, owing to the duty that prevails on the article in question.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-application to member of board for order directing an investigation:


Samuel William Jacobs: I bwant to propose an amendment to this section-to Strike out the words "British subjects." The section will then read: "Any resident in Canada of full age" and so on. I cannot see why we should make any distinction between a British subject and an ordinary resident. I can well understand why a person who is not a British subject is not permitted to vote, or to be 'a municipal councillor, a member of the legislature, or a member of Parliament, and why none but British subjects should act as jurors, but I cannot see why any person who resides in Canada and has the interests of the country at heart should not be given the privilege of denouncing cases of this kind to the commission. The minister may retort that in the days prior to 1911 we had similar provisions in certain of our Acts, particularly the Act referring to combines in restraint of trade; but I would point out to him that in those days it was a comparatively easy matter for a person to become a British subject. It required three years' residence then; now in some cases I understand it requires ten years, and in many cases a person can never hope to become a British subject. Why should we put obstacles in the way of citizens of this country as is sought to be done in this Bill? I cannot see any reason for the theory which would restrict to British subjects only the denunciation of offenders to the commission. Why not extend it to every person resident in this eoutnry? Have only British subjects

knowledge necessary to denounce cases oi this kind, or is it an extra privilege given to a person who happens to be possessed of British citizenship?


Arthur Meighen: As the hon. member himself intimates this restriction is in the original Combines Act, and the reason doubtless is this-and it is just as pertinent to-day as it was then, whatever its force may be. One of the avenues through which the Act may be abused is that out of malice on. envy; for .sinister reasons and not for public reasons, persons may set it in motion to secure considerable publicity and very greatly injure a rival. It was thought no doubt, and is thought still, that there should not be allowed to citizens of another country, possibly interested themselves in competing concerns across the border, an opportunity to put this Act in motion, to, as it were, hold a club over the head of a rival Canadian concern, to rack rent, to harrass, merely for their own purposes. Surely there are enough British subjects in Canada to bring to the attention of the commission any wrongdoing of this kind without having recourse to citizens of other countries. Furthermore, I do not think it will add anything to the Act to accept the amendment, for the reason that this board can move of their own motion, and if the board get information from any source, though the party informing may be given no status because not a British subject, and might not rank as an informant later, nevertheless the board might then take it up of its own motion if it saw fit to order an investigation.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am still unconvinced. Let us take, for example, the case of an individual who is not a British subject and who wishes to denounce to the Department of Customs a case of smuggling, which might have effects as far-reaching as a denunciation under this particular Act- does the minister contend that a person who is not a British subject could not give such information to the customs officers? This Act is for the protection of the citizens of Canada, and no matter from what source the information comes, if it is useful to the country to have the information we should accept it, irrespective of whether the party is a British' subject or not. We have our courts open here for the trial of cases, and any person can have justice whether he is a British subject or not.


Arthur Meighen: But you do not have rival smugglers or rival murderers; you 291 i
do have rival business men in competing concerns, and it would not do to specially subject a Canadian competitor to the harrassment of his American competitor, when there is no reciprocal right given to our own citizen.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister seems to think it would be a case of harrassing on the part of one concern against another.


Arthur Meighen: It might be.


Samuel William Jacobs: Very often a stranger is
in a better position to give information in regard to working conditions in Canada than the Canadian himself. Very often these concerns may be competing against each other, they may be, to use a slpck term, attempting to cut each other's throats; but there is an old saying: When thieves fall out honest men get their dues. Why not let honest men get their due when these people fall out? It seems to me that this amendment ought to be concurred in by the House.	.


Arthur Meighen: The board can use any information they obtain that way, so the clause is all right as it is.


Samuel William Jacobs: I am against the principle, Mr. Chairman, of making distinctions between British subjects and other residents of Canada when there is no reason for such distinction. I am not convinced that the reason given by the minister is a sound one it is not even a plausible one, and I would press my amendment.


Mr. McMASTEB:: Is it not a principle of British law that all Well-behaved citizens of our country, whether British subjects or inot, should have the same facilities open to them for the redress of wrong? Are not the courts open to the denizens of the country, as distinguished from the citizens of the country, as freely as. to the citizens themselves? I speak temperately, but I trust I speak strongly, when I say that, this is an example of an attempt to create different classes of citizens in this country, against which I protest with all my force.
I do not wish to delay the House, but I shall support the proposal of the member of George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs).
Amendment negatived: Yeas 12, nays 19.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why is it not permissible to maike application to the Chief Commissioner as well as to any one of the other commissioners?


Arthur Meighen: The powers of the Chief Commissioner are supervisory in this re-

gard; be revises all orders made by any of the other commissioners. It takes two commissioners to refuse; one commissioner to grant. If the commissioner below grants, all well and good; the Chief Commissioner fixes the day and hour for the investigation; if he does not grant, the Chief Commissioner may reverse the decision.


John Howard Sinclair: It strikes me that when any person makes a complaint, it should be the duty of the board to investigate; the person who makes the complaint should not be obliged to prosecute. If a man has a complaint about the freight rates charged by a railway company, all he has to do is to bring the matter to the notice of the Board of Railway Commissioners. He does not have to furnish counsel or carry on the case; it is the duty of the board to take the matter up and deal with it.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member is satisfied with the law as regards the Railway Commission, he must be satisfied with this legislation, because the provision in the matter to which he refers is precisely the same in both cases. The provision is in section 31 of the Board of Commerce Act, and also in section 6 of this Act. Before the Railway Commission many a man appears accompanied by counsel, as does many a company; but the board has disposition over costs and even has power to apply to the Governor in Council for the appointment of special counsel to argue on behalf of any one in any special matter. The duties of this board are expressed in just the same language as are the duties of the Board of Railway Commissioners; there is no difference.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think the minister will get much from this section. When a business man thinks he is paying too much by way of freight rates, it is worth Ms while to obtain legal advice and carry on a case before the Railway Commission, but the poor consumer who pays a little more for his food than he should pay is not quite in the same position. Unless the minister expects this provision to be a dead letter he should, by some specific language, impose on this board the duty of prosecuting any case brought to their attention.


Arthur Meighen: You could not do that, because when the matter is brought to their attention they may be convinced that there is no case at all.


John Howard Sinclair: Assuming there is *a case.


Arthur Meighen: Of course, they must exercise their discretion as to whether, there is a case or noit, but if there is, then, the duty of dealing with the matter is imposed upon them in the most specific way.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-full and expeditious inquiry by board:
Samuel William Jacobs: Paragraph 4 of this section provides that whenever in the opinion of the board an offence has been committed against this section, the board may remit to the Attorney General copies of the record of the case, with a statement of the facts, and so on. What machinery is provided for compelling the Attorney-General to act should he see fit not to take any steps in the matter?'


Arthur Meighen: There is no machinery; I do not think this Government would have power to impose any obligation on the Attorney General of a province.


Samuel William Jacobs: The whole matter, then, is in the hands of the Attorney General, who may deal with it as he sees fit?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; it could not be ahy other way. The obligation stares him in the face; the facts are brought to his door; the accused is brought to his door. I think you can depend upon the Attorney General in such a case as that; he is quite likely to consider it his duty to take action.


Samuel William Jacobs: I hope he will.


John Howard Sinclair: Should not the Department of Justice follow these matters up and themselves bring them to a conclusion? Is it not a weakness in the Act that the bo*ard refers such matters as this to the Attorney General of the provinces? Should it not- be the duty of the board to compel a man to carry out its orders, rather than to turn these cases over to some one else who may or may not prosecute?


Mr MEIGHEN:: That same argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that the Department of Justice would take over from the Attorneys General of all the provinces the administration of our criminal law.


Samuel William Jacobs: But this is a special board that is sitting for the prosecution of certain offences.


Arthur Meighen: We have no courts with paraphernalia to try, with juries and the like of that. We could, of course, take over

the work that the Attorney General of a province does and bring the facts before the courts of a province, conduct the prosecution and secure a possible conviction.
But if we should do that for this
11 p.m. offence, we ought to do it in the case of theft, of assault. We lay down a law and say that if a man commits that offence, he is offending against society; he is guilty of a crime against the Code. Then it becomes the duty of the Crown authorities of the province to prosecute for an offence that is actually committed. Here we go further than we go in any other case; we collect die facts; we pick out the offender, and we bring the facts and the offender to the door of the Attorney General. If we go further than that, we might as well go the whole road.
I (Mr. JACOBS':	In cases of offences
against the Bank Act, offences by bank managers, presidents and so on, it has been customary for the Dominion authorities to take the matter up. I have in mind the case of the Ville Marie bank, in which case the Solicitor General came from Ottawa to Montreal and prosecuted, on behalf of the department men who were implicated in the wrecking of the bank.
, Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR: It is not an extraordinary thing for the Dominion Government to prosecute offenders against Acts of this kind. It is the most common thing; it is done in the Customs Department, and at present the Inland Revenue Department has detectives going through Nova Scotia and bringing prosecutions against people who violate the law regarding putting stamps on the goods they sell. The prosecution is conducted, not by the Attorney General of the province, but under the direction of the (Minister of Inland Revenue. The Fisheries Act is another ease. It is a very common thing to find a man who violates the fishery regulations prosecuted under the direction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If the minister does not provide some machinery by which the Department of Justice or some other department will carry out the provisions of the Act, in seeing that the offenders are punished, the Act will he a dead letter.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I can confirm the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) as regards the Ville Marie Bank case, in which I remember that the Department of Justice was represented by the then Solicitor General, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick.


Arthur Meighen: Only represented. He did not conduct the case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, he did. I was for the defence in that case with Senator Foster and Mr. Greenshields, K.C.


Arthur Meighen: Who represented the
province?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Crown Prosecutor was there, but the case was in the hands of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Solicitor General.


Arthur Meighen: If the prosecutor had entered a nolle prosequi, where would Sir Charles Fitzpatrick have been?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: He would have had to go home.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister is supposing an impossible case. Here was a clear case of fraud, and it created quite a stir at the time. Hundreds of people were ruined, and the Government took action immediately. I remember Sir Charles Fitzpatrick remaining in court for days and weeks conducting the case personally. I addressed the jury for the defence, and he addressed the jury for the Crown. I remember other cases where the department was directly represented by a gentleman who became later treasurer of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Hall. He represented the Post Office Department in cases where men had been arrested because they had 'tampered with His Majesty's mails.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There the Department of Justice was directly represented. I remember one case, because the man who was implicated in that robbery was well known and had very strong influence. The people were surprised when they learned the name of the accused. I was Crown Prosecutor myself.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there anything in this measure to prevent the Federal Government from being represented ? My hon. friend says that it remains within the jurisdiction of the province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We claim that the department should take direct action in the matter. I was Crown prosecutor for several years in Montreal, and on many occasions the Federal Government was represented on criminal cases.


Arthur Meighen: What kind of cases?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Cases in which Federal Acts had been violated.


Arthur Meighen: Where the revenue of the Dominion of Canada or where a public service of the Dominion is concerned, we frequently are represented, and we could be represented here if we chose..


Samuel William Jacobs: Why do not you choose?


Arthur Meighen: But in no case, except in such as that, is the Government represented, let alone does it conduct the prosecution and. take over the administration of justice from the province. Will the hon. member tell me why it would be the duty of the Government, for a violation of the Combines and Fair Prices Act, to take over the duties of the Crown Prosecutor, conduct the case before the court, and why it would not be the duty in any other case of violation of the Criminal Code? If the case is as the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) mentions where we are collecting our own revenue, the province is not particularly interested in that, and we have to look after the case?


John Howard Sinclair: What about the fishery laws, where you are not collecting any revenue?


Arthur Meighen: I have not had that brought to my attention, but I will guarantee that, if they are merely offences that are created by statute, we do not take over the prosecution. The tendency of the people of this country is altogether too much towards looking to the Federal Government to overlap and duplicate all the provincial machinery. Under the pressure of careless criticism, careless newspaper . publicity, people are getting the idea that Provincial Governments and municipal governments under them are nothing more nor less than forms, and if there is anything really to be done, the only institution to do it is the Federal Government of Canada, and some of them,-the unreasoning ones, whose opinions I fear are fed by statements such as some we have heard to-night, not the great public of this country-want us to have a police force in every county and every town, and if any Federal law is violated, they want us immediately to come in and enforce that Federal law, as if we had not all the machinery of the provinces that is at present used in enforcing Federal laws of a criminal or semi-criminal character. Think what it would cost the people of this country if the Dominion is asked to duplicate the whole machinery for the enforcement of law, for the prosecution of offenders that now exists, and has long been established in every province of

the Dominion. We talk about having too much Government; this would be simply pyramiding it.


Samuel William Jacobs: They have it in the United States. [DOT]


Arthur Meighen: No, they do not have it in the States, and even if they had it in a thousand States, I do not want to see follies that other people commit, committed here.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not consider them follies.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt that. That would be a good thing for the lawyers. It would mean a duplication of Crown prosecutors. There can be no greater folly than the invasion of provincial jurisdiction, the duplication of provincial machinery, the multiplication of office holders, the pyramiding of Government such as is suggested to-night.
The machinery there exists. We do everything in our power, more than we can be called upon constitutionally to do. We create the offence; that is our duty. We have an organization that collects the facts and points out the offender. We draw this to the attention of the attorney general whose duty it is under the constitution to prosecute. Surely it is the duty of this Parliament to refrain from interfering with the acknowledged ambit of provincial authority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. gentleman's Latin should be permitted with impunity to confuse the House.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is an insinuation against the House. They understand it very well.


Arthur Meighen: Seven-eighths of the Criminal Code is malum prohibitum, precisely as this is. The hon. gentleman says you cannot expect the Attorney 'General of a province to act in the case of an offence against this law, but you could expect him to act in the case of an offence against the Code. You could not expect public opinion, he says, to force the Attorney General to act in the administration of justice and the punishment of offences in respect of which it is his duty to act, but you could expect him to act in another case under the Code. Let us see. We will assume that somebody interferes with the logging booms of a big lumber corporation-perhaps moves them by night. He says that you could depend on the Attorney General to act in a case of that sort because public opinion would be so aroused -being malum in se, that the Attorney General would be forced to act. But if some profiteer is, in the words of hon. gentlemen opposite, starving the children of the poor while the husband prays for relief, you cannot expect the Attorney General to be moved at all because that is merely malum prohibitum, and you could not expect public opinion to take any interest in it. The only case in which public opinion would take an interest, he says, is where somebody interferes with the rights of private individuals. If somebody by his conduct oppresses the poor and goes rampant through the country as a profiteer, public opinion is not going to take any interest, and consequently the Attorney 'General will not act. That is his argument. There is no argument in the world that can relieve the Attorney General from the prosecutiQn of offences created by this Act that will not relieve him also from the prosecution of offences created by the Code. Furthermore, we have ample power to appear and be represented if we choose. But is it wisdom on the part of the Parliament of Canada expressly to relieve the province of the duty cast upon it by Confederation, and especially to take i't from them and make it ours without any consent on their part? I will never be a party to relieving them from that obligation, I do not think it would be in the interest of the country as a whole. It would be most expensive in the way of duplication of machinery and duplication of costs, and no reason in the world exists for it. We can be represented, the Act is strong enough to enable us 'to be so, but we surely should decline to bring on the head of the Parliament and Government of Canada obligations that are fixed by the constitution as primarily belonging to the provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: You do not need 'to put the Attorney General in at all. If you really desire to accomplish good by this legislation, and intend to investigate offences and follow them up to a prosecution, there is no necessity to say in this Act that the matter will be handed over to the Attorney General. We are setting up an expensive court; we are providing large salaries for the commissioners; we are instituting a new department of government, and naturally we want it to do some good, if the minister will not take any interest in the matter, the Act goes for nothing; it is not worth the paper it is written on if the department will not follow up the offences and see that the offenders are punished.

The commission is going to conduct an investigation. It will examine witnesses, gather information and then pitchfork the whole thing over to the Attorney General. In my province the municipalities pay for the criminal prosecutions brought by the Attorney General. What municipality is going to be responsible for this? We have no system by which the Government of my province take up criminal cases and pay for them. They may engage a solicitor to represent the Attorney General at a certain * court, but the expenses of the court are paid by the municipalities. This is not a new proposal, Two or three sessions ago we had a question relating to the transportation of intoxicating liquors, and the Minister of Justice proposed a measure prohibiting the export of liquor into a dry area. It was drawn to his attention that the statute would be ineffective if it was not prosecuted by the Federal Government, and the Minister of Justice inserted a clause making it the duty of the Justice Department to conduct those prosecutions. The department has agents in the several cities where these offences are committed, and they are well equipped for conducting these prosecutions where they should be conducted. If the minister refuses to provide in this Act that the prosecution shall be followed up by the Department of Justice and the offenders punished, we may as well discard the Act, because it will not he worth anything for the purpose for which it is intended.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: 
John Howard Sinclair: Suppose the duty is imposed upon the Attorney General of, say, Nova Scotia. He has no funds to pay for the prosecution. Nothing has been voted by the legislature for that purpose. We want something done this year, and how is it expected that anything will be done promptly if a duty is imposed upon an officer who has no funds and cannot have any before the legislature meets again?
iMr. MORPHY: The hon. gentleman says that in Nova Scotia there are no funds.


Mr. J. H SINCLAIR:: No funds appropriated.


Mr MORPHY:: No funds available.


John Howard Sinclair: I said appropriated.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I will use my own word. In one province in Canada, for the administration of public justice, provision 'h'as not been made* either by the province itself or by the Federal Government, for the prosecution of offenders under a criminal or quasi-criminal act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No criminals there.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: If that is the state of affairs it is about time it should be remedied. I really do not feel that the hon. member for Antigonish and Guys-borough is entirely honest-without any malice in the term-in attempting to make us believe that an Act of Parliament, designed to cure an evil which it is eminently in the public interest to abolish, will not be enforced by those charged) with the administration of justice in Nova Scotia. The hon. member and others, h'ave spoken of the heinous sin of permitting to run rampant throughout the country combine men and profiteers and those engaged in the unholy and ungodly mergers, trust and combines. Surely the public sentiment in Nova Scotia would be such that if the Government of that province could not supply funds to prosecute cases under this Act the necessary money would come out of private pockets. In my opinion, nothing in Canada would sooner elicit funds from any government to prosecute a clear case or one that is open to grave suspicion, than any case

of unholy profiteering or a combination to enhance the prices of food to the poor man, in whom hon. gentlemen on both sides are interested. Will the hon. gentleman tell me that if any Federal Act of a quasi-criminal nature, applicable throughout Canada, is infringed in Nova Scotia, the Attorney General of that Province in the past has not been in the habit of setting the law in motion whether the Dominion asked him to or not?


John Howard Sinclair: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia can say to the Dominion Government: You should enforce your own Act.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a sham.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My question is: Does the hon. member know of a case in which the Attorney General or the Government of Nova 'Scotia asked this Government to enforce its own Act because it was a Federal Act?


John Howard Sinclair: The proposal was never made.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: So my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) is proceeding upon the assumption that something will happen that never has happened. I repeat again that the argument of the hon. gentleman shows an utter lack of faith in the public administration of justice by the provincial officers of the Government of Nova Scotia. I think it is unworthy of a public man in this House, unless he has ground for such an accusation, to throw a stigma upon the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the officers charged with the administration of justice in that province, by saying that in a great public abuse of this kind those officials would refuse to prosecute where it
was their plain and whole duty. I do not think there is anything in the argument; it is just a little bit of diversion because it is half-past eleven in the evening.


John Howard Sinclair: I repudiate the statement that I endeavoured to throw any stigma upon the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the prosecuting officials in that province, and I throw the imputation back upon my hon. friend who is supporting a Government which is professing to put down combines and will not spend a dollar of money in prosecuting its own law.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I point this out to the committee: these prosecutions may take place in a remote part of the Dominion, j do not want to say in Nova Scotia, but as I do not see any member from Prince Edward Island in the House, I will take that province for the purpose of my illustration.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for King's (Mr. Mclsaac) is in his seat.


Samuel William Jacobs: I had hoped he was asleep.
tvtt- BUREAU i No, lie never sleeps.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, let us take the case, for instance, of a large sugar refinery located in Summerside or Charlottetown, and which does business throughout the entire Dominion. Perhaps most of its business is done in British Columbia, or at any rate in the West, but it is located in Prince Edward Island for the reason that it is. near tide-water and there happens to be plenty of water-power in the district. Why should the province of Prince Edward Island be obliged to prosecute these cases simply because the head office of that institution is situated in that province? If the minister is not prepared to adopt our suggestion that the proceedings should be instituted by the Attorney General or the Minister of Justice of Canada, we would suggest as an alternative that at least an official from the Department of Justice attend in every case, because if that be not done this law need not be passed-it is going to be an absolute dead letter.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend
suggest that there should be a clause in this Act making it the duty of the Attorney General for the Dominion to prosecute offenders against this law in provincial courts?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes, that is to say that the private prosecutor should 'be the Justice Department.	.


Arthur Meighen: I see what my hon.
friend's mind is up to now. Here is an indictable offence created, and the hon. gentleman knows that nobody can prosecute except the provincial authorities.
Mr. JAiCOBiS: I want to know where it is stated in the Bill that this is an indictable offence?


Arthur Meighen: Everywhere in the Bill, in every word and sentence. There must be an indictment laid, and the hon. member knows as well as I do that no one can lay the indictment but the Attorney General-it cannot be done.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why?


Arthur Meighen: Because nobody has
power to lay an indictment; it must come through the Crown, represented by the province. We may toe represented, we may be there when the case comes up, we may even take part, but the whole thing is under the supervision and absolute authority of the Attorney General.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is because it is made so by this Bill.


Arthur Meighen: No, because it is an indictable offence. You cannot make it an indictable offence and have a prosecution in any other way. The hon. member, if he has ever practised in the criminal courts, knows that.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is because I have practised in the criminal courts that I do not admit it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman will not say that any one except the Crown, in the right of the province, can lay an indictment in the courts of the province.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, a criminal indictment is laid by the Attorney General.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly,


Samuel William Jacobs: But there is always a private prosecutor.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, tout he must secure the Crown's approval and the Crown must lay the indictment.


Samuel William Jacobs: In theory, yes.


Arthur Meighen: No, in practice, in
everything. He may start it just as we start this, but he cannot go. any further; it must be the duty altogether of the Cbown to prosecute. I tell the hon. gentleman the private prosecutor cannot constitutionally do it, and I know he knows that. Why, 
if we were represented there we must take the indictment as laid by the Crown. We may be anxious to go on, but if the province quits we have to quit too. Is that the way the hon. gentleman wants to face the prosecution for these offences? So that somebody else should be there to represent this Government and be under the care of the provincial authorities? That is absurd. The cases to which the hon. member (Mr. J. <H. Sinclair) refers to are prosecutions for offences against fishery regulations before the magistrates. Anybody can appear there; the Crown does not need to take charge of those cases at all, of any prosecution for offences against fishery regulations or for collection of inland revenue. These are not indictable offences, they are mere prosecutions before magistrates. But when you make an offence an. indictable one it becomes part of the Criminal Code of Canada, and the conduct of the prosecution must absolutely-I repeat the phrase; there is no escape from it-be under the . charge wholly of the Attorney General of the province.


Samuel William Jacobs: Although we are creating
entirely new legislation?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. Every time
you create an indictable offence you are creating new legislation; the hon. gentleman knows that.


Samuel William Jacobs: In conclusion, I may say
to the minister that if he proposes that the Attorney General shall take charge of these cases without any assistance from the Justice Department, we may just as well throw this Bill into the waste paper basket.


Arthur Meighen: If the Attorney General of the provinces intend to recede from their constitutional obligations which nobody else can perform no matter how willing or anxious they may be, then we cannot enforce the law in this country; there is no other way of doing it. It is either this way or no other way. But I do not have that feeling towards the Attorneys General of the provinces of Canada, nor do the people. I believe public opinion will force any recalcitrant 'Attorney General to prosecute these cases; I do not think there is any doubt about it. If it does not then the case cannot be prosecuted, because there is no other way in which it can be done.


Samuel William Jacobs: Unless assistance is given to the Attorney General how is relief going to be given to the people?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman knows we are going to give it just by the way we axe doing it here. It cannot be done in any other way unless the constitution is changed, and we cannot change it.
(Mr. BUREAU: The offence in question is not created here by the law but is created by the Board.


Arthur Meighen: The offence? No.


Jacques Bureau: You charge me with being in a combine or merger, or doing something contrary to the provisions of this law. An investigation is held and the result is an order by the Board declaring that my conduct complained of is illegal? Is not that the process?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: And that I ought not to do it. Now the remedy is in the Board. They say: " You have got to desist from doing such a thing within a scheduled time." An order is made by the board which is absolute and fines are provided, not because I am acting in a combine but because I refuse to acknowledge the order of the board.


Samuel William Jacobs: And the money goes into the Dominion treasury.


Jacques Bureau: I want to be clear about that. I am not fined because I have been guilty of forming part of a combine, or doing something which is enumerated in this Act as being illegal; the fine is imposed because I refuse to desist from doing a thing, or refuse to do .something which I am ordered by the Board to do. Is not that the gist of the whole legislation?


Arthur Meighen: That is the offence.


Jacques Bureau: The offence is the result of my refusing to obey the Board.


Arthur Meighen: Very good.


Jacques Bureau: It is not an absolute offence, it is a contingent offence.


Arthur Meighen: It becomes absolute.


Jacques Bureau: The offence under the Act is not that I form part of a combine, but the offence is in my refusing to obey the order of the board, which is established for the purpose of preventing combines, or of dissolving them if they exist. If I comply with the order when issued there is no offence. The offence is found by the board, not by the law. My hon. friend smiles, but there is a distinction to be made. If the statute said: Whosoever shall be found guilty of doing or not doing a certain thing shall be liable to a fine-there would be an
offence. But you say that this board shall have power to make orders, and if any particular order is obeyed there is no offence. It is just the enforcement practically of what I would call a civil judgment. You are to do this; if you do not do it you are liable to pay a fine; and if you do not pay a fine you are liable to go to jail. The section says that the board is to hold an investigation, the evidence is to be taken down and then sent to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has not got to decide whether or not there is an offence and then prosecute the man; but he has to bring him forward and say: Here is an order of the board for you to do this; you did not do it; you are liable to a fine. How is he going to collect it? The grand jury have found that indictment; that grand jury is the board. Then he wants the man to be prosecuted before the petit jury on the indictment found by the board
the grand jury. I do not see how it could be done in that way. If you say: You are in a combine; you are, liable to such and such a penalty-then you bring the case to the grand jury and submit your evidence, and if they find a true bill you have me found guilty of being one of a combine. That follows the ordinary course. But here is the collection of a fine. I do not see why execution should not be issued on the return made by you to the Superior Court in oui province, say, the sheriff would then go down to seize the property, and if there was nothing to seize the man would be put in jail. Take a case of slander in our courts. If the man cannot pay the money which he is condemned to pay we have a certain procedure under our civil courts; he appears before a judge and the judge sentences him to go to jail. This is the same process. It is a civil process, and I do not see how you can bring it before the criminal courts the way the Bill is drafted. What offence are you going to find before the grand jury?-of not obeying an order of the board.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly.


Jacques Bureau: That is not an offence.


Arthur Meighen: We make it so.


Jacques Bureau: You may; but look at the position you are putting that grand jury in. They have sat there and said: You did not obey the court. That is a true bill. You go before the petit jury, and the fact is admitted that he refused to obey. You take that judgment to the superior court, and the sheriff goes and tries to collect the fine, and if he cannot collect it, then the man is liable to imprisonment. That is a purely civil proceeding. I have never practised

before criminal courts, but I have practised enough before the civil courts to know that this is just the same as an action for slander.


Arthur Meighen: The man may not be fined at all. For the life of me I do not see the point my hon. friend is trying to make. This creates an indictable offence, or it does not.


Mr BUREAU:: It ought not to.


Arthur Meighen: That is another thing. It the hon. gentleman does not want to make an offence against an order of the board an indictable offence, all right; make it simply an offence.


Jacques Bureau: Punishable by imprisonment. You do not have to bring him before the jury.


Arthur Meighen: How far can you go in that way?


Jacques Bureau: You can go any length at all under our procedure. When a man is subject to a fine or imprisonment, and. he does not pay the fine, .you take him to jail.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. We provide here that you need not go before the jury, but we make the offence of that character that it is indictable. It is one thing whether we chose to do that or not, but if this Bill passes it does that. That being so, it does not matter what we declare constitutes the offence. We might declare, if we chose to do so that a man who goes in a flying machine commits an indictable offence; instead of that we say that a man who disobeys an order of the board commits an indictable offence. Once we have said that, then this is the only way in which proceedings looking to punishment can be [DOT] carried on. If the hon. gentleman wants to move-


Jacques Bureau: I do not want to move anything. I am suggesting a cheaper way of reaching the same end.


Arthur Meighen: We cannot proceed in any other way than this.


Jacques Bureau: It is a cheaper way and an easier way of letting the law follow its course and getting a man to jail, instead of having to come and say: On such a day he disobeyed an order contrary to Bill 167, as in such case made and provided for. Then you have got to go before the grand jury and the petit jury, and to do that you have to wait until the assizes are convened. We have some districts in

our province where they do not have criminal assizes more than once in two years. If you follow the ordinary civil procedure, the moment a return is made by the sheriff or the bailiff that there are no goods upon which he can execute judgment, you just make up your return, and that return is prima facie evidence to make application to have the man jailed. What you want is the punishment, not the procedure. This is the easiest and, it seems to me, the most logical procedure to follow. Of course, I do not know how it would work in the other provinces.


Arthur Meighen: If you do not make the offence an indictable one you put it in the hands of magistrates to completely circumvent you.


Jacques Bureau: No, it does not go before a magistrate. It is an executory judgment. There is no appeal about it. If the man has not sufficient property to pay the fine he goes to jail.


Arthur Meighen: That would necessitate giving the man the option of a fine in every case. That is the first objection. But the next objection is fatal, that that law does not apply to the rest of Canada at all.


Jacques Bureau: Have you not got that procedure in slander?


Arthur Meighen: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. ,
On section 19-powers of board to order operator of cold storage plant, packing house, cannery, factory, mine, or other premises to make prescribed returns:
Arthur Meighen: I move:
That paragraph 1 of section 19 he amended by adding after the word " board " in line 44 the words " and or the Dominion Statistician " ; toy adding after the word " board " in line 46, the words " or statistician," and by striking out the words " toy it " at the beginning of line 47.
The effect of the amendment is to provide that the board may order that the return be made to the Dominion statistician.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel William Jacobs: Paragraph 4 of this section provides:
No person shall in any manner impede or prevent or attempt to impede or prevent any such investigation or examination.
I observe that no penalty is provided.


Arthur Meighen: A general penalty is provided at the end of the Act.
Section, as amended, agreed to.

On section 20-'penalty for disobeying order:


Samuel William Jacobs: Are all these penalties to be paid into the Dominion Treasury?


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing saying so. They go the way of ordinary fines.


Samuel William Jacobs: Then they would find their way into the provincial treasury?


Arthur Meighen: I had not given particular thought to the subject, but it seems to me that that is the effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Orders in Council rescinded :
Arthur Meighen: I move that this clause be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:
All proceeding instituted or had under Order In Council P.C. 3069 of the 11th day of December, 1918, but not fully concluded, shall continue and may proceed under this Part of this Act, with the hoard substituted for the Minister of Labour, as fully and effectually as if said Order in Council continued in force, notwithstanding the rescission thereof.
This Order in Council of the 11th of December last, which is with respect to fair prices, is the only one affected, and I * thought it better simply to specify it. This means that anything done under that Order and not completed shall continue in effect, the administration being in the board instead of the Minister of Labour.


John Howard Sinclair: Are any prosecutions pending under that Order in Council?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so. What is intended is to protect the machinery for the procuring of certain monthly data.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended, agreed to.
On section 24-Governor in Counoil may admit necessities of life free of duty, or Teduce duty to secure reasonable competition: '
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is a court which we are creating, and a refusal to comply with its orders is contempt of court. I really think that it is the duty of this House to protect these officers and to see that their orders are not treated as if they meant nothing. If the Attorney General of the province does not look after it, the decrees and findings of this board go for nothing.


Arthur Meighen: This permits us to go as far as we can go. Possibly it is correct
that such an offence is in the nature of contempt of court, and prosecution will likely be had as far as it is justified. We cannot take the obligation of prosecution, because we have not the power to conduct it. Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Dominion lands and parks-for surveys and inspections in connection with the administration of the Irrigation Act, and for the reclamation of swamp lands by drainage, etc., further amount required, $6iO,OOK>.
['Yes, and any matter\naffecting our railways can be discussed in connection with it.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 2.30 a.m., Saturday.\nSaturday, July 5, 1919.']
Mr. BUCHANAN:: As the matter is very urgent and serious, I want to discuss the irrigation feature of the Estimate and to endeavour to impress upon the House the fact that the matter is not wholly a local question, but one of a good deal of national importance as well. Hon. -members have all heard in the past of the situation in the southern part of AlbeTta, and I might also be permitted to include the southern part of Saskatchewan, both of which pass through dry years and consequently have crop failures; and although they have good years with abnormal crops, still every few years they suffer adversity. I am afraid that this year the situation has become so serious that it is necessary for action to be taken in order to retain in that country the people who have been there for some years and who have been fighting the adverse conditions We have in southern Alberta several irrigation systems; one of them, which is in my county has been a great success, and dry years do not have any effect on the success of irrigated farming. What I would argue here to-night is an extension of irrigation in order to safeguard the people who are in that part of the country and also to protect Canada as a nation from loss, and certainly loss would be suffered if those people were forced to leave Canada at this time. We brought them into this country; we practically told them that the land they were taking up was suitable for agriculture. If we made a mistake, we must admit it now. But they were brought in under our auspices; they have spent their capital and endeavoured to make a success of agriculture theire.	I do not say that they have
not made a success when weather conditions have been good and they have been able to enjoy a proper amount of moisture. There is no question about the fer-

tility of the soil because under fair conditions they have very good crops, and in the years 1915 and 1916 I am satisfied that in that area the average yield per acre will compare with that of any country in the world. This year there is no question that a great part of southern Alberta will be subject to crop failure again.
12 m. What have we to do to retain those people in the country? My answer to the question is that we should endeavour to extend that irrigation system m order to provide them with the moisture that will enable the soil to produce crops that will add to the wealth of the country. I maintain that irrigation produces wealth, produces it every year. Mr. C. A. Magrath, Chairman of the International Waterways Commission, who was probably the first man to interest himself in irrigation in Western Canada, returned only a few days ago from a trip to southern Alberta and I understand he stated that, in the irrigated country adjacent to Lethbridge, there would be a million dollars worth of alfalfa produced this year, and that is only one section of this particular system. I was talking also to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to-day, and he told me that his information from the experimental farm at Lethbridge was to the effect that the drv portion of that farm would produce prac tically nothing this year, but that on the irrigated portion conditions were exceptionally good. That proved that irrigation used with the soil of southern Alberta will produce great crops no matter how adverse the conditions may generally be.
It might be argued that it was a mistake to settle portions of this country be' cause of the frequent droughts, and the loss of crops. But, on the other hand, the people are there, and we should try to keep them in this country if at all possible. If they leave this country, that will certainly be a black eye to Western Canada, because the views they express of conditions in one section of the country will be made to apply to the whole couritry and will probably not do justice to that. My argument is that we should use all the available water supply and bring it to the land in southern Alberta so as to enable these people to remain there and to safeguard the amount of money we have already spent to bring those people into the country and to keeep them there. Those of us who were in the last Parliament know that, in 1914, we had to provide a great deal of money for relief, not only for 
stock, but for the people themseslves in order to carry them through the fall, winter and spring. It is almost certain that some relief will have to be provided this year, I do not say by this Government, because under present conditions the lands have been patented and assistance of that kind comes largely from the provincial government. But the irrigation problem which I am trying to present to the House to-night is a matter which I want this Government and this Parliament to consider seriously in order to meet this situation. I have before me letter from one of the principal organizations in the city of Lethbridge, and it states the matter so concisely that I think I shall read it in order that the committee may have the opinion of an organization of business men in southern Alberta. The letter reads:
The majority of thinking men in this district have long been of the opinion that ultimately irrigation must come if the south is to go forward, and seeing the main feature is not lacking, viz., an ample water supply, we feel that effort should be made to avoid any unnecessary delay.
As you are aware, the territory from Pincher Creek on the west and Swift Current on the east,-a distance of approximately three hundred miles,-and from the International boundary on the south to the Red Deer River on the north,-a distance of about two hundred miles, -requires irrigation and we are of the opinion that this area could be largely irrigated.
As you will remember, 1910, 1914, 1917 and 191S, have been practically complete crop failures, and we regret to advise you that the *crop prospects this year, on account of drought, are likely to be a repetition of the years above mentioned. We are now convinced that irrigation is of vital importance if we are to retain the farmers in this territory. It will not only be a local benefit but of national importance on. account of the enormously increased production. The unanimous opinion of tne Rotary Club was in favour of having the Dominion Government appoint a commission of say three able men in whom both the Government and the public would have confidence, to oome West immediately and investigate the whole question of irrigation, and suggest ways and means of getting this put into operation, also to look into conditions as they prevail at the present time. There is no doubt but that a large number of fanners will have to receive aid from the Government as in 1914.
That is the prevalent view of the people who are living in that section of the country. In presenting this case to the committee and the Government, and in advocating the expansion of irrigation, I do not want the impression to be conveyed that this means an outlay of money on the part of the Dominion or of any Government in the country that would be invested and not returned in any way, because under the irrigation systems as they have prevailed in

Western Canada the people who use irrigation practically pay for the systems which are brought into existence. But it has rested with this Government and must rest with it in the future to carry on the surveys in order that the people may learn what lands are suitable for irrigation. Once they find out what land's can be irrigated it is possible for irrigation districts to be formed, and these districts should be in the position to bring the water into the district to be distributed over the land requiring irrigation. In raising the actual money there may be difficulty, but with assistance from the Government by way of guarantees it would' be possible to get the money to enable irrigation to be provided for these districts, and then the problem would be solved.
I want to emphasize, before I sit down, the fact that the situation is extremely serious, that we are in danger of losing, I would say, probably a thousand or more farmers in that section of the country if we do not come to their rescue by adopting a policy that will enable them to obtain irrigation without delay. If we can obtain irrigation without delay I am quite certain we can retain these people in the country, and with irrigation they will be able to produce a great deal more than they have ever been able to produce in the most auspicious years in the past, because we know that in that particular country wherever irrigation is practised the yield is doubled and even trebled in some cases.
Another matter I would point out is this, that under irrigation hay crops of all kinds can be raised, and these hay crops provide the means of encouraging mixed farming and enabling farmers to go into stock raising. The more of it we have, the better it will be for mixed farming in that part of the country that is to be irrigated. I would urge upon the minister that some action should be taken without delay to inquire into the extension of irrigation to meet the urgent need at this time. I want to say also that while it is a matter affecting my constituency, I feel it is of greater importance than a local question. It reaches out into a national question, because if these people were to leave our country and carry across the line or to any other country stories of failure in agriculture in Western Canada, it would do a great deal of damage to the whole country.


Arthur Meighen: I think I should put on record a few words on this question. The
merits of the policy of irrigation, if from a business standpoint and an engineering standpoint practicable, cannot of course be disputed and the special need of irrigation in the territory ,to which my hon. friend refers is so pronounced that he only does his duty in impressing it forcibly on hon. members. There are in many parts of southern Alberta large areas of territory of the utmost fertility, but the curse of which is repeated drought. The experience of the last few years has been that that drought is so frequently repeated that the ultimate value of the land may be very problematical indeed unless irrigation is proven to be feasible. If proven to be feasible, then the value of that portion of Canada becomes enhanced accordingly. Every portion of this Dominion is interested in its development and success. It is quite true, as the hon. gentleman says, that discouragement has followed discouragement and that thousands of settlers who have come into the country under the encouragement of federal and provincial authorities may be compelled to leave. Consequently it is the duty of Parliament and the duty of the Government to take the most generous position that we constitutionally can take arid justify, with regard to irrigation development. Some correspondence has been carried on and several conferences have been held between myself and the provincial governments in regard to this matter. I have taken the position that the general problem of irrigation, in so far as actual development is concerned, is a provincial obligation. On the contrary, the province has assumed a rather different position. Hitherto the Dominion has undertaken survey and engineering work with a view to deciding as to the engineering feasibility of the project, and I had no objection to continuing that responsibility and the expenditure that is entailed thereby; but I felt, for the reason particularly that there was no Dominion land that was to be benefited by irrigation development, the whole being privately-owned land, that the time had come when we should have an understanding that the obligation of the Dominion with regard to irrigation ceased at the point of the completion of the survey and engineering work. I felt that if we continued longer without that understanding, the province and the people of the province would more and more get the impression that the whole problem of irrigation was federal and not provincial, and would look with increasing confidence and indeed with increased imperativeness to the Dominion authorities to continue obliga-

tions with regard to irrigation right into the development sphere itself.
Consequently, after prolonged correspondence and after many conferences where we failed to agree, we finally came to an understanding, and the Provincial Government acquiesced in our position that we should not be called upon to undertake further responsibility after we had undertaken and discharged the work of surveying the whole field and of engaging the engineering forces necessary for that purpose. We propose, now that we have come to an understanding, to carry it out on our part to the full and to interpret that understanding generously. Already I have instructed that to be done, and as a consequence the item that appears in the estimate now before the House, $60,000, has been placed there for surveying and engineering work, under the Irrigation Act, in the North Lethbridge district. This Parliament must give increasing attention to the responsibilities that we have entered into in this regard, and must take increasing interest in the subject so ably brought to our attention by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan). Western members particularly are interested in it. I think that the correct line of division as between Federal and provincial responsibility has been drawn. The province thinks it is somewhat hard, but I believe that it is the right line, and if each authority lives up fully to the obligations in this respect then we ought to get on properly and rapidly, and, I sincerely trust, successfully.


Mr. SHAW:: Will the irrigation scheme in connection with which this $60,000 is voted, include the land lying between the Belly and Kootenay rivers, known as the old Cochrane ranch, and also the land in the vicinity of McLeod ?


Arthur Meighen: I think so. The hon. member can find the exact limitations by consulting the irrigation branch of the department.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: After this survey is made and the irrigation system has been established, will the Dominion Government exercise any control of surplus water?


Arthur Meighen: The control of surplus water is constitutionally the function of the Dominion Government. The Dominion Government will not exercise that control to the interference of any local development.


Mr. COPP:: I see that our old friend the Canadian National Parks is in evidence 
again. Will the minister make some explanation in regard to it?


Arthur Meighen: In pursuance of an
arrangement made with the province of British Columbia and in consideration of a grant to the Dominion of five miles wide of land on the right of way, a strip of land extending from our present park road through the whole length of the road called Windermere, we undertook the completion of the fifty miles between British Columbia roads and our National Parks, thus establishing a thoroughly good roadway. The entire road is five or six hundred miles in length, and we get a quid pro quo which at a fair valuation is worth more than the cost of the road. It has added to our National Parks and is of very great value. The province was not able to continue the road, having built it up to a certain point; and they gave us a five-mile strip limited by the mountain peaks on either side.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like some information in regard to the administration of the Northwest Game Act and the Migratory Bird Act in regard to my province. Who are the officials appointed?


Arthur Meighen: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: Have the officials been appointed?
iMr. MEIGHEN:	Yes. The chief game
officer in Marysville receives a salary of $150 a month and the game officers are Messrs. Harry Kingsley Jark, Chatham; Claude Bruce Day, Moncton; and James B. Gardiner, Bathurst, each of the three at $90 a month.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That system will be absolutely useless in New Brunswick. We have no protection to our migratory game birds, and. in the past year they have been slaughtered right and left. Unless we have game wardens in the different counties or areas frequented by game birds this

Treaty will be of no service whatever. I would like to get some information as to who is in charge of this organization so that I may confer with him.


Arthur Meighen: The gentleman in charge is Mr. P. Marchand. We amended the Act this session so as to enable half the fine to go to the prosecutors, so that there would be inducement to local authorities to enforce the Act. That amendment was recently made and there is now ample reason why there should be private prosecution, and why the attention of the several wardens should be called to any cases of infringement.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We have large numbers of game birds, and the man in Marysville locality could not cover an area of two hundred miles. Unless something is done the game birds in that section of the province will simply be slaughtered.


Arthur Meighen: We intend to appoint honorary game wardens.


Frank S. Cahill: What is this gas well at Pelican Rapids?


Arthur Meighen: It was bored by the Geological Department as it was then, in 1897. Gas was struck at a certain depth and it burst forth and destroyed the well, which has roared ever since so loudly that at times, years ago, you could hear it ten miles away. There was a fire there for many years but it is now extinguished. I had been seeking for parties competent to close this well.
I have heard of arrangements that could be made, and have followed them up only to meet with discouragement and failure. But at last I have made an arrangement that I think is satisfactory with a competent company who have undertaken to close this well. I think the maximum that can be charged is $15,000-that is the utmost they can take-but I have arranged a sliding scale whereby if the work is done in a certain way it will be rather cheap. If the company can succeed in that way it will be in their own interest as well as ours, and will cost very much less.
Dominion Lands and Barks, $405,5W.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must tell the minister that I am disposed to object to the spending of $405,500 for the reclaiming of lands in the West, as provided for under this vote, when we are supposed to have an abundance of good lands there ready for cultivation.
292	/



Arthur Meighen: There is only $120,000 for that work. The lands when reclaimed will be sold and the money recouped to the treasury. The Government engineers have reported, as an engineering fact, that the land is good and will pay us to reclaim. These are Dominion lands and we are simply making them of use to the country, and the money will come back to the treasury.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite understand that. I do not know very much about the rest, but I understand that we have so much excellent land there ready for settlement and cultivation that it is bad business to be throwing money into these swamps.


Arthur Meighen: This land is owned by ourselves. Of the unalienated land there is not very much within a reasonable distance.
Department of Trade and Commerce. To provide for Civil Government, additional amount required, $18,700.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: I see in the Main Estimates that 83 new employees are asked for, and in the Supplementary Estimates there is something over 100. Now the report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the efficiency of the Civil Service declares that the departments are overmanned. For the year 1911-12 the number of civil service employees in Ottawa is given as 3,193. This year, there are 4,508 and now the Government is asking for the appointment of 100 more. Moreover, a new Department of 'Health, for which $60,000 was voted, will probably require about 40 employees. Again the Department of Labour in the Main Estimates asked for 22 more employees, and in the Supplementary Estimates they ask for further appointments making an increase of nearly 40 in that department alone. In view of the claim that the Government departments are already overmanned, would it not be possible to meet the needs of the public service by. a readjustment of the staffs rather than by adding to their numbers in this way? It must be remembered that the existing expenditure for salaries will be greatly increased if the recommendations under the re-classification scheme are carried out; it will be increased to an extent that the people certainly have no idea of. The duty of the Government is to see if it cannot so apportion the work of its employees that these large additions to the staffs will not be necessary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is only proper that a word or two should be said in reply


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
to my hon. friend even if it detains the Committee for a few moments longer. I think the statement that the service is perhaps overmanned has some basis in fact. It is quite true the service has increased very much numerically during the past few years, but there 'is an obvious reason for that, at least in part. For instance, the Department of Soldiers' Re-establishment, which is a new department, apparently requires the services of a great many persons. It is to be hoped, however, that shortly the personnel of that department should diminish. The personnel of the Militia Department is also far beyond the ordinary numbers at the present time, but I should hope that staff will greatly diminish in the near future. My own opinion is that until some superannuation scheme is provided by Parliament, it will not be possible to reduce the personnel of the Civil Service to what it should be. With respect to this particular item, the appointments are all new and chiefly relate to the Bureau of Statistics in the Trade and Commerce Department, which is expanding its work quite considerably. When the Bureau of Statistics was established two years ago, and more, the division was, staffed by temporary clerks, and the present estimate makes provision for the appointment of permanent officials.
Thomas Vien: Do I understand that the
item refers only to the employees of the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Then the employees that had to be taken on, on account of the creation of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, as well as by the increased work in the Militia Department, have no reference to the Trade and Commerce Department, so that the explanation does not give much information as to how the item has increased over last year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I gave an explanation as to the particular item in which I was interested. Do I understand my hon. friend to say that I have not given a full explanation as to the great increase in the personnel of the Civil Service generally?


Thomas Vien: No, only in so far as the item we are now considering is concerned.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is to be provided a clerkship at $3,000 for the Bureau of Statistics to take over the railway statistical work and to act in co-operation with the Board of Railway Commissioners. If that were not done the Board of Railway Com-
missioners. would have to secure the services of this clerk, and an effort is being made to put all the statistical work into one branch. That accounts for one item. Then there is provision for an assistant editor of the Year Book. Last autumn an arrangement was made with the Department of Labour for consolidating the work of price statistics under the bureau. It was arranged that Mr. Bolton, of the Department of Labour, should be transferred with this work to the bureau at $2,100. Subsequently some new work in the Department of Labour required Mr. Bolton's attention, and a temporary clerk at $1,800 was. appointed to carry out the work transferred to the bureau. The Department of Labour now wishes to keep Mr. Bolton, and the Bureau Department wishes to get somebody in his place.


Thomas Vien: That would satisfy me so far as the question put is concerned. But could not these men be taken from other departments where the Civil Service Commission found they were over-manned?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Thomas Vien: These men are not appointed as yet?	.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before we leave that, it is important to the country that some notice should be taken of the army of extra clerks that we have appointed during the war. I would like the minister to furnish to the. House, some time soon, a return showing the total number of civil servants that we had, say, on the first of August, 1914, and the total number that we have to-day, and, if possible, the number of men and women who were taken on by reason of the war. What are we going to do with those surplus officials now the war is over? I am afraid there is a tendency to keep on a great many who will have nothing really to do.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall endeavour to get that information for my hon. friend if we do not close before Monday. I know that in the Militia Department at least a thousand employees have been dismissed since a year and a half ago.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about Soldiers' Reestablishment? That has been growing by leaps and bounds.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Apparently, but I assume the minister has need for the men he is taking into his department. I understand they have about reached the peak and that shortly the staff should be diminishing.


Louis Joseph Papineau: The figures given do not agree at all with the war expenditure. Those are only the regular Civil Service employees.
"Mr. A. K. MACLEAN : Your figures would not include the temporary employees.


Louis Joseph Papineau: There is a difference of fifteen hundred in the Civil Service between 1911 and to-day.
Administration Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, $5'0,0'00.


Samuel William Jacobs: What is the Co-ordination Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was an Act
passed at the Parliamentary session of 1918 for the purpose of co-ordinating the efforts of the Dominion Government and the provincial governments in establishing labour bureaux throughout Canada. The expenditures are shared equally by the provincial governments and the Dominion Government, with the exception of the Maritime Provinces, who did not agree to share equally the expenditures connected with the maintenance of these employment bureaux.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Having given this
example of generosity, is the Dominion Government going to supply all the funds in the case of the Maritime Provinces? >


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was felt by
the Maritime Provinces that ordinarily there was no particular reason for the establishment of such offices there, but at the present time a good service might be rendered by them, and it was thought advisable to have them established for the time being, anyway, during the demobilization period. However, the Governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have furnished office room to the Department of Labour. I think they have also provided furniture and office fittings, although I am not sure as to that.
Public Works-slides and 'booms, graving docks, locks and flams, etc., working expenses, etc., $ 170,fj00.


Mr. CARVELL:: I feel that I ought to
make an explanation of this vote, because I am attempting to make some radical changes in the operation of these works. A system has grown up, dating, I think, from pre-Confederation days, under which the Government has spent a very large amount of money in providing slides, booms and things of that kind for the benefit of the lumbermen on various rivers-the Gatineau, the St. Maurice, the Saguenay, and some of the upper branches of the Ottawa
292i
river. It would surprise the Committee if they could realize how much money has been expended on these works. For many years, under the method of bookkeeping which prevailed, a profit was shown, but that method did not take into consideration the overhead expenses at head office, which are very large. In fact, the thing is a dumping ground for people for whom no other place can be found and who are put on these slides and booms.


Samuel William Jacobs: For their health?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, for their daily bread. Of late years we have been going behind pretty rapidly. Before I came into the department an arrangement was made under which ,the slides and booms on the St. Maurice river were handed over to a local company who pay a certain rental for them, and 'the principle is so good that I have endeavoured to follow it out. On the Gatineau we have not been going behind as much as we have at the other places, but we have been losing around $1,000 a year for the last five or six years, although from the beginning a profit is shown. I have just completed an arrangement with the lumber company that are operating on the Gatineau river; I am practically giving them the whole thing to get rid of it and save a loss. My reason for doing that is that we are up against the expenditure of a very large amount, probably $35,000 or $40,000, or even more, in order to make these works workable, and I think it is just as well that the big lumbermen, who have not been losing any money during the last three or four years, should pay that $40,000. Anyway, we shall get rid of the obligation of maintaining a lot of very estimable gentlemen who have not been working very hard for some years. Conditions on the Ottawa river are very much worse. Last year we expended on slides and booms on the Ottawa river in the vicinity of this city, $40,106, and we got a revenue of $11,000. The year before we spent $40,000 and got a revenue of $23,000; the year before that we spent $36,000 and got a revenue of $28,000.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Without taking overhead expenses into account?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This does not include overhead; it is simply a little bonus that we have been handing out to these poor lumbermen around Ottawa who need the money. However, I am making an effort to get rid of that end of it, too. In quite recent years they started the same beneficent system down on the Saguenay

river, and this year I refused to open the booms. I told the Price Company and other large institutions that the booms were there and that they could use them, but that we did not propose to spend any money on them-and I believe they tare getting the lumber down the river without any difficulty. The same thing happened in the Madawaska. The man who had been boom-master died and I refused to appoint another man in his place.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is in your own coun-. ty?
Mr. iCARVELL: Oh, no, that is in Ontario. We pay our own bills down in New Brunswick; we would think that manna was coming down from the heavens if the Government provided booms and slides for our lumbermen. However, the sum and substance of it all is that in the course of another year we shall be entirely rid of this business and the lumbermen will probably get a lot of works and material that cost a great deal of money and which will be valuable to them, but which are a liability to the Government.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Could the minister not get them to pay something for these works?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should make some explanation of this item also; these works are not a money-maker either. In the early days it was absolutely necessary, I believe, that the Government should establish telephone lines in the outlying portions of Canada, and there are many places in Canada where it is still necessary that these lines should be maintained. For instance, the line to the Yukon must be maintained. There is a line down the north shore of the 'St. Lawrence river, extending away out along the Labrador coast, which must be haaintained, and it may be that lines should be maintained down on the Gaspe coast. There are estimable people who believe that it is necessary to maintain telegraph and telephone lines in Cape Breton Island; but I have some difficulty in bringing myself to the conclusion that that is necessary. It might interest the committee if I show them the practical working out of these systems. I appointed a gentleman in whom I had absolute confidence and who made a very exhaustive study of and report upon

the whole telegraph and telephone system of Canada, and the committee will see by this item we are asking for $780,500 for the purpose of maintaining these telegraph and telephone lines.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Over and above any revenue?	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am coming to that. It is hardly as bad as that," although it is pretty bad. The total expenditure is $780,500 only for maintenance and operation, not including anything for extensions. I have had a statement. prepared showing the cost of all these different lines, the cost of maintenance, the cost of operation, the revenues and the deficits, and also a report as to what, in Mr. Robinson's view, ought to be done as a business proposition.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Who is Mr. Robinson?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He is the general manager of the New Brunswick Telephone company at (St. John, N.B. He is a man who has had a very lengthy experience in the telephone business, and without any question he is one of the Canadian experts at least on telephone business. He started work last September, and he has been working on this inquiry part of the time ever since. He went throughout the whole country, as far as Prince Rupert, Vancouver and Victoria. Without wearying the committee with details, I want to give just a little idea of the operations of these lines. The cost of running the northwestern lines in Saskatchewan last year was, in round figures, $59,000, and our revenue $8,000, or a loss of about $50,000. There are probably not more than fifteen or twenty miles in Saskatchewan that do not now have telephone or telegraphic communication by some other system. In Alberta, the cost was $78,000, and the revenue about $18,000, or a loss of about $59,000. The same remarks cannot be made with regard to Alberta, because some lines, but not very many, must be maintained. The construction of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway through the Peace River and Grand Prairie districts has made it unnecessary that the Government should operate some of these lines, and we can get rid of a large number of them. In British Columbia, the mainland, the cost was $78,000, and the revenue $30,000, or a loss of about $48,000. In Vancouver Island the cost was $99,000, the revenue $37,000, or

a loss of albout $62,000. You have the biggest kisses on the Yukon, and that service must ibe maintained. The loss there is $133,000. Taking the whole matter, while we are asking for $780,500, to maintain these services, the revenue last year was $205,558, or a loss of about half a million dollars or over.
Mr. McMAS'TER: Without any provision for sinking fund or deterioration?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Thomas Vien: Does the Government contemplate the construction of any other telephone lines?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, excepting that in the Supplementary Estimates there are a few items for very short extensions, something that would be necessary if we go on; and if we do not, of course it would be necessary that somebody else should construct them. But they go into territory which should receive telephone communication.


Thomas Vien: What are the reasons which determine the action of the Government in granting a telephone system to a locality?
I know of a number of rural localities in Quebec, for instance, where there are county telephone systems, absolutely under our own rule. The farmers pay for the system.
I might mention the counties of Lotbiniere, Megantic, Bellechasse, part of the county of Beauce, and of the county of Dorchester.
I am not aware that any subsidy was given to them by the Federal Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has not kept in touch with the matter exactly, because a very modest start was made in the county of Dorchester two years ago.


Thomas Vien: I know.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I got rid of that. I made a trade and some local company took it off our hands. We were lucky; wo got out of that for some four or five thousand dollars. We nipped that in the bud.
As to the policy in British Columbia, it was necessary in the early days that some provision should be made for reaching the outlying districts of that province. First of all there was a telegraph system, which later on was converted into a telephone system. It was a real necessity. It is a question of policy whether the Government will hand over the telephone to some corporation or provincial or municipal body. There was a rapid telephone development in the province of Quebec in recent years. In Quebec county we have not been as successful as in Dorchester county, but we have stopped expenditures to a very large extent, and we are very much in hopes that the wires that are still on the poles will be leased to some local company; we shall have to do something or other with the system. It is not a money maker, I can assure my h(^n. friend.


Thomas Vien: There have been no telephone subsidies for the province of Quebec with the two exceptions the minister has mentioned. In Dorchester county during

the last election Mr. Sevigny, then Minister of Inland Revenue, obtained a certain grant for the building of a telephone line, and Mr. Pelletier, the late Postmaster (General, also obtained a grant for the county of Quebec. I think it is commendable that communication should be given to the outlying districts in newly settled parts of the *country, but I do not think this policy should be embarked upon by the Government to any great extent. I think we should stop granting such subsidies in the future.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend and I
will not quarrel very much about that.


Thomas Vien: There are two or three outstanding accounts in connection with the lines in Dorchester and Quebec counties which I think should be paid.
. Mr. CARVELiL:	Perhaps I should refer
*to that matter. A gentleman by the name of Martineau built telephone lines in Quebec county. The custom seems to have been to build lines, and later the money would be voted and the account paid. That went on for some time and finally, in 1915, this gentleman got busy during the summer building telephone lines. He got certificates from one of the officials of' the department certifying that a certain amount of money had been expended on a line from one place to another place and La Banque Nationale cashed these certificates. They amount now to something like $13,000. The bank is pressing very hard for payment. Martineau was not authorized by the department to construct these lines, but it is a fact that the bank has a letter signed by the late Postmaster General, Mr. Casgrain, saying that the money would be voted when Parliament met. I am somewhat worried to know just what to do about it. I have some doubts whether the bank has a legal claim against the department, but certainly it has a very strong moral claim. That is the only outstanding claim I know of, except a few small items in Dorchester county, but they are a mere bagatelle, a matter of a few dollars.


Thomas Vien: It is only fair to the poor individuals who did this work in good faith that they should be paid.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is certainly .a good deal of merit in that contention.
Supplementary Estimates 1919-20'-Harbours and rivers-Esquimau, B. O., new dry dock $500,000.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I want to make one statement that will cover a number of

things. I think it is only right I should protest very emphatically against the bringing down of Supplementary Estimates aggregating $36,723,120.66 within the last days of a long and wearisome session when the heat is so great that it is only with the greatest moral courage and devotion to the public interest that members si 1 late at night for the purpose of considering them.
Public Works - London - public building, $400,000.


Mr. McCURDY:: Besides this vote in these Supplementary Estimates there were in the Main Estimates a number of large appropriations for public buildings in other places, involving large amounts of money. This matter of public buildings is one which concerns a great many constituteneies, and I dare say the position of many members is similar to my own. My constituents are constantly putting forward representations that the public business requires larger buildings and better accommodation generally. At the request of the Ministers of the Crown I have pointed out to them that this is not a time for spending money on public buildings if the expenditure can possibly be deferred. Nevertheless, I see in the Estimates votes for a number of public buildings in different parts of the country, and unless there is some special reason why these appropriations should be voted I wish to protest on behalf of other members as well as myself who have been advising their constituents that money for these purposes was not available, and that they should wait until normal times return before asking the Government to go ahead with large expenditures. Perhaps the minister can tell us whether there1 are any special reasons why votes of this magnitude should now be brought down unexpectedly. I must confess I find it very difficult indeed, to reconcile these expenditures with the explanation I have given to my constituents. I cannot see why London, Ontario, which is getting a public building costing $400,000, should be placed, on a different footing from Truro, Nova Scotia.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish I had time to discuss this matter a little more fully. There is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman states, but he will remember that in the early days of this session I stated what the policy of the Government was to be regarding public buildings, and in the Main Estimates provision was made only for a public building at Montreal-a vote of $500,000, which, of course, will not complete the building-one in Toronto, one in

Hamilton, and one in Calgary. I think those are all the new public buildings provided for in the Main Estimates. I know that my hon. friend feels he is entitled to a public building in Truro. I know a vote was put in the Estimates a few years ago for a public building there, and a site was purchased. I know where it is, because I am well acquainted with the town of Truro, and I am not saving that a public building there is not a necessity.
What is true of Truro would be true of a hundred other towns in Canada. I believe we had applications for at least a hundred public buildings and in very many of these places some twenty-five sites have been purchased. There were so many that it became a question of policy. I am always willing to take a full share, of responsibility, but personally I was opposed to going on with these public buildings except where they were absolutely necessary and would provide employment, which is an important considerar tion at 'the present time. This matter was not decided by the Public Works Departr ment, although I state frankly what my position was. It was decided by Council as a whole and whatever has been done, my friends can be assured, is a well settled question of policy decided by the Government. In trying to carry out that policy I had to depart from it only in two cases, where I felt it was necessary. The city of London has a building that is very antiquated, entirely inadequate for the services, and we are paying a large amount in rentals. I went there personally and looked it over and was thoroughly satisfied that they are very much hampered. As a matter of policy, therefore, we are asking Parliament to vote $400,000 in connection with this building. The other case is in Kamloops, where they have an old wooden post office that has been there for a great many years. The town has grown away from it, and I came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that a building was a necessity. We are putting in the Estimates only $20,000 for Kamloops, which will put us in a position 'to make a .start. I am fairly positive that those are the only two instances in which the principle has been departed from in the Supplementary Estimates You will see a number of cases of repairs and extensions. There are some repairs to the Brandon public building, Portage la Prairie public building, and one or two places in Ontario, I have forgotten where.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They have been in the Main Estimates for the last three or four years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If so we shall certainly go ahead. We are going ahead with everything in the Main Estimates as rapidly as we can. There is no branch of the Public Works Department that has been so much rushed for the last two years as the architectural branch. This has been so especially during the last year, for we have had the duty of constructing military hospitals, military buildings, etc. Everything is being rushed as speedily as possible, and the hon. gentleman can rest assured that in connection with any buildings for which votes have been granted the work will be proceeded. with at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. MoCURDY: I must congratulate the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) on his success. The business for which the building at Truro to which I alluded is to be used is important. The Department of Public Works recognized years ago that it was necessary, and acquired a site at a time when the revenues received at that office were less than half of what they are to-day.
I make the plea for that building that in my opinion it is not reasonable or fair that the smaller centres of population should be neglected while larger expenditures are made in connection with buildings in large cities.


Mr. GLASS:: The minister well said in reference to accommodations in London that the building in existence: there to-day is a very old one. It was built some sixty-four years ago and has served its purpose well. The idea of putting up a public building to meet the requirements of that section today is not something that has. sprung up at this session. It was conceded as a necessity by the Government many years ago, and in 1912 the Government purchased a property adjoining the post office there at a cost of $145,000. That is an ancient building, built about the same time as the post office. The revenue and business in the London office is entirely out of proportion to a population of 60,000. London is the hub and centre of a population of considerably more than a million people, and London and that district has completely outgrown this building. At present the different departments, customs and post office, have to be housed entirely outside the building. London is also now the centre of the taxation department of the Government for that district and it requires a considerable staff, and the pressure to have this building is not only from the member interested,, but from the departments of the Government, to provide adecpicite accoimno-

dation for their needs. The Chief Superintendent of Post Offices for Canada told me that for twenty-five years past the accommodations for postal requirements in London have been worse, in proportion to needs, than in any other city in the Dominion. It is important in the interests of the service, I think, that the building should be proceeded with.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to impress upon the Minister of Public Works the urgent necessity of proceeding with needed public buildings in the Maritime Provinces. I do so, however, not by criticising the Minister of Public Works, who has endeavoured to convey the idea to us that his hand's are tied by the Government in regard to the expenditures for this purpose.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope my hon. friend will pardon me, but I did not intend to convey any such idea to the Committee. On the contrary I stated that I entirely agreed with the policy which has been adopted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then the minister's hands are tied willingly, and that is the reason why there are such few places that are to get public buildings during the present year. If the Government had followed that policy in other matters, I would not be so critical about it, but in a very great many cases the floodt'gates of extravagance have been opened wide and money has been poured out throughout this country for purposes that will not come within nearly measurable distances' of being .so useful, or being so. greatly in the interests of the people, as will the erection of public buildings. My hon. friend (Mr. Glass) stated that the post office in London had1 ,been built for sixty-four years. In my town the post office is 164 years old, judging by the looks of it.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It can be preserved as an antique.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It can be preserved as an antique; nevertheless the town is just as much entitled to a decent post office where our people can get their mail matter under comfortable circumstances, as is the city of Montreal. The necessity that exists for proper accommodation is just as urgent in Saokville as it is in any oither city. The same thing can he said in regard to giving employment to returned soldiers. The argument is advanced that only in the large cities does the necessity exist for providing returned soldiers with employment. The need is just as great to give work to 
these men in the smaller towns as it is in the larger cities. In the town of Sackville, where I reside, the post office is of such diminutive character that not one-tenth of those who go for their mail of a winter's evening can get inside the building; they have to wait in uncomfortable surroundings. Now the Government can find as large a sum as $250,000 to increase the salaries of the judges of the Dominion, make them comfortable and, as was said by the hon. gentleman who was fathering the Bill the other night, provide them with the necessaries of life. Again the Government finds it easy to appropriate $1,000 a year to augment the salary of each of a number of highly paid officials throughout the Civil Service. Yet the people of the Maritime Provinces cannot be decently served with postal facilities or with proper accommodation when they go for their mails. I put myself on record as being absolutely opposed to such a system as that. If economies in the public expenditures are to be made, let them apply equally in all sections of the country, and let us all undergo the sacrifices which are necessary to an equal extent. A great deal has been said in this House about this being a war year and that consequently we must keep our expenditures down to a very low figure. But why practice economy in a few instances in certain sections of Canada and then resort to such extravagance in other parts as the Government has done during the past year? I take my stand along with my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. McCurdy) and protest against such a policy on the part of the Government. The Maritime Provinces have never been given decent or reasonable treatment in this, or other matters, by the present or past governments. They have not been properly treated, and the time has come when, unless the representatives of the provinces in this Parliament assert their rights, and make a claim for what is due, we shall have no chance of maintaining our public buildings as they have been maintained in the other towns and cities throughout the Dominion. The same criticism must be made in respect to railway accommodation in the Maritime Provinces. During the past year or two the Intercolonial has been starved toy the Minister of Railways. Rolling stock has been taken from that system and placed on other railways, and yet when we ask for needed expenditures we are told this is a war year and nothing can be done. The Government is expending millions of dollars else-

where, and then we are told we cannot even have a small public building. They have provided proper facilities in Montreal, in Toronto, in Winnipeg, and elsewhere in the West-in fact, they have been generous everywhere else except in the Maritime Provinces. I want to declare myself as being absolutely opposed to any such policy as that. If sacrifices are to be made and economies are to be practised, let them apply everywhere to the country generally, to one part as well as to another. No good reason has been given to this Committee why certain portions of the Dominion have to be starved in the matter of public expenditures, while other parts of the country are "fed up" and public moneys expended so lavishly as they have been durin-g the past year by the Government.
Harbours and Rivers, Nova Scotia, $302,37'0.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Are these estimates
the same in amount as last year?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, they are very much altered. I should perhaps state there is an item of $20,000 which must be expended on the breakwater at Margaree or that structure will cease to exist. I sent an engineer to look it over and to make me a special report, and the information I got was that unless $10,000 was spent at once and at least $20,000 altogether, the whole breakwater .would go. The next item of importance is $50,000 for Glace Bay, which is one of the largest towns in Nova Scotia. It is a large coal-mining town and the title to the harbour has been, I think, in the Dominion Coal Company. Nothing in the way of improvements has ever been done, no accommodation whatever has been provided, and I have come to the conclusion from a personal investigation that this is a work that ought to be undertaken. This vote of $50,000 will dredge out the harbour and fix up the wharf, and put the port at least in a position where it will be able to carry on the' business it ought to carry on.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: In whom did the minister say the title was?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In the Dominion Coal Company. They are transferring the title to the Government. We would not spend any money until that was done.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Why not leave the title with the company and let them do the work?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will not do it, that is the whole trouble. They have had it
practically for all time and the work has not been done, and navigation is not possible until it is done. They are perfectly willing to give over the title without charge, and then we will be in a position to do the work.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Is there any other
navigation outside of that resulting from the operations of the Dominion Coal Company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No other navigation is
possible in Glace Bay as I understand it, except through this harbour which is owned by the Dominion Coal Company.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Is there any other
shipping besides that of the company?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Glace Bay is a large
town and there is shipping with Prince Edward Island.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The town is connected with Louisburg by a line of railway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know there is a railway, but I am talking about shipping.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is no shipping.


Samuel William Jacobs: If there is no shipping,
why spend money on the harbour?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is a railway line
running to Louisburg but Glace Bay is a seaport.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend does not realize that Glace Bay 'has a population of 17,000 people. They do not produce the foodstuffs which they require, it is not an agricultural country, and practically everything they consume has to be brought in from Prince Edward Island and elsewhere.
There is no doubt in the world that there will be a big shipping trade if they have the accommodation, and I think it is the duty of the Government to provide it. The other item of $100,000 is for a wharf at Sydney. There again a city of twenty-five or thirty thousand people is without a public wharf. The Dominion Coal Company have their own private wharf, but there is no possible opportunity of ships making their way there. This wharf really ought to be built by the railway, because it is practically the terminus of the Government railway.

Prince Edward Island-North lake-Boat Harbour, $27,00'0.


Mr.   M@: I wish to thank the minister for bringing down this appropriation, which I have asked for many times. It is most important for the people it is intended to serve, and that is the reason I have been so persevering in asking for it. We are Assured on the highest authority that if you ask you shall receive.
Public Works

Chargeable to Income-Dredging-Dredging Maritime Provinces-Further amount required, $X0'0', O'O'O.
Dredging-Ontario and Quebec - Further amount required, $10l0,0'00.


Thomas Vien: Is there in that any sum for dredging the St. Charles river in Quebec?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the minister please tell us where that dredging is to be?


Mr OARVELL:: That is general dredging for the Maritime Provinces and for Ontario and Quebec. It is for the purpose of operating the Government dredges, which are sent round to wherever it is thought they can do the most good.


Thomas Vien: Do the Government intend to dig that north .channel and open it to navigation?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the ship channel. Dredging in the St. Lawrence river is done entirely by the Marine and Fisheries Department; therefore I am not able to answer the question.
Railways-Canadian Government Railways- Construction and betterments, $11,121,6*81.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: We should have a general explanation of this.


John Dowsley Reid: These are the details:
Lines east of Quebec.. .. $6,004,01618 Transcontinental west of
Quebec	  993,280
Halifax terminals	 1,600,000
Branch lines in New
Brunswick	 600,000
Mechanical department..	524,333
General appropriations-*
Construction and betterments	 1,500,000


Mr.   McM ASTER@: These estimates have been before the House for many weeks, Mr. Chairman, and we really should have had them brought forward at a time when earnest and careful consideration could be given to them. It gives a bad impression in the country to have Parliament, in the last hours of the session, attempt to deal with these stupendous sums.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member, but I have had the Estimates before the House three times already. I think a whole day was spent in discussing one item, the Welland canal.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It would bear that.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that; and we have had two other days. If so much time is taken up on one item, then we cannot give proper discussion to the other items at this late hour of the session. When I brought up the Estimates before, it will be seen from Hansard that I urged taking up the railway Estimates first, but I was told I had better wait until a later date, as some members were not here.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think I should ask the minister for some information in respect to conditions in my own county with respect to the Inverness railway. He is aware that I have been discussing this matter with him and the Government for sometime past, and that I showed the Government we are in a pretty serious difficulty down there with respect to the only railway we have-the Inverness railway. The minister is no doubt aware that tha,t railway is to be closed down soon, and that the Inverness coal mine is also to cease operating about the 10th of this month. I have endeavoured for some time past to impress upon the Government the importance of taking over this road as a branch to the Government roads. I think it is clear to the minister and to the Committee that branch lines, as such, have not been successful as business enterprises, particularly in our part of the country. This branch line, I think, has merits perhaps superior to those of any branch line in Eastern Canada, as was shown the Government from time to time, particularly for the past six months. But it has had a very unfortunate history. I am not going to discuss the merits of this road from the standpoint of prospective earnings. I have already placed in the hands of the minister and the Government all the facts in connection with it. I have advised him that the natural resources of West Cape Breton island are superior in variety and value to those of any other section in the Maritime Provinces, or possibly in the Dominion, according to its size. If this road closes down the only coal industry we have will of necessity close down also, and general paralysis of our industrial life will follow. If the Government takes over the road as a branch of the Intercolonial, I can tell the

Committee it will prove to be the best earning line of its length in Canada, as I have already shown the Government on more than one occasion.
I will not at this time undertake to give the House a full account of the resources of the country served by this line. It would require more time than can be spared at this late hour, in view of the fact that I have already put all this information in the hands of the Government. What are the views of the minister with regard to the taking over of this line and its operation as a branch of the Intercolonial? The matter is all-important to us.


John Dowsley Reid: I made up my mind a year or two ago that we should take over the branch lines in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and get rid of all the troubles the people were having because of these lines not ''being properly operated. Last year we were able to make arrangements with several of the railways in New Brunswick, although two of them would not accept the offer that we made and, consequently, have not yet been taken over. We have been urged to take over two or three in Nova Scotia, one of them in Richmond county and one in Inverness. I have tried to avoid doing anything at the present time, but I am informed that the Inverness road will be closed down if something is not done.
I have been prepared, therefore, to recommend that we take over that road on the same basis as that upon which the roads in Nova Scotia have been taken over. They value the road at $150,000, the equipment, including 7 engines, and 131 coal cars, at $175,000, and supplies at $25,000; and they offered to sell the road, equipment, and supplies at those figures. I replied that I would submit the matter to Council on the basis *of paying $150,000 for the road and, for the equipment and such supplies as should be taken over, a sum to be determined upon a valuation made by Mr. Hanna. If it were not so late in the session, in the event of a decision to take the road over, we could have placed an amount in the Estimates for that purpose and explained'the matter more fully to Parliament. The only way in which we can act before the 10th of this month is under the Branch Lines Act, and if this should be done the agreement would be laid before the House at the next session. I am glad the hon. member has brought the matter up, because I would not want the House to think that an arrangement of this kind had been made with this or any other railroad only a day or
two after the prorogation of Parliament. I shall, therefore, submit the matter to Council, and if Council agrees, to the proposal on approximately the basis that has been suggested, it is altogether likely that the road will be taken over by the Government and will therefore not cease operation. In the meantime, in order that the road may not close down during the first ten days of July, I understand, orders have been given for 1,800 tons of coal a week for that road in order to keep it in operation.
iMr. CHISHOLM: I thank the minister for his explanation.


Mr VIEN:: I suggest that when the minister brings his Estimates down at the nekt session he make them a little more detailed. We have here an item of $11,000,000 for com struction and betterments, Canadian Government Railways; surely the amounts involved could be given in more detail.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, I have the details right here.


Thomas Vien: I suggest that 'they should be put in the Estimates.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the minister given consideration, and if so, what conclusion has been arrived at, to the matters brought to the attention of the President of the Canadian National Railways a few days ago by a delegation from the Maritime Provinces? The matters were with reference to rates, and to having the Intercolonial operated as a separate unit in the Government railway system, the central office being located at Moncton, and no more officials being taken away from Moncton.


John Dowsley Reid: There is an appeal before Council now as to the Order in Council with reference to freight rates; that will be heard on the 19th of this month and a decision will be arrived a't. As to the general matter of rates, we feel that the Board of Railway Commissioners will take into consideration the situation as it existed prior to the Intercolonial becoming part of the Canadian National Railway system. However, an appeal to the Governor in Council brings the matter before the Government again and in that way it can be straightened out. With reference to the other question, I cannot see how we can keep the Intercolonial separate; it should be part and parcel of the whole system, and in that way it will make a better showing.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is it part of the whole system now?

. Mr. J. D. REID: It is part of the whole system, but the cost of operation is kept separate. The accounts are kept separate in all these branch lines, so that at any time there will be no difficulty in showing the House the cost of operation, receipts and so forth.
i Mr. CIOPP:	Have any men been re- moved from Moncton?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand from the general manager that there is no intention of removing any more men. A few must necessarily have been removed. The men that have been removed, the heads, are practically in the same position as before, as regards operation of the road. For instance, Mr. Hayes, who was general manager on the Intercolonial, is still in the same position, but is general traffic manager for the whole system. Mr. Brady, who was general manager for the Intercolonial, has now charge from Fort William eastward. Mr. Hamilton still has his old position, but his charge has been extended. iMr. Melanson, who was general passenger agent of the Intercolonial, is still general passenger agent, but for the whole system from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This is promotion for a number of these men, and I quite understand the necessity for their removal from Moncton, but they must have assistants therp. I do not think on the whole there have been very many removals.
i :Mr. COPP:	We have had that assurance on several occasions, hut men are still tbeing removed from day to day. A few months ago a large number of the officials had. their desks crated up ready to be shipped away, and they were stopped for the time being. The people of the Maritime Provinces would like to have the assurance that the railway officials in the city of Moncton, as the central point of management of the Intercolonial railway, will not be interfered with any further. It is no particular advantage to us that *these men have had their sphere of operation extended. I have no fault to find with these gentlemen for their management of the Intercolonial railway. That is not the point now. But the Intercolonial railway has always had a general manager located *at Moncton where the people of the Maritime Provinces could more easily consult 'with him than they can at tthe city of Montreal. We have a man at Moncton known as a general superintendent. I am not in a position to speak positively, and I do not want to say anything I do not

certainly know, but I want to say that Mr. Brown has no authority at all to deal with any important question regarding the Intercolonial, and it has to be referred to Mr. Brady, from Mr. Brady to Mr. Hanna and finally back to Mr. Brown. The consequence is .a very lengthy delay, and by the time the matter is put through, the file of papers is very large. I do not care whether it is Mr. Brady or Mr. Brown, or Mr. Hanna, or who it is, but we should have at Moncton some man with some authority to conduct and control and manage that portion of the Intercolonial railway running between Montreal and Halifax. -2 a.m. No good argument has been offered to me yet by the president of the National Railways or the Minister of Railways or the traffic manager or any one else why that should not be. The rates on the Intercolonial railway are practically prohibitive, and I do not believe many of the rates charged are according to the tariff schedule. I have in mind one case particularly that came to my notice the other day, of a farmer who bought two little cattle, a little over a year old, practically calves, and they were transported over the Canadian National Railways in Nova Scotia, 130 miles, and the freight cost $54-


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Shame.


Arthur Bliss Copp: -or $27 a head. That information I got from a reliable source. I am not stating it on my own information.
It was sent to me in a private letter, and I also saw the statement in a newspaper.
If those are the rates on the Intercolonial railway that are necessary in order to pay the salaries, it is absolutely impossible for the farmers or anybody else to use the Intercolonial railway or the Canadian National railways. Is that the tariff schedule?	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: I should like to know how men are hired on the Canadian National railways. A great deal has been said in this House about the elimination of patronage, and I want to know if such is the

case. If it be so, then it is high time that the officials who are hiring men on that portion of the National railways should he notified to that effect, so that when an ordinary day labourer working on a bridge goes down to get a job, he shall not be sent back to the patronage manager to get a recommendation.


John Dowsley Reid: I should think the hon. member must know that there is no interference in any way, shape or form by the Department of Railways or by the Government. The management are operating the railways free from any interference by any member of the Government and I believe, from any member of Parliament. The only thing that I	said	to _ Mr. .Hanna was this, that the policy of the Government	was	to give
returned soldiers positions first; that they must have the preference whenever any man was required, and after that, of course, the management would have to select employees from those available. I have had no complaints in regard to the matter, and I should like to know it, if it can be shown that any political patronage is being exercised. Officials may be doing it of their own accord, but it has not been brought to my attention.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend has been telling me ever since I became a member of the House that there was not patronage on the Intercolonial. I have told him differently, but of course he is not obliged to take my word. More than that I have placed affidavits on Hansard showing that there was patronage on the Intercolonial. Even if the minister doubted my word he should give some consideration to sworn affidavits. We have also heard a great deal about what the Government is doing for the returned soldiers, how they are to be given preference in appointments to the Government service. I yield to no one in my admiration for the returned soldier, and I think it is only right that returned soldiers should be given the preference where they are capable of filling the position. But I have heard very often that as a matter of fact the returned soldiers are not given the preference in different departments of the public service. I have heard, for instance, that they have not been given the preference on the Canadian National Railways. Complaints have been made to me that returned soldiers who have applied for vacant positions on the Canadian National Railways have been turned down. I have some definite information on this point. Recently
I received a letter from one authorized to speak for the returned soldiers, I would think, to the effect that they are not getting the consideration they deserve and which the Government promised. I have a letter heTe from the Employment and Service Branch of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment, Moncton, which reads as follows:
Embodied in this letter you will find a few plain facts of what the returned soldier is UP against in this city and in the eastern .provinces.
In the first place if he goes to the C.N.R. General Offices to apply for a position he is given to understand by the Chief Clerk or some petty official that it is an impossibility for him to see Mr. L. S. Brown, and if! by chance he happens to see Mr. Brown, this gentleman informs him that he is willing to put him to work, but that there are no vacancies, at the present time, and he will have to wait his turn.
All during the war the Government was held up for men in the mechanical departments in the shops, so that they took on any one who applied to them, wn0 was not eligible tor soldiering. In several oases they were men from the United States who came under the Military 'Service Act in their own oountry but by coming to Canada they did not come under the Canadian Act. They went to work in the Government works and are still holding their positions.
These facts are very well founded, and I would like to have them taken up at the next session of the House to see if steps cannot be taken to break down the barrier on the Government works here, and make vacancies for returned men hy dismissing war workers.
This is not the opinion of a dissatisfied soldier. This is voiced hy every returned man in the district, and seems to be the talk of the town, and is taken up at all public meetings.
The letter is signed by the representative of the D.S.C.R., Moncton. Apparently he is a returned soldier employed by the Government to assist other returned soldiers in getting work. I do not want to make his name public, but I shall be very glad to give it to the minister so that he may make inquiries. I would imagine that this man is in charge of an employment bureau in the city of Moncton for returned soldiers. And what does he say? That when a soldier goes to see the officials of the railway these high-salaried gentlemen will not see him. Some petty official is placed outside the door who tells him it is impossible for him to get an interview. Is that the way the soldiers were used when they were called upon to enlist? Is that the way they were treated when the Conscription Act came into force? It is certainly not the way they were told they would be used when they went overseas; it is certainly not the way they were told they would be used when they got back home to Canada. I repeat, this information comes from

a soldier employed by one of the departments of the Government to assist the returned soldiers. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: " No wonder there is great unrest in this country; why, even the returned soldiers are joining in the unrest." The reason is because the returned soldiers are being given words and not deeds. The Government say they shall be given the preference in appointments, but the Government's word in that regard has become a by-word throughout the country. I say that an investigation should be held to find out whether the facts are as stated by this soldier.
'Mr. J. D. REID: I shall certainly be very glad to look into the case if my hon. friend will give me the particulars and the name of the soldier. One difficulty in employing returned soldiers on the Government railways is that the unions insist upon the principle of promotion being observed.


Mr OOPP:: How about the men that were taken on from the United States who came to this country to escape being taken under the Military Service Act of the United States? That is what this writer says.


John Dowsley Reid: I take it that the facts are as stated by the hon. member, and I shall be very glad to look into the matter. Personally, I feel I have done my part, and I believe that every other member of the Government has done his best to see that the returned soldiers are properly looked after. Isolated instances will occur-


Arthur Bliss Copp: This writer says that it is general.	*	/


John Dowsley Reid: Sometimes a man may say it is general and on investigation it does not turn out to be so. When a case of this kind occurs it should certainly be brought to the attention of the Government, and it will always be looked into with a view to remedying any grievance. I believe that every man on the Canadian National Railways from the president down is anxious to do everything he can for the men who have been to the front


Frank S. Cahill: I think it is time the committee rose. It is customary, so the Minister of Railways tells us, for him to make a general statement of railway conditions in this country when bringing down his Estimates. There are one or two questions I should like to ask in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific, for instance, and other matters, but I do not want to take up the time of the committee to-night. I think we

would make as much progress in one hour to-morrow as we would make in four tonight.


John Dowsley Reid: We have two Bills on the Order Paper which will probably take a great part of to-morrow. We have the Franchise Bill and a Bill which Sir Thomas White has introduced with reference to, paper. Of course, I am not objecting to adjourning now but we should like to close Up the business to-morrow night, because if .we go into next week, we may be here for two or three days. I think perhaps we could get pretty well advanced with the Estimates now so that we could take up 'the two Bills between eleven and one tomorrow. I understand there will not be much discussion on the- Franchise Bill, and if it is at all possible we should like to prorogue to-morrow night.


John Ewen Sinclair: What portion of this-.vote will be spent on the (Prince Edward Island railway?


John Dowsley Reid: New 85-pound rails, $1,900; Wellington siding extension, $390; North Wiltshire business siding, $1,600; Frederickton, two sidings, $1,200; Mount Stewart siding, $2,700; third! rail Borderi-Charlottetown-Summerside, $200,000. The intention is to complete that road between Charlottetown and Summerside and have it -in operation so that w-e can run -either the narrow or the double gauge.


John Ewen Sinclair: When does the minister expect the work of standardization of the Prince Edward Island railway to be completed?
Mr. J. D. ,REID: The officials tell me, in three or four weeks' time if we get the men. At all events, within the next oouple of months we expect that the Charlotte-town-Summerside route will be standardized and -the work practically completed.


John Ewen Sinclair: In regard to the development of facilities connecting Prince Edrward Island with the mainland the boat that is working there at the present time is the only one now available. That boat is *the car ferry "Prince Edward'' and it is not capable- of carrying all kind-s of freight Owing to the danger that is entailed in connection -with some freights such as gasolene in carlots or ten carlots. The railway management do not wish to take the risk of carrying these cars in bulk and it inconveniences the trade considerably to have them reduce -this freight into barrels on the mainland and- 're-ship on landing on the Island, putting the freight into the narrow gaug-e cars. The minister, I think

from what I have stated, will appreciate the necessity for providing a second boat for that route. There is a danger in winter in keeping up communication owing to the ice conditions, for you do not know at what moment the boat will be injured. This is Tather an unsatisfactory condition of affairs, and I trust the minister will 'not fail to realize the importance of having this second boat placed on the route. The whole service now depends on a single boat, and I earnestly urge on the minister and his department a serious consideration of this matter. I trust he will favourably view the proposal to put a second boat on the service.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member no doubt knows that there is a steamer called the Scotia that ran from Mulgrave. That boat is being fitted up now to take cars aboard, and we will have her as a separate steamer, which we can use for the purpose which the hon. member has in mind. If we used the car ferry for any purpose that might entail a risk, something might happen and you would not have any car ferry.


John Ewen Sinclair: Is the Scotia being fitted up to suit the docks at Cape Tormen-tine and Borden?


John Dowsley Reid: She is being fitted up so that she can run at both places. We are having one end of her fitted up to use for cars between Borden and Cape Tor-mentine, so that when the Prince Edward goes away in the summer for repairs we can use the Scotia.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: I would ask the minister to adjourn now.


Mr. CURRIE:: I have been a member of this House for some time, and have been in the Opposition, and it has always been the practice to let the items all go through except one, and have any discussion on that item afterwards, with the understanding that other matters can be brought up.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: It is nearly half-past two in the morning now, and we have to re-assemble at eleven. We have done pretty well, I think.


John Archibald Maharg: I am just as anxious as hon. members to adjourn, but I am more anxious to see the House prorogue. Members who have had an opportunity only once or twice to go; to their homes are anxious to get away, and the lieutenants on the other side can keep matters going in the morning.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to pass all these items, except one, on which a general discussion can be had.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: That will be all right.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I have some observations to make on the Hudson Bay railway.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman
can discuss the matter on item 96, which is a vote of $35,000,000 for miscellaneous railway equipment. That is the object in having that item stand.


John Archibald Campbell: Will the item be taken up in the morning?


John Dowsley Reid: There are two Bills to be dealt with and then we will go on to Estimates.


John Archibald Campbell: The trouble is that we never know when the Estimates come up.


John Dowsley Reid: Generally notice is
given the night before of the programme for the following day.


John Archibald Campbell: I did not understand
there was any possibility of the Railway Estimates coming up to-night, but some of us stayed around and that is how we come to be present now.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not expect the
Railway Estimates would be taken up until a short time ago.


Georges Henri Boivin: Then item No. 96
stands.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and any matter
affecting our railways can be discussed in connection with it.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 2.30 a.m., Saturday.
Saturday, July 5, 1919.