1923-05-08

COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 7, the debate on the motion of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 54, to provide for the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers.
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, in proceeding further with the discussion of Bill No. 54, I would like to refer briefly to what would appear to be a studied campaign which has been carried on in various parts of Canada during the past few weeks to discredit the provisions of the bill. Almost invariably hon. members who have discussed this measure from the opposition benches have, in respect to claims and contentions made, found refuge in that campaign of, I think, entire, but I hope not deliberate, misrepresentation. I want to refer to some of the statements that have been made in that connection. Here is one coming 
from the jurisdiction of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) which says:
The Criminal Code of Canada, in one of its sections, has penalties which fit the crimes, known as trusts, mergers and combines, whenever these are in restraint of trade, and does it in a much simpler way than the Premier's bill, as well as providing heavy penalties. It should be sufficient for the purposes without the enactment of legislation that will handicap trade and make burdensome interference with the conduct of private business. The great objection to his bill is that it is wholly inquisitorial, and that "any person resident in Canada of the full age of twenty-one who is of opinion that a combine exists, or is being formed," may start an investigation which, on mere suspicion will subject business men to no end of trouble and expense.
There is a wholesome truth in the old saying that a half truth is worse than a falsehood. Then, we come to another one from the jurisdiction of my hon. friend for London (Mr. White), which says:
One curious clause makes it illegal to fix a resale price.
It is not true, but it gets over in an editorial just the same.
In other words, a manufacturing firm which does a national business and advertises from end to end of Canada its products at one price could not fix this price.
Nothing in the bill suggests the accuracy of that statement, unless it could be conclusively shown that the fixing of that price was a detriment to the public, to the consumer, to the producer. Then, this same article pays me a compliment by saying:
That bold trust-buster, Hon. James Murdock, the Minister of Labour, has machinery he needs now if he will only make use of it.
An absolutely unqualified misstatement of fact, as every hon. member familiar with the legislation which has for some time been on our statute books, knows. Yet that kind of bunk gets over from the Opposition press, and, may I say without disrespect, is parroted by hon. gentlemen from the Opposition benches.
Then, we have another one. Listen to this: It comes from not very far distant:
The process, too, is simple, the laying of an information before a competent magistrate puts the accused on their defence, creates the opportunity for bringing out the facts, and if there has been guilt, provides adequate punishment. The government bill is' of a type that appeals to those who confound fuss with efficiency and noise with progress.
That listens very nicely, to the uninitiated, but it does not fool any hon. member or any other citizen of Canada? Who ever dreamed for a moment of the feasibility of his approaching some magistrate and suggesting that there was a combine detrimental to him or to other consumers or producers, and then

Combines-Mr. Murdock
getting proper redress at the hands of the court? All hon. gentlemen know how far he would get. One thing these editorials and various others that might be quoted overlook is the fact that the provisions of the criminal code dealing with combines have been useless since the days when my right hon. friend and his colleagues took good care to make the Combines Investigation Act moribund and of no effect. It has been impossible, therefore, to use the provisions of the criminal code, section 498, in dealing with the most dreaded or contemptible combine that might exist in Canada.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would the minister care to state from which papers those editorials were taken?


James Murdock: British Columbian, New Westminster, B.C., London Free Fress and the Montreal Gazette.


Mr. CARROLL:: What are their politics?


James Murdock: If my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) will pardon two or three additional references to the statements which he made in his speech on this subject I should like to deal first with this. The hon. gentleman said:
Now I turn to what is my chief criticism of the bill, that in effect it declares to be a crime that which is, without question ordinary, sound business sense.
With my hon. friend I agree and am ready to assume that condition prevails so far as the great majority of combinations existent in Canada to-day are concerned, and I am ready to charitably assume that many of those combinations are not combines carrying on their operations to the detriment of the public whether consumeis or producers, but I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that Professor Alfred Marshall, the leading economist in the world, stated in Principles of Economics at page 447:
But perhaps the public show too much indulgence to those who argue that a trade combination or a trust is the only means available for securing reasonable steadiness of prices.
Then my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre went on to argue at considerable length as to what might happen to certain dairy industries, and I want to remind him of some of his previous views in that regard. The exact statement of the hon. gentleman was:
It was shown beyond all peradventure that the Ottawa Dairy, while a distinct monopoly under this clause, did operate in the interest of the public.
Let us read the record to see what was the trend of the hon. gentleman's mind when
that particular inquiry was being made. At page 304 of the examination of Alderman W. Guertin, before the Special Committee on the High Cost of Living, I find this:
By Mr. Devlin.
Q. Do you know anything about the Producers' Milk Company?-A. Yes, they endeavoured to lower the price of milk in Ottawa.
Q. When did they go into business?-A. About 7 or 8 months ago.
Q. This spring?-A. Not this spring, 7 or 8 months ago. That would be last year.
Q. Had the fact of their going into business and putting teams in the streets delivering milk the effect of reducing the price?-A. We found that the fact of their going into competition was reducing the cost of milk. The manager was telling me that they were going-
Q. We will not mind hearsay evidence, but from your own personal examination by how many cents was there a drop in milk?-A. There was a drop, through competition of two cents-three cents I should say because the Ottawa Dairy started by lowering to 11 cent3, then the Producers retaliated by lowering to 10 cents, then it was lowered to 10 cents.
Q. What is it now?-A. 10 cents.
Mr. Stevens: You are a mighty lucky city. It is fifteen or sixteen cents elsewhere.
Which would almost convey to the uninitiated or casual reader that there was an expression of regret in the hon. gentleman s language that the traffic was not being made to carry all that it would bear.
I desire now to make some further references to the speech of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. One of his statements was:
Everything is here which is going to pile harass-ments, vexation and expense on legitimate business: that is all in the measure,-investigation after investigation, circle after circle, but never any goal.
That was the summing up of the right hon. gentleman in regard to this particular measure. Then he goes further and reviews anti-combine legislation, and states that in 1888 parliament first sought to enact anti-combine legislation and apppointed a committee to work out some effective measure. I assume that that is justification for believing that the right hon. gentleman conceives that there has been as far back as 1888 the necessity for dealing with combines detrimental to the public interest. I happen to have in my hand a copy of the budget speech of 1878, and I find printed as an appendix to that budget speech some illuminating evidence as to conditions in those years gone by, indicating that there was even at that time marked necessity on this North American continent to deal with combines detrimental to the public interest. This appendix refers to an extract from the message delivered by the Governor of the state of New York to the legislature of that state at Albany in 1878. I read a portion cf it to show just what it is
Combines-Mr. Murdock

the public has been complaining of, and what it is believed this particular Bill No. 54, will to a very substantial extent protect the public from. After noting one of the causes of the currency inflation in the States the governor went on to say:
At the same time, another great evil was strongly developed; individuals and corporations engaged in various branches of manufacture, taking advantage of the necessities of the government, rushed to congress, and by every means in their power procured for their own benefit the levy of what we call protective duties under the false pretence of raising revenue for the government, but really to compel consumers to pay exorbitant prices for the favoured article thus protected.
So that was regarded in 1878 as being the underlying cause of certain combinations detrimental to the public interest. Then my right hon. friend inquires, in a manner such as no other member of the House could inquire What is this sacred sanctimonious principle?" and he was very properly advised by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) that what is proposed is a square deal to everyone in this country. I am willing, however, to let my hon. friend (Mr. Healy) take the responsibility of answering that question of the leader of the Opposition, but I shall quote the right hon. gentleman's own words before he became a right honourable. We find that on July 4, 1919, the Combines and Fair Prices Act was before this parliament. Let me quote from Hansard what happened on that occasion:
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 Commodities, was read the second time, and the House went into eommittee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the chair.
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?
< ^ my hon. friends to follow me closely in this quotation to ascertain where some things came from.
Mr. 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.
TMr. Murdock.]
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 combinations for the purpose of working together towards increasing export trade The greater our export trade the better to 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.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that is fairly good Liberal doctrine and is sufficient to justify the proposal to incorporate practically the same definitions of a combine detrimental to the public interest as are found in the proposed bill No. 54, now before the House. My right hon. friend also states as his opinion, that the Privy Council's judgment really does not assail or impugn part one of the Combines and Fair Prices Act which is now on the statutes books of Canada. In that statement I>
as f layman, concur and I think my friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) would also concur. But I want to make some inquiries. If that is so why has it been possible for the people of Canada to be denied the protection accorded by part one of the Combines and Fair Prices Act during all of the later months of the late government's regime? Why was not something done to continue the protection or to appoint some tribunal that would take care of the combines detrimental to the public interest that might exist? We find my right hon. friend on June 29, 1920. twelve days before he had reached the goal of his very commendable ambition to become the Prime Minister of Canada, making this statement in regard to the Board of Commerce :
Why in the first place, there is a law conferring certain powers and imposing certain duties on a board, a law written and planted on the statute books, known to the board when they took office, a law with the operation of which nobody can interefere, a law which they have the courts of the land at their disposal to enforce.
Mv right hon. friend, of course, did not intend to make a statement that was incorrect but the statement contained in the quotation which I have given is absolutely incorrect, as I propose and undertake to prove. This was the 29th of June, 1920, and no one knows better than my right hon. friend that the Board of Commerce had been a wooden gun, so far as protecting the interest of the consumers,

Combines-Mr. Murdock
the public, and others against unfair combines, for more than four months prior to that particular day. No one could know that fact any better than my right hon. friend, and yet we find him getting up in parliament and making the statement referred to. The reason for that fact is, that four months prior to that date the chairman of the Board of Commerce had resigned-to be exact on the 23rd day of February, 1920-had resigned hurriedly, and from that very moment the Board of Commerce, to the extent of protecting the public against combines detrimental to it, ceased to function under the language of the law. In other words, prosecutions could not be instituted without a chief commissioner. The law has been so framed, whether unintentionally or purposely I do not know. The latter part of subsection 2 of section 9 of the Combines Investigation Act says:
In the case of an investigation ordered the chief commissioner shall fix the time and place for such investigation, of which the secretary shall notify in writing the applicant or his authorized counsel.
And so as the weary weeks and months had gone by-four long months-without the board being permitted to do anything or get anywhere in relation to the things for which presumably it was paid, we find the right hon. gentleman on the 29th June rising in the House-as he also did last night-expressing surprise and inquiring wherein the board had been interfered with by absolute prevention on the part of certain honourable gentlemen, or by failing to place the board in a position to do things which the Combines and Fair Prices Act, in part one, provided should be done in the interests of the public. My right hon. friend, capable legal gentleman he is, should be very familiar with that fact.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I am sorry I am not. Will the minister tell us what we failed to do that the act called on us to do?


James Murdock: The right hon. gentleman failed to do anything that the act called on him to do. That is only another very delightful way which my right hon. friend has of dodging the real point.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what the issue is. The minister says they could not do anything because they were prevented, and to show that they were prevented he says that the minister would not do what he should have done in order to enable the board to act. I want him to tell me what it was. I do not know. I want him to establish what he says and show that it was our duty to do it.


James Murdock: The act, of course, as the right hon. member would try to convey, does
not provide that immediately on the chief commissionership becoming vacant, if the board is to proceed to function in the interests of the public as by law intended, a chief commissioner shall be appointed, but the language of the act was so fearfully and wonderfully prepared, either inadvertently or intentionally, that that was the net result, and that fact was called to the attention of hon. members at that time sitting on the treasury benches of paliament, not once but repeatedly.


Arthur Meighen: The failure then was to appoint a chief commissioner to succeed Judge Robson. That is what I understand. Does the minister say that, in the absence of Judge Robson, or upon his resignation, the commission as it existed then had not power to act?


James Murdock: Exactly, Mr. Speaker.


Arthur Meighen: He says what is wrong.


James Murdock: The claim that is made- and I am sure my right hon. friend is aware of this, and if not he can get unlimited legal advice to that effect-is that in a more important aspect of the intended functioning of the board, that board was powerless to proceed without a chief commissioner.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. That is not the fact. Although the minister, with all his talents, was on the board, the board was just as powerless before as after the resignation.


Mr. JACOBS:: It was a board of the right hon. member's creation.


Arthur Meighen: The minister was not.


James Murdock: There is considerable in what the right hon. member says, that the board was practically as useless before the resignation as aftewards. Again, I am not informed as to whether this was inadvertently or intentionally done.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. member not admit that it was an act of the board committed or performed after the resignation of Judge Robson, that was called in question before the courts, and that the courts in their judgment in no way even referred to the absence of the chief commissioner as affecting the validity of the act? It was just as vaild after as before. It was the hon. member that was wrong-not the act.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend is a little off in his dates and in his facts. He overlooked the fact, that the cause of the resignation was the writing of a letter which, in some way, came to be sent by other members of the staff in connection with a case that was being prepared for the courts.
Combines-Mr. Murdock


Arthur Meighen: I did not mention anything about that.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


James Murdock: In other words, it is not correct to state that it was after the resignation of the chairman that facts in connection with the appeal case were prepared and sent forward. It is true there was a completed case, and the courts were ready to go ahead and deal with the case that had been prepared for submission to them.


Arthur Meighen: The minister missed my point. Was it not an act or an order of the board issued after the resignation of Judge Robson that was brought before the courts on appeal, and did the courts not decide it without even referring to the absence or nonexistence of a chief commissioner?-showing that the board had perfect power to act after as well as before.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend is aware that there were two cases submitted, the latter case being by consent of the parties for the purpose of testing the validity of the act, for the purpose of clearing up and trying to get somewhere, and to give the government what they appeared to want, and that was the assurance that the Board of Commerce had no right to function in the interests of the public in protecting the public against combines, monopolies and mergers. That is, by every act, what appeared to be the desire of the government.


Arthur Meighen: What act?


James Murdock: Every act and omission to act.


Arthur Meighen: Name one of them. The hon member is deceiving nobody by this evasion, except perhaps himself.


James Murdock: I will call my right hon. friend s attention to certain actions of his government, indicating their particular intent in regard to certain of these matters. In addition to the presumed and intended duties of members of the Board of Commerce, in the latter part of January, or, to be exact, on the 19th day of January, 1920, the members of the board were hurriedly called to the office of the Minister of the Interior, who desired to convey to them the understanding that they were to be appointed to some additional and new duties. They were to be Paper Controllers for the Dominion of Canada, as the result of the resignation, or pending resignation, I forget which, of the then Paper Con-
troller. What were the facts in connection with this paper control? A price of $80 a ton on newsprint paper had been fixed and continued in effect as applicable to various newspaper concerns all over Canada, when at that particular time, or during a part of that time, the spot market price for newsprint was from S90 to as high as $165 a ton, determined by how hard up some newspaper was to secure the product to get out its issue. As a result of this condition, the switches of the Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Mill had been spiked down, and an ultimatum had been served on the Backus company that no more would they be permitted to ship paper across the international boundary until they complied with the language and intent of the Paper Controller's orders. So that was the situation on the nineteenth day of January when we were hurriedly called to the office of the Minister of the Interior to be invested with our new functions and authority.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who was he?


James Murdock: The Minister of the Interior at that time was the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). On two occasions on that 19t,h day of January we were called to interview the right hon. gentleman and also the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, and then in the evening the intimation was given "Nothing doing just now". That very night, or early the next morning, a trusted and capable civil servant was despatched to Fort Frances, with the result that within a few short days, the spikes were taken out of the switches, and the Fort Frances Pulp and Paper Company were permitted to send their paper unhindered across the international boundary. The civil servant returned to Ottawa, and gentlemen connected with the then government indicated, by their talk and scowling looks and suggested actions, that they were very seriously concerned about the unfortunate act and disobedience of the civil servant who had gone to Fort Frances to do exactly what he was told to do. Then on the 30th day of January we were again called in and were made full-fleged paper controllers. At the suggestion of and under a Privy Council order prepared by the then Minister of the Interior, we started to carry on that additional farce of fixing a price for newsprint paper to the newspaper companies of Canada at about one-half the price that the market called for. Yet on that particular day would there not have been great clamour and dissent throughout Canada, as there was in certain cases, when it was proposed to fix the price of milk to babies or bread to hungry

Combines-Mr. Murdock
people? No, that must not be done; that would be earned by this government across the seas; carried to the Supreme Court of Canada first, where three eminent judges sitting on the Supreme Court benches decided that the contested rights were satisfactory, and by law contemplated and as the Board of Commerce had contended. All a part of the beautiful farce of fooling the public.
Mr! MEIGHEN: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? I have tried to get out-


James Murdock: I still have the floor.


Arthur Meighen: I am aware of that. That is about all the hon. member has. I have tried to extract out of this mass of verbiage something attributable to the government. All I have got is this: He states that the commissioner who went west prior to the appointment of the Board of Commerce as paper controller, was instructed to do what he did by the then government. That commissioner was Mr. Breadner. I tell my hon. friend that Mr. Breadner had no such instructions, and my hon. friend cannot produce a statement of Mr. Breadner that he had.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend can, of course, put what construction he likes on what I say. I stated and I repeat that, selfevidently and without any question, what was done at Fort Frances was what was intended to be done. I say that even in disregard of the attempt of certain hon. gentlemen to fool the Board of Commerce later into the belief that nothing of the kind was intended.


Arthur Meighen: I tell the hon. gentlemap that I had to do with the matter-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I deny the right, Mr. Speaker-I want to know-Has this hon. gentleman or any hon. gentleman the right to speak of the intentions of men with whom he did not come into contact, whose word he cannot bring in support of his statement, and against the statement of one who actually had to do with the matter? Such conduct is not only infamous; it is of a character I cannot describe in this House.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) rises to a question of privilege. No hon. member in the debates can impute motives, and I would ask that the debate be continued, but without motives being imputed to any hon. member.


James Murdock: I gladly withdraw if the right hon. member considers that I was in any way imputing improper motives to him.


Arthur Meighen: I would much rather that he would make what he says good.


James Murdock: The right hon. member last night and again to-day was particularly anxious about making good. He seems to have overlooked entirely what so many thousands of the people of Canada have known for many months, or since the sixth of December, 1921, that the case has been tried and the verdict rendered in regard to the alleged and camouflaged pretence by the late government of providing a Combines and Fair Prices Act for the protection of the consumers, producers and others. The verdict of the people of Canada has been rendered on that subject, and my right hon. friend is very safe in showing bravado now, three years late, in having something investigated, and judgment passed upon it, that all the people of Canada passed judgment on about sixteen months ago.
I want to refer now as fast as possible to two or three other matters in connection with Bill 54, as proposed. The right hon. member last evening stated:
In so far as this legislation makes something a crime which is defined here-I refer to clause 26-it is at least very doubtful to my mind if that clause is within our constitutional powers.
My right hon. friend and the other hon. members who are behind him, seem to take great objection to this particular new "crime" to be incorporated in the statutes of Canada:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding $10,000 or to two yars' imprisonment, or if a corporation to a penalty not exceeding $25,000, who is a party or privy to or knowingly assists in the formation or operation of a combine as defined in this act.
My right hon. friend and those associated with him, as well as certain newspapers in Canada, appear to be much concerned as to whether that particular crime and the penalty therefor can be made effective. If the right hon. gentleman would only look at the legislation which he proposed and upheld some three years ago he would find that it was very much more drastic in its intent than what is now proposed. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, he stated last night that the first part of the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919 had not in his judgment been changed by the Privy Council decision, Further, he said:
But X venture to say again the Criminal Code provisions will be more practically useful left alone. Improve them if you will; make them wider if you will; but leave them as Criminal Code provisions. Do not provide for any investigation.
That is exactly what my right hon. friend and his associates appear to be afraid of-
Combines-Mr. Munlock

an investigation in regard to some particular concern.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that. If the hon. gentleman will read the rest of it he will find that, either in that sentence or in one further on, I state that it is worthless to provide for an investigation unless the investigators are given power to give effect to their findings.


James Murdock: Very well. It can at least be noted that the right hon. gentleman rallies promptly to the support of some combine, monopoly or price fixing arrangement that is detrimental to consumers, producers and others. That is the first thought. And he argues, as only he can argue, to show why the re-affirming of section 498 of the Criminal Code would be satisfactory and would give all the relief that is possible or necessary. Now, I just want to refer to a statement made by my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) last evening. That hon. gentleman, it seems to me, was very discourteous to, and inconsiderate of, the rights of citizens of Canada, particularly those who might happen to be section men, firemen, brakemen-men employed in logging operations and others engaged in similar occupations. Listen to the position taken by the hon. gentleman; just see how he classes these people. He refers to "six uninformed, irresponsible individuals" asking for an investigation.


Mr. STEVENS:: Just a moment. Will the hon. gentleman read the preceding explanatory sentence in which I distinctly stated that 1 was not saying ignorant persons, but persons uninformed as to facts.


James Murdock: My hon. friend in tiie preceding sentence does say:
I do not say ignorant people, but uninformed people, are very prone io complain of businesses or institutions wherever they may be. Six uninformed, irresponsible individuals may ask for an investigation.
Well, I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that the right to ask for such an investigation was conceded to these "uninformed," "irresponsible" and "ignorant" persons by his government in 1919 when passing through this House the Combines and Fair Prices Act. I do not see therefore why "six individuals" can now be classed as irresponsible and ignorant just because it is proposed to give under Bill 54 the same rights that were contemplated in that act. Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Murdock: Do not do that now, because I may not stop.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think they want you to go on.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend and others have made a reference to the alleged numerous investigations that are to be conducted before arriving at a starting point in Bill 54. Let me briefly analyze this proposition so that we may ascertain whether or not that is just the case. The leader of the opposition, as I recall, indicated that any individual could, under section 498 of the Criminal Code, reaffirmed, go to a magistrate and lay an affirmation against some combine, trust monopoly or merger, secure the necessary investigation, and drag that combine, trust, monopoly or merger into court. He actually says a thing of that kind
4 p.m. and expects, I presume, that the hon. members of this House will believe it. My right hon. friend knows, as does every other hon. gentleman sitting behind him, that almost assuredly, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if an individual undertook to lay information as to the existence of any combine or trust or monopoly or merger, he would not have had the necessary access to the facts that would permit him to make that affirmation in detail sufficiently to ensure the issuance of a warrant or the bringing into court of the alleged combine or whatever it might be. My right hon. friend knows that.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend knows - it does not take a lawyer to know it-that you do not need to allege any fact whatever save this, that you have reason to believe and do believe that the illegal combine, or whatever it might be, exists. If that is done, then, unless there is sufficient reason to the contrary, the attorney general will take the matter over and conduct the prosecution.


James Murdock: And my right hon. friend would know, of a surety, that there would possibly be, as he suggested by his qualifying remark, a sufficient reason to the contrary.
Mr.. MEIGHEN: That would be the fault of the attorney general.


James Murdock: Wherever the fault would be, it would be a wooden gun; it would be a thing unavailable to the section man, to the logger, to the small merchant; they could not grapple with anything so large. But entitle these same individuals to some reasonable inquiry to ascertain if the suspicions they hold are well founded, and the result is different. So

Combines-Mr. Murdock
this Bill No. 54 permits six individuals to send in a statement of their belief, giving all the facts as they know them. The registrar of the boards of investigation, without any publicity-at least without the publicity that would result should action be taken under the Criminal Code-inquires, presumably by correspondence, or otherwise as he sees proper, into the facts, with a view to ascertaining whether the claims made by the six individuals are well founded.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend permit a question? If it is true that- it is impossible to get action under the Criminal Code, how was it that under section 498 there were at least six prosecutions, while under the Combines Investigation Act of 1910 there was only one inquiry, the case of the United Shoe Company, and no prosecution?


James Murdock: I would be m a better position to answer my hon. friend if he would tell me when these six prosecu irons under the Criminal Code took place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will do so. Rex vs Elliott, 1904; Rex vs Master Plumbers, 1905; Rex vs Gage, 1907; Rex vs Clark, 1907; Rex vs Beckett et al, 1907; Rex vs McMichael, 1907; Rex vs Day, 1905. Then there were several later civil actions in connection with which the provisions of the Criminal Code regarding combines were the deciding factor. Included in the cases were Hatley vs Elliott, 1903; Wampole and Company vs Kam Company, Limited, 1906; Weidmarm vs Schragg, 1912; and there were several others. The first seven cases I mentioned were under the Criminal Code, section 498, whereas, as I have pointed out, under the Combines Act there was only the case of the United Shoe Company- an investigation, but no prosecution.


James Murdock: My hon. friend is entirely correct about the number of prosecutions proceeded with under the Combines Act of 1910; that has not been questioned. As to the prosecutions under the Criminal Code, it would be interesting, if my hon friend and I had time to do so, to indicate to the House just what were the proceedings. For instance, in the case of Rex vs Beckett, 1907, my recollection is that a decision was handed down some eight or nine years later. In any case, if I am not mistaken, it took a great length of time to deal with it, and then the results were practically nil. But is it not reasonable to assume that the plan now proposed is a better one-that of having an inquiry made on the basis presumably, of the good judgment of the registrar? And my assumption is that
a peculiarly qualified person should be chosen to fill that position. The registrar would make the necessary preliminary investigation, and if there appeared to be something requiring further attention he would so report to the minister. The minister would no doubt communicate with the Governor in Council, and if it was so decided they would appoint a commissioner for the particular purpose of investigating the alleged combine, monopoly, trust or merger. The commissioner would not, as has been suggested, simply ramble round at his sweet will here and there and everywhere, inquiring into this, that, or the other thing; he would be a man particularly fitted to make that specific inquiry. If after the commissioner had made his investigation it was found that a (rust, combine, monopoly or merger existed detumental to the interests of the public, then the matter would be taken up in a court of competent jurisdiction and if guilt was established the penalty would be imposed.
I want to say just this in conclusion. My right hon. friend has stated:
Let me repeat: All this legislation is simply running in a circle. It is another circle you have to go round; it is just another stump round which you can chase the flat-footed fiend of monopoly.
How different from the language used by the right hon. gentleman in 1919 when the Combines and Fair Prices Act was being proposed. Then he talked as if he were desirous of protecting the public against unfair combinations, but now he and certain of his associates who have spoken would wish to make it appear that there is the same camouflage in this bill as was characteristic of the Combines and Fair Prices Act. I assure hon. members of this House that if I thought there was any such camouflage in the provisions of this bill as were developed and worked out under the Combines and Fair Prices Act, the creature of my right hon. friend's government, I would oppose the measure with every means at my command. If that weie the case I should not be here to claim that by this bill it is proposed to give the plain people of Canada an opportunity to secure redress where there may be in effect combines, monopolies, trusts or mergers detrimental to the public interest.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I
do not intend to follow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Murdock) who has just sat down except to disagree somewhat with the position he has taken, because he is here to-day as the defender of a proposal dealing with combines which has been introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada, which has been endorsed by his gov-



Combines-Mr. Maclean (York)
eminent and endorsed by his party, notwithstanding a number of dissentients from his own followers, for last night there was a kind of backfire from his own side of the House. But he is attempting to deal with the question of the regulation of combines and trusts in this country, and he is approaching it in the conventional way-going by the old formula, and the old formula is no good at this time. It is true that the measure before the House now has all the .marks of being ponti-ficial. It is a law passed by parliament, and you must obey it; if you do not, look our for yourself. Perhaps!
We have had legislation of that kind in this House for a great many years; the different acts have all been enumerated. Now as an old member of the House and one who has read something in the past, who has studied this question as best he could from his own point of view, I want to give my experience and to suggest a new formula for approaching a situation of this kind. We have a formula now on the statute books, and we have a formula in the past in the records of previous statesmen in this country. They have a very fine phrase in French, which is very significant. They speak of L'Action Catholique or catholic action, L'Action Agricole or farmers' action or the farmers' kick, something that has punch to it. And the punch must come not so much from the act of parliament as from action by the government of the country, who are responsible for the conduct of public affairs and for the relief of grievances that may happen to come before parliament and are in the mouths of the people every day. I mean by direct action on the part of the government.
I am speaking for six hundred thousand women who are to vote in the next election in this country, and a good many of them are to vote in my own province in a few weeks. I am going to say that the greatest combine in Canada to-day is the sugar trust in Montreal, and it is not to be approached and the grievance is not to be remedied by legislation exactly of this kind, although I am going to vote for this measure because all my life I have advocated the regulation of combines and trusts. I am going to do so mainly for this reason, that an opportunity is being given in parliament to-day by the introduction of this bill to direct the attention of the people to these combines and to the necessity of their removal.
Now what is the thing to do in connection with the sugar trust? I do not exactly say, do what Sir John A. Macdonald did in the past but it has been done in parliament, and to-day there is this big sugar combine in Canada and the women of this country are be-

ginning to organize against it, and they will be heard from within a few weeks. The duty of the government to-day in connection with that sugar combine is to exercise the powers conferred on them as a government. The Minister of Finance is coming down to this House on Friday with his budget proposals and his revision of the tariff. Now what I would suggest-and I make this suggestion to the Prime Minister and his party and to the government-is that their immediate duty in dealing with this sugar combine is to send a straight and short message to the sugar combine in Montreal: If you do not by Friday afford relief to the housekeepers and every citizen of this country who uses sugar, by a reduction of the price, there will be a reduction in the duty on sugar.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: That is practical politics. That is dealing with combines in the way they ought to be dealt with, and that is the only way to deal with them. I have seen these matters brought up in the courts for forty years. I have seen it as a young man, as a member of this House, as a newspaper man. I have seen it and I know where action of that kind always ends. But what you want is a strong man in office. A strong Prime Minister and a strong government in office, with a strong party behind them, who will regulate these trusts and send these short telegrams to these men saying: If you do not have the price changed by Friday, look out! The way to put the fear of God into these men is by direct action of that kind.
Just to give the House an illustration of what a combine is, we have what is thought to be by a great many people a banking combine in Canada. I met an old friend of mine the other dajq and he made a reference to the Merchants' Bank and what occurred in connection with it. He said, "Mr. Maclean, if my old friend Mr. Courtney-at one time Deputy Minister of Finance-had been there when the disclosures were made about the Merchants' Bank he would have had the bank directors and president here in Ottawa in ten hours and said to them: If you do not correct this abuse and stop this waste of the funds of the bank, as it should have been stopped, immediate action will be taken." There would then have been a different story in regard to the Merchants' Bank. Action is not in courts: action is in the government and is the thing necessary. The action is in the Prime Minister. The action is in his party, and the action in regard to combines

Combines-Mr. Madeem (York)
to-day is to intimate to these men: If there is no relief in the price of sugar by Friday, look out!
I will go a step further. If the sugar combine does not pay attention to the women housekeepers of Canada, and half a million of them are going to vote in the next election, if it does not pay attention to this condition of affairs I would have the Minister of Finance wire to two great banks, the Royal Bank with headquarters at Montreal, one whose president is Sir Herbert Holt, and to the Bank of Nova Scotia with headquarters in Toronto, and I would tell these banks who are behind the sugar combine that if relief is not afforded to the housekeepers and the people of this country, men, women and children, for everyone uses sugar, and a high price is being put on it, then we as the government of Canada will not give you the facilities we are giving you now for rediscount. Provide the money yourselves for the sugar trust. If that did not have the desired effect I would send another telegram to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I know a good deal about them. I have been more or less a friend of theirs in the past. I believe in protection in this country, but I do not believe in the extortion of trusts. I would send a wire to the Manufacturers' Association and I would say: If this thing is not regulated by the sugar trust, and is not to be regulated by the banks that are behind the sugar trust, we are going to revise the tariff on some other things. The next organizations to be dealt with should be the combines that control textiles, enamelled ware, and other commodities of domestic use. It is no good to say, "We will send you to the courts. We are geing to appoint a registrar to hold hearings in private"-as some gentlemen want; and the same thing applies if held in public-"to inquire into the grievances of the public." The government should say, "We are going to find out what are the grievances of the public. We are Liberals and we consider it to be our duty to afford relief to the people. We are to get the public that relief and we are about to get it in a quick way."
Now, as to the sugar combine I want to say something else. That sugar combine wrecked more Canadian capitalists who put their money into the securities of the sugar trust than almost any other organization I know of; and I think if the leader of the government were to ask some of his old colleagues who had experience of the sugar trust they would tell him some surprising things. The situation, however, resolves itself into this-that relief lies more in action on the
164i
part of the government than in making laws and appointing judges, sending for the constable and hauling men into court. The great thing is for the government to send out an order that within so many hours this thing, which is very unfair to the public, must end. They are coming to that in other countries. In the United States Mr. Hoover is trying to deal with these questions, and in some respects he is getting relief. Previous presidents of the United States, including Mr. Taft, and their attorney generals, have dealt with this matter and have found that the only effective way to deal with these people is to summon them to Washington or to Ottawa and say "You must do so and so. You may show me if I am wrong and if you do so the government will listen to you. If you cannot, the public are entitled to get relief and we will see that they get it through action on our part in regard to the tariff." Mr. Harding is probably going to take some action along this line when he starts his campaign for the next presidential election in the course of two or three weeks.
Now let me take up another point. It is all very well to say that we will apply the law. The government are making some progress under previous legislation that we had but it was not effective. That is the great thing, it was not effective, and it dicl not deal with the situation but had the matter referred to the courts. Why, in the great court case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndvce, of which Dickens tells us, how many years did it take to get a verdict? There is a quick method of settling public grievances to-day and it does not lie so much in legislation as in action on the part of the government in power. In short, my contention is that this legislation will not be as efficacious as action on the part of the government if they choose to exercise the power. It is up to them to take action and it is up to the public to make its wishes known when there is an election if the government do not take that action. We must remember that there has been a great addition to the voting power of the country now that women are entitled to vote. The woman has arrived in politics, she is in this House, and she is out in public life to exercise her vote. It is all very well for newspapers to show their regard for women by instructing them in matters of fashion and dress; and giving details of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of York and the presents received by the royal pair. The real question to the women of this country is housekeeping, and sugar is one of the great items that enters into the question. A sugar trust exists in this country. We are about to revise the
257S	COMMONS
Combines

Mr. Maclean (York)
tariff, on Friday next, and I ask what action will the government take on the protest of the 600,000 women throughout Canada who now have votes?
There is a combine-so the farmers tell us-indeed evidence has been given before a parliamentary committee to that effect- in shipping in this country. That combine has treated the farmers infamously in regard to freight rates. Well, it does not need any legislation to regulate the actions of that combine. They now enjoy rights in connection with the canals. Those waterways are owned by the people and they should refuse the shipping trust the use of our canals. Or the government could order the directors of the National railways, which now belong to the people, to reduce rates and thus serve the interest of the public as against the shipping trust. It is not necessary to do that by legislation; it could be done by the government. Action on the part of the government is the effective way to do it. As to the shipping trust I am going to tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways something; there is a suspicion in the minds of a great many people that the National Railways are a party to this shipping trust. That ought to be investigated. If that be the case, Sir Henry Thornton has probably come into it by inheritance. If it is the case that there is an understanding between the National Railways and the shipping trust by which shipping rates are maintained, it ought to be made possible for the farmers to ship their grain by railway. Now, the regulation of all this does not lie in legislation. As I have already said it lies in action on the part of the government in controlling and regulating the use of the canals and, at some points, the harbour dues. In a hundred different ways a combine can be reached by the power that is vested in the government when the public are treated unfairly.
Now, as to the alleged combination of the banks: They are up now for legislation, and we also have the question of securing credit for the farmers of Canada which apparently they need. It may be true that that relief is not to come by way of money advanced by the banks, but by way of the creation of new organizations-loan banks as they are called in the United States-or in other ways. It is up to the government to see that practical legislation is enacted along this line and not leave this matter so much to the banks.
I want to give the Prime Minister credit for what he is doing here to-day; he is approaching the question in the legislation that he has brought down. But there is something

that follows from that action on his part. Does he know that if he does not make good
in these matters he is simply preparing a rod for his own back? That is the point the Prime Minister should bear in mind; he will be judged by what he does, and most of all by what he does in connection with the sugar combine. I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is not here. I would like to impress my views upon him, but he will hear of them sooner or later. And the sugar combine will read to-morrow what I have said and they may be shaking in their shoes. I would like to know what that great newspaper the Montreal Star will have to say when it reads that a proposal was made in parliament to give relief to the housewives of Canada from these enormous sugar charges.
I have tried to present the real issue and to show what is to be done. There are many combines. I confess that I am a protectionist and I am glad that Canada has built up her industries by a system of protection. But these industries must be square with the people who give them privileges, and with parliament which passes the legislation that concerns the welfare of the country. There has been great profiteering. There never was such an era of profiteering, some of it under government regulations, as we have witnessed during and since the war. The war is not altogether responsible for present conditions. The profiteering which has taken place since the war has had a most far-reaching effect, and is going to stay with us, not only through our lives, but through the lives of our children, and we are not going to recover until we get down to hard facts and wherever we find a wrong, to right it, and to compel reparations, which is the phrase used now in connection with the war. That will be accomplished by the efficiency, the power, the study and the determination of the government of the day. So far as the present act is an attempt to follow previous legislation, I will give the government credit for it, but let them remember that they are on trial now. It is not the sugar trust that is on trial at the present time so much as it is the government which has introduced this legislation. If it affords some relief the government will get credit for it in the country. The people want relief to-day from the shipping combine, and in the regulation of our national railways, if these are a party in any sense to the shipping combine, and in the regulation of the other trusts and combines which exist in the country. In common with other hon. members of the House, I have been flooded with appeals from the druggists and

Combines-Mr. Forke
other combinations. They have presented a special appeal containing very scientific terms. They are saying "Do not deal with our combine." But parliament has to deal with these combines, and is to-day trying to deal with them. The government has introduced something which is not the real remedy, and i am urging to-day that the real formula for dealing with the trust is by direct action by the government, and that action lies through the tariff. We are going to have the tariff resolutions on Friday and will have a debate next week. We will then hear from the women, and I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will listen in on the wires and see whether he is with the women of this country and is going to fight their battles against the sugar and other trusts, because there are many trusts in this country. These trusts are growing and becoming more insolent and defiant every day. I will tell the House what they are doing, as I see it every day in the committees. The danger in this country is i' creating a bloc made of members of the two parties against the national ownership of the railways and against any legislation for the regulation of combines in this country. People ask why should we have three parties in this country when previously we only had two? But you see three parties coming, and they are going to be here for some time. Some people think we are to get rid of them, but parliamentary government is progressing and not going backward. New things turn up. I never was so surprised as when I read in an English newspaper what was going on over there, and read the arguments presented by the best papers in England about the regulation of combines and the building combines that exist. I do not refer to the daily press but to the weekly press.
I am going to close with a reference to a matter which is rather apropos of the present situation. There never was a more sensational week in the history of the New York exchange than last week. Many small investors were closed out; tens of millions of money embarked in stock speculations were lost and will never come back. Queer actions occurred on the stock exchange yesterday, and other things have happened concurrently with the doings on the New York stock exchange. Wheat fell 5 cents a bushel and cotton fell to a much greater extent. The Standard Oil Company has seen fit to reduce the price of gasoline; but sugar goes up, because there is combine in sugar, and there is not a combine in wheat or in cotton. Wherever there has been a combine, or wherever a parliamentary group can be organized irrespective
of parties in parliament to protect these combines, it is being done. I do not know what the outcome of those incidents in the New York stock exchange of last week will be. I am afraid there is a great financial crisis ahead of us. It may be arriving now, and we have an opportunity to-day, in dealing with the tariff, to compel the combines which have used that tariff to deal unfairly with the people of Canada, to right these wrongs. On behalf of the people of Canada I draw the attention of the government to the new formula, and the only practical formula for dealing with combines at this time; that is by direct action on the part of the government, and by telling these combines that if they do not give relief they will be forced to do it by tariff withdrawals. They must not depend on the tariff of this country; the steamship companies must not depend on the use of the canals in the country, and the banking group must not depend on the discounting power of the government in connection with re-discounting. They must be told that only those who treat the people fairly in the matter of combinations will have the favour of the government and of the party in power. As I have always been a protectionist and a friend of the manufacturers, I think the statement may well come from me that the only way to bring these men to time in Canada and in the United States is by the exercise of the power vested in the government and in parliament by way of legislation. But there is a still more efficacious way, and that is by the formula which I have laid before the House, namely that of direct action.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I was a little astonished last evening in listening to the very mild arguments that were presented in favour of this bill by hon. members from the other side of the House. In fact, I can ' almost say that some of them condemned it by the same phrase.
I wish to refer to remarks made by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean).
I am very pleased indeed to listen to some of the advice and the recommendations that he has made to the right hon. Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will listen to the advice given him, more especially when the hon. member called attention to the fact that a deputation of the women of this country was going to call upon him. If hon. members will notice, the subject under discussion by the hon. member for South York was a very sweet one, and consequently worthy of very great attention. I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the speech made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Combines-Mr. Forke

Evans) last evening. I notice a considerable resemblance between the speech of the free trader and that of the protectionist, when they begin to deal with the subject of combines. The only difference I noticed between the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) and the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), is the fact that one would cut off the dog's tail by inches, and the other would take it right off at the root. I have hopes that as days go by, my hon. friend from South York will find a warm reception over in this corner of the House. I do not think we are very far apart. He consoles himself every now and then by repeating that he is a friend of the manufacturers and he is in favour of protection.


William Findlay Maclean: I am in favour of industries prospering in this country.


Robert Forke: We in this part of the House can repeat the formula with a little change. We are in favour of just as much free trade as is possible in Canada, and we are also in favour of the manufacturers so after all I do not think there is a great deal of difference between us.
Last night I heard some discussion as to who the people of Canada were and during that discussion there came into my mind an old phrase which, perhaps, most hon. members have heard. The people generally mean the class of people in whom we are particularly interested. We are all fond of talking about "the people," and perhaps some of us have heard of the tailors of Toole street, who put at the top of their paper "We, the people of England." So I imagine some of us view things along pretty much the same lines. We are all in favour of doing what we believe to be in the interest of the people, only we have different points of view, and it makes a great ' deal of difference from what angle we view any subject which is under our consideration. I do not think any of us have anything to say against combinations as such. We believe we are living in a day when people are getting together to work for their mutual advantage. At the same time I have no sympathy with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), when he says that he believes these combinations are only moving toward a time when we shall have what might be called socialism, when it will be one great combine and that will be the state. There is in the Anglo-Saxon nature something that will always prevent such a combination, because deeply embedded in our nature is the feeling that we always want to have something which we can call our own. I do not care how much a person may prove, in theory, the bene-

ficial effects of socialism, it will never find a resting place among the Anglo-Saxon people.
A few words were said last night as regards newspaper monopoly. Perhaps this is one of the most dangerous monopolies that we can possibly have in a civilized country. We are sometimes inclined to criticize, to find fault with the press; but we cannot possibly do without it; it is the only means of information which we have. I can think of circumstances away back on the prairies, where the people living on their farms have only one source of information and that is the daily paper coming to their homes each evening. They do not know aything about what is occurring anywhere in our Dominion, or in the world, excepting through that paper. How important therefore, it is that we should have news of the best description, news that is accurate, reliable and trustworthy. It is so long sinee I have looked over the Progressive platform, that I have almost forgotten some of the planks contained in it; but I am quite safe because I know they were founded on good and sound principles, and I am pretty nearly sure to come along the beaten path with regard to that. I know there was a plank at the time-and I think it is there yet-that in every newspaper there should be some sort of statement as to who controls its policy and who owns the stock. If we had that information, we could sometimes read between lines and form an accurate judgment as to the reliability of the information contained in a newspaper.
I notice many speakers, whenever they have anything to say about monopolies or combinations, always refer to the wheat board and the attempt that the farmers in the West made to get a monopoly in the selling of wheat. I have given up all hope of ever enlightening some hon. friends as to exactly what that meant, because I do not think we shall ever be able to do so after the months that have passed and the many speeches and explanations that have been made. I will only repeat again that any attempt that was made was simply a matter of stabilizing the price during the season, so that all should reap an equal advantage. I do not think anyone ever thought for a moment that the wheat board would add one cent to the price of wheat in England; the idea was that it would stabilize the price over the different months of the year.
In connection with the bill at present under discussion, I believe it is a move in the right direction. I do not think it will altogether accomplish the ends intended just as long as we have a protective tariff. I know it is usually the custom, when speaking

Combines-Mr. McMaster
of hon. members from this part of the House, to make out that we are out-and-out free traders. I want to make this explanation at this particular time. While I believe free trade is the right principle, we must remember that we are up against, not a treaty, not a theory but a circumstance in this country at the present time, and consequently it is necessary that we should have some revenue. Therefore, so long as the tariff is a means of getting revenue, perhaps we have not so much criticism to oiler in these days as we might have under other conditions.
I want to say a few words in connection with some combinations that have been working in restraint of the agricultural communities. Not very long ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) a question in connection with the shipment of cattle. We know there has already been an investigation as regards ocean rates, and we are perfectly satisfied and convinced that a combination exists there to take the last cent possible out of shipments of cattle. One of the difficulties we have to meet in agriculture at the present time is the loss of morale amongst the agricultural people. I know they are carrying a heavy load of indebtedness upon their shoulders; but at the same time farmers, as a class, are optimists and, as a rule, they look hopefully toward the future, believing that "man never is, but always to be blest." But at present there is a certain lack of morale from the very fact that no matter what may be their exertions, no matter what crops they may raise, the practical outcome will be the same. I speak from experience. I have raised big crops and small crops; but I have always found at the end of the year's transactions, that matters have been so manipulated that only a bare living has been left to the man who has produced the wealth. That is why we want to get to the bottom of combinations in restraint of trade or for the purpose of taking undue advantage of the privileges they have acquired. I have no doubt that all members of this House are anxious for the prosperity and welfare of this Dominion; but at this particular time I would make a plea for the common people, the working people, who after all are just as essential for the welfare of Canada as are our business classes. Every now and then when any attempt is made to adjust any difficulties, we hear this cry: "It will disturb business." Business, apparently, is regarded as something sacred and holy that you must not interfere with. When I think of the hundreds and thousands of men and women scattered throughout this country who are making their living by daily toil, I
am not so tremendously afraid of business; business can take care of itself.
I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the House at present. I will support the bill because I believe it is a move in the right direction. I do not for a moment believe it is going to cure all the evils that exist at the present time. I believe those can be cured only when trade shall flow freely backward and forward in all directions. One of the evils to-day is not the tariff alone. Some people think we look upon the tariff as the cause of all the evils that have overtaken agriculture in these days. The tariff is infinitesimal in comparison with the evils that result from it. In itself it would not be so obnoxious, but it makes possible the very things we are trying to get at and to cure with the present bill. I believe therefore that this is an attempt in the right direction. While it will not cure the whole evil it will at least help to do so, and I am inclined to give it my support. I listened with interest to the very able criticism of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am always pleased to follow the criticisms of that right hon. gentleman and I admire his ability, his industry and his energy. In this case, however, I think his criticism was peculiarly weak and lacking in power or conviction. Possibly I have said enough.


Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):: A sad but imperative duty compelled me to miss the very interesting debate that took place yesterday, but I have listened attentively to what has been said to-day and have endeavoured to acquaint myself somewhat with the progress of the debate which occupied the attention of the House yesterday. This bill seems to me to be a step in the right direction. I do not propose to discuss it in detail; I think that a great deal of the discussion which took place yesterday might very properly have been reserved until the bill is in committee, when hon. members on both sides of the House will have an opportunity of offering those suggestions which they think fit for the perfecting of the machinery of this legislation. It seems to me that on the second reading of the bill we should discuss its spiijt and essence. Is there a need for such legislation as we have before us this afternoon?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That there is such a
need all parties in the House are agreed. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) while he was one of the foremost members of the administration which preceded the present government, placed on the statute books legis-
Combines-Mr. McM aster

lation not dissimilar in character. I do not intend here to enter into any acrimonious discussion as to whether that legislation was right or wrong, whether it was well-conceived or ill-conceived, or whether it functioned to the benefit or to the prejudice of the people. The point I wish to make is this, that in the opinion of the Conservative party of that day, called at that time the Unionist party, it was necessary to have such legislation. Any of us who have examined the industrial and economic structure of our country as it exists at this time are all, I am sure, absolutely convinced that the economic and industrial life of Canada is honeycombed with combines and rings of all sorts. I do not think there is any possibility of dispute so far as that is concerned. It has been said that all combines are not bad. That may be true. There may be that rara avis in our economic life, the beneficent combine, the gathering together of manufacturers or middlemen for the purpose of reducing costs of production or of distribution and of giving the benefit of that reduction to the consumer. I would gladly welcome the acquaintanceship of such a combine, and in the words of the president of the Privy Council of years gone by I would desire to give my tribute of praise to any such institution. When I see such a combination as that I shall not be chary in the expression of my appreciation. But I am afraid that a calm and cool survey of the situation will bring most of us to the unbiassed conclusion that as a rule combines are not made for the purpose of reducing prices but of maintaining or raising them. There is therefore obviously some necessity for somebody to control combines. There is only one objection which in theory is perhaps a sound objection to legislation of this kind, and that is that it interferes with the freedom which should characterize human endeavour; and if we lived in this country under a system by means of which trade could flow freely into and beyond our boundaries, then I would hesitate before giving approval to legislation of this sort. But we cannot get immediately that "consummation devoutly to be wished," and while we maintain to any substantial degree the pro-, tective principle we have to protect the consumers of the country against the exactions of those people who take advantage of the tariff wall in order, in a circumscribed and comparatively narrow market, to charge all that traffic will bear, to the deriment of the consumer. I think that is the sound answer to the otherwise perhaps sound objection 
against such legislation as this, that it interferes with people conducting their own business in their own way. That being the case, I think we are pretty well all agreed as to the necessity for the legislation.
I have little to reply to in the remarks made by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) and the leader of the third
5 p.m. party in the House (Mr. Forke).
With a great deal of what they said I am in entire accord. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the fathers of protection in this countiy, one of the admirers of Sir John A. Macdonald, who imposed protection on the country in 1S78, has had to speak with such utter frankness of what has grown up under the system. The system, he says, is not at fault; the system is a good one. But unfortunately there have been a large number of "growths" around the system. The question, to my mind, is whether a system can be characterized as good which brings about such unhappy results. However, I am not here to seek occasions for difference but to endeavour to find common ground of accord. It seems to me that we should pass this bill into committee of the whole House, or, if the government think it well, refer it to a special committee for further investigation and study. I indicate two courses of procedure, but I do not give my preference to either. But all the representatives of the people in this House should, I think, join in giving the principle of the bill their hearty support. Let no false impression go abroad from this House to any special interests in the country that there is any particular feeling of sympathy in any comer of the House, with those who, placed in strategic positions in the structure either of production or of distribution, propose to take advantage of such positions. Let that be clearly understood. We may differ as to methods; some may incline to one method of procedure and some to another. But let it be understood that the representatives of the Canadian people, no matter what place in this House they may occupy will not stand for extortion or exactions of more than a fair profit in business or in manufacture. Let us get the bill into committee, and, without any attempt to gain party advantage the one at the expense of the other, endeavour to develop the necessary machinery to make the legislation effective. The hon. member for South York anticipated some of the remarks I desired to make in this regard. The resources of civilization are not exhausted when we come to deal with combines and monopolies. Monopoly cannot raise an arrogant head in this country and lead the

Combines-Mr. McMaster
representatives of the people to understand that they, the monopolists, are masters of the situation and that nothing can be done. We control our ports and harbours, and if we find combinations of shippers who endeavour to charge all that the traffic will bear, and to stcfie and suffocate the commesce of tlie country, we can say to them: If you pursue such methods as these, not one ship of yours shall be allowed to tie up at any public* wharf. We can say to those who on the Great Lakes pursue such a policy that not a lock on the canal shall open until fair and just rates for the carriage of our natural and our industrial products shall be agreed upon. That is one weapon, and by no means a small one, which is in the hands of the government.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What about freight
rates?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was just coming to freight rates; my hon. friend has anticipated me. The people of Canada own the greatest transportation system, in point of mileage, on this continent. Let it be known that those persons, whether middlemen or otherwise, who refuse to deal justly with their fellow men so far as distribution, the cost of distribution or the cost of manufacture are concerned, shall find it mighty difficult to move their goods on the railways of the people. And, last but not least, there is the tariff. As long as a tariff is maintained as an engine for raising revenue

and in my opinion a very expensive engine it is-let it be known that the tariff shall be used as a weapon to defend the rights of the people against the monopolists and that those who charge unjust and unfair prices for what they are able to produce under the shadow of the tariff wall may find that wall reduced or even cut down altogether, in order that it shall be impossible for them to charge their fellow Canadian citizens more than a fair price for a decent article.
These are some of the methods which I think might be incorporated in this bill. I invite to the support of this bill all those in this House who feel that the economic life of Canada is not what it should be. I do not propose that the government should abandon any rights to control freight rates, to control their ports or the tariff, which they now possess. If the government were omniscient the investigatory portions of this bill might be unnecessary, but as long as governments are composed of human beings they will not be either omnipotent or omniscient. Therefore, is there any more reasonable method to pursue than that indicated under
the bill-that there should be investigation, and after investigation, action? Whether the investigation should be carried on just as indicated in the bill; whether the action should not be rather larger, rather broader than as narrow as indicated in the bill, are matters which we can discuss, I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, better in committee than when we are sitting as the House. But I do think that this bill deserves the support of all the representatives of the people. I would be glad to see notice given to all monopolists and combinesters in this country, by the unanimous vote of this House, that the heart and the mind of the representatives of the Canadian people are behind this legislation in order that it may have a fair chance and a fair field to bring about the desired end, namely, not the reduction of prices irrespective of what the goods cost, but a fair deal for the consumer as well as for the producer.	,


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the details of this bill when we go into committee, this the second reading is the occasion for discussion of the general principles of the bill. For that reason I am going to say only a few words this afternoon. But, coming from a city that has had a great deal to do with the Board of Commerce-perhaps more to do with it than all the rest of the municipalities of Canada put together because we have had more applications before it-I would like to make a few remarks regarding the proposed legislation.
I would like to help the government in the work they have before them, but I am sorry that they have seen fit to bring down such a bill as that now before us. If you read the bill from cover to cover; if you carefully examine the definition of "combines," "registrar," and so on; if you look into the machinery provided for the enforcement of the act, it will be seen that the general principle of the bill is based on the old Board of Commerce and the Combines and Fair Prices Act. The denouncing of capital is very popular with some, particularly at election time. Personally I would not want to be an employer to-day, having regard to the high taxes and the high prices which are general throughout the country. The lot of the employer or of the capitalist is not an easy one, by any means. I know a great many capitalists interested in private enterprises who work as hard as, if not harder than, any labouringjnan in Canada, who spend large sums to improve their business, and who in many cases give a lot of their money away to the public. In some respects they are more
Combines-Mr. Church

sinned against, than sinning. I say it is a popular act with some hon. members of this House to denounce from the housetops, trusts and combines and restraints of trade. We had a speech this afternoon from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). No gentleman in the late election went further than he did concerning what would be done to the combines and trusts if he was returned as the member for South Toronto. This subject is a predominant one in Toronto, particularly among the working classes. I may say that the working classes in Canada have themselves done more to regulate the trusts and combines by not buying when prices are increased than all the legislation I have seen. We hear a great deal about the big interests, particularly at election time; it has been said that we on this side are the allies of the big interests, that was said, indeed, by the hon. Minister of Labour himself in the election campaign in South Toronto.
Now, what are these "big interests" that are referred to? They are, first, the transportation and shipping interests; second, the manufacturers and the Manufacturers' Association; third, the banking interests and trusts and combines along these lines. What has the minister done to regulate these trusts during the two years that he has been in office? There is no country in the world to-day in which the big interests flourish like a green bay tree, without let or hindrance, as they do in the Dominion of Canada. Canada is the happy hunting ground for all these American trusts and combines. Take the restaurant trust to-day-Child's, Bowles' and all these places. They are well established in the big cities of the United States, and they have crossed to Canada. They are subject to public regulation in the United States; inquiries have been made respecting them and prosecutions taken against them to bring down the prices, but nothing of that land has been done in Canada.
It has been said that the party system in Canada has fallen down in its regulation of trusts. I am soriy that this question has been made the political football of this party or that party. In fact, both political parties are in the same boat in this respect; they have done what they could to try to regulate these trusts and combines on behalf of the public but have failed. I wish to give the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a certain amount of credit, in connection with this particular matter, for bringing down this bill for debate for he has long been a student of labour. Hon. members criticize the party system for not having done something to 
regulate the trusts and combines; I wish to criticize the United Farmers of Ontario and the group system for having fallen down in this matter. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has said that there is a shipping trust on the Great Lakes. So there is. And there is a sugar trust. Anyone who will take Houston's Financial Annual will see the large number of mergers that have been formed in recent years. The city of Toronto spent about $10,000 at the request of this Board of Commerce, of which the present Minister of Labour was one of the members, to secure data for them. There was a general complaint among the working classes and those receiving small salaries that they could not get a good lunch in a restaurant under anywhere from 60 or 75 cents to $1. A bit of a sandw'ich would cost 25 or 30 cents; com, which could be bought at about 15 to 18 cents a dozen, would be sold at 35 or 40 cents each; tomatoes retailing at 35 cents a basket would sell at 35 cents a plate in some restaurants and hotds. The women's organizations sent a deputation to the Toronto City Council and Board of Control; they filled the council chamber-several hundred of them-and asked that we should do something regarding the prices of certain food products. It was pointed out to them what the law was, that section 498 of the Criminal Code had been suspended because of the Board of Commerce Act of 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act. So the medical health officer, Dr. Hastings, was requested to make a survey of the situation in Toronto, at the request of the Board of Commerce which he did at great expense to the taxpayer. He made a survey and collected enough evidence to fill a trunk. It was sent down to the Board of Commerce at Ottawa, who filed and pigeon holed this elaborate report, but nothing further was done. They simply passed the buck to somebody else, as the military authorities say-all that could be done under that particular act.
I give the men who proposed that act credit for being sincere, but with all due respect that act failed, and for many reasons. The Board of Commerce legislation was founded very largely on the successful carrying on of the United States Federal Trade Commission, but the Board of Commerce never got going, and I believe the same will be true of this new board that is to be appointed-I do not believe it will ever get going. Before it gets going the skilled lawyers of the trusts will raise some technicalities and have the legislation before the Privy Council. Some clever lawyer will find

Combines-Mr. Church
a, flaw in the drafting, notwithstanding that it has been drafted by the Justice department, and we shall find it declared to be ultra vires of this parliament. The Board of Commerce was founded largely on popular clamour to regulate prices after the war. Popular clamour demanded action by parliament in 1918 and 1919, and in 1919 two acts were passed, but the main features of the Board of Commerce legislation, and the main functions of the board of 1919 never came into operation, owing to members of the board resigning, and owing to the fact that no action was taken on their reports. So the real working functions of the board of 1919 were never performed, and I predict that this new board will never perform its functions either, but will simply become a cypher. In other words the Board of Commerce Act was, and this act will be, "still-born" so far as practical results go.
I may say that profit control was one
of the very last functions the Board of Commerce considered-but profit control, should be the main function in the regulation of prices and trusts and combines. The Board of Commerce no doubt did some good work. Mr. O'Connor did very good work in connection with profiteering, and the bacon extortion, and I venture to say that if some war profiteers had been prosecuted, better results would have been obtained. But the war profiteers were in a preferred class in this country. They got away not only with profits but with titles as well.
If I may be permitted a suggestion to the government I would advise them to repeal altogether the legislation of 1919 and adopt some practical legislation such as they have in the United States-the grand jury scheme of inquiry-under which some four hundred and eighty combines, trusts and mergers were prosecuted in one year by federal and state authorities. Take Judge Landis of the city of Chicago; he prosecuted the Standard Oil combine and imposed a fine on that corporation of 850,000,000 under federal legislation. That was practical legislation, not legislation under which you ran round in a circle and when you had got round it handed it over to the provincial Attorney General or passed the buck to another.
The provincial Attorney General in Ontario is in politics and does nothing but talk.
This matter was put up to him but he said: No, let the Dominion government look after it. We laid a bill of indictment before Mr. Justice Kelly and a jury, and we were told that the Crown prosecutor would not take the case, first, because the Attorney General would not approve, secondly, because
he had no power inasmuch as the Criminal Code had been superseded by the Board of Commerce Act, and thirdly, because the applicant, the city of Toronto, would have to put up a bond as security for costs and bringing the witnesses there. But in the United States they did get results by the grand jury system of inquiry into trusts and combines and got results quickly.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that some of these mergers are good things. I could name several of them that have been good for the country ; when they cut down the overhead and reduce the price of the article. Many of them have done good, but the majority of them have done wrong, and several of them are all wrong and should be regulated. The producer has the law on his side. It is always there in many ways to protect him. The law always favours the producer. But the five-and-ten-dollar consumer, the poor man, finds the legislation all against him. Take the Lords Day Act, for instance, if a man is rich he can buy ice cream and a box of cigars for Sunday, but the poor man cannot have these luxuries on Sunday because he can only buy a cone or one cigar at a time. It is the same with trusts and combines. A poor man cannot get anywhere in his attack on them. If he wants to lay a charge he is told by the Crown: You will please put up security for costs, and so forth. I would suggest that the government adopt the grand jury system of inquiry as set out in the report of Judge Landis of Chicago. He did a great deal of good work, advised the federal authorities and got results a thousandfold.
I should like to propose this amendment if the government would be good enough to consider it. Of course, I know it cannot be moved to-day, but I should like to bring it to the attention of the government. It has been asked for by many grand juries. I know that a couple of grand juries made a recommendation something like the amendment I have drafted. I propose that the following be added to the bill as section 37, and I shall move this amendment in Committee of the Whole House:
(37) Any grand jury at any sittings of the General Sessions of the Peace, or any grand jury at any sitting of the High Court of Justice, or any grand jury duly and lawfully convened in any province of Canada, may exercise as respects any person or any property within such province any power which by this act may be exercised by the registrar or any commission appointed under this act, without obligation, however, to report to any minister of the Crown, and with power to make a presentment in accordance with the facts found by it.
What I would suggest is that the government repeal the Board of Commerce Act of 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act
Combines-Mr. Church

of 1919, and go back to the old law, section 498 of the Criminal Code. Let us broaden out that section by such an amendment as I have suggested, giving the grand juries power to go into these questions. After all is said and done, the government of the day can do very little in a matter of this kind. There are many problems which governments cannot handle in days of stress and strain like these. There are many problems that the government cannot solve legally or otherwise except with the aid of Providence-and while the government may try to do the best they can and are sometimes criticized unfairly, and sometimes insincerely, the best action to take in this matter is to decentralize the problem. There is nothing like the old law of supply and demand. The people of New York state have been teaching a lesson to the sugar combine and women organizations have been established in New York state to fight that combine by not buying sugar in order to force the price down. The same thing happened over here many years ago among the working classes as they refused to buy certain necessities of life because of the high prices. So while the government may endeavour to do its part, it cannot do all, and it is better for it to decentralize and leave this matter to those who have the necessary time, ability and knowledge-the judges, Crown officers, grand juries and municipal officers. Give them a chance of looking into these questions; and also give the grand juries the opportunity I have suggested, because there is nothing like a little publicity in these matters, and the grand juiy will get results that this bill will never get.
I spoke of the city of Toronto's experience with the Board of Commerce and pointed out that we got no action at all. Bearing that in mind it was a funny thing to me to hear the speech of the Minister of Labour this afternoon. He was a member of that Board of Commerce. I do not wish to be unfair to him, but I understand that after all the members of the board had resigned he still remained a member for four months and drew his salary. If he did not believe the board was fulfilling its functions, he should have resigned and not drawn the salary which he did.


James Murdock: Apparently the hon. gentleman is not aware that I was not the last member of the Board of Commerce to go. Mr. O'Connor left the Board of Commerce after I did.


Thomas Langton Church: I gladly accept the hon. minister's statement, but he was a judge on

the board and acted although he now says his powers were curtailed. I do not know about this particular problem but I do know that when a trunk load of evidence was sent to the Board of Commerce in regard to the operations of certain combines, including American restaurants in the city of Toronto, it was without result. The health officer of that city at the request of the Board of Commerce spent thousands of dollars in collecting evidence with respect to combines of many kinds -restaurant services, boots and shoes, clothing and others. When that evidence was sent down to the Board of Commerce why did they not act? Instead of acting they moved in a circle and wound up by asking the attorney general of the province to institute proceedings. Well, the people of Toronto got disgusted, and what did they do? They laid a complaint before the Board of Police Commissioners stating that exorbitant prices in restaurants were being charged, and excessive prices for milk and the other commodities I have named, which are really necessities of life. That board took prompt action. In the city of Toronto restaurants, for example, cannot operate except under license from the police commissioners. So Colonel Denison and his colleagues, including Judge Winchester and myself, summoned the managers of these American restaurants before the police board and threatened to cancel their licenses unless the rates they were charging were cut in two within one week. Action in the desired direction promptly followed. Before the expiration of the allotted time the prices charged for coffee, toast, vegetables, eggs, and other articles had been reduced by 33 1-3 per cent. This shows that you can get action if you only go the right way about it. I really believe that if we could have periodic inquiries by the grand jury as in the United States into excessive prices we would really make more headway. Personally, I do not think it is fair for the government to introduce a bill of this character so late in the session. The principle involved here is exactly the same as in the legislation of 1919, but the difficulty seems to be for the lawyers to draft a statute in such a way that it will not be declared ultra vires of this parliament.
The tariff is blamed for the condition of affairs that is complained of. In my opinion the tariff is not responsible. The Mother Country is a free trade country and yet mergers, trusts and combines flourish over there. The United States has a protective tariff but over there they enforce the law against trusts and combines. As I have already said the United States federal attorney general, with the assist-

Combines-Mr. Church
anoe of the state attorney general, has prosecuted some 485 combines in one year over there resulting in the imposition upon them of penalties amounting to millions of dollars in the aggregate and the control of prices and mergers. Therefore, you cannot blame the tariff for the existence of these combines. The tariff is blamed for almost everything but in my opinion it is not responsible for this particular problem. The difference between the proposed legislation and that enacted in 1919 is that in the present bill you can by order in council amend the tariff. If a combine is taking advantage of it, or you can revoke a patent found to be operating injuriously to the public you can do that already now in another way. It is also provided that if the Attorney General of a province does not enforce the report of a registrar, the Solicitor General may act in certain cases.
The act of 1919 and the present bill will fail in effect for the same reason that the Board of Commerce failed. Undoubtedly there is a demand for action of some kind. A great many trusts and combines are flourishing in this country. The shipping qombine, for example, seems to be most active both in the matter of freight and passenger rates. Formerly one could travel from Toronto to Niagara Falls for 81.25 return but that rate has been increased to $3 and over. Freight lates on fruit, vegetables and farm products carried to cities and towns on the shores of lake Erie and lake Ontario have also been enhanced. The small freight and passenger boats which in former days used to operate with great advantage and convenience to the public have been frozen out by this combine. The matter should be looked into by Mr. Raney the Attorney General of Ontario. This combine, which is a restraint on shipping, could be investigated and remedial action taken if the provincial Attorney General were so inclined under section 498 of the Criminal Code. The same is true of many other combines that are flourishing like a green bay tree.
There is a question involved here as to the power of parliament to enact such legislation in view of the decision given by the Privy Council in 1921 in the case of the Attorney General of Canada vs. the Attorney General of Alberta. It would appear from that judgment that it is very doubtful whether this parliament can enforce such legislation as this proposed bill inasmuch as property and civil rights within a province is exclusively a matter for the provincial legislature, and that the federal authority cannot erect a board competent to make regulations affecting trade and commerce which will be
of merely local application. This parliament can, however, regulate trade and commerce if its regulations are of general application and for the general advantage of Canada. If parliament goes to the extent proposed in this new legislation before us to-day into the matter of property and civil rights it is very doubtful if it can enforce the act by merely declaring that to violate it is a crime. I would suggest that the proper course to take would be to broaden out section 498 of the Criminal Code so as to enable a grand jury to investigate these and declare the maintenance of mergers, trusts and combines of a wrongful nature a crime. One of the ablest county court judges we had in Toronto was the late Judge Winchester, who was also a police commissioner. Some fifteen or sixteen years ago, he, together with Colonel Denison, police magistrate, took action under this section 498 against certain trusts. They sent down and seized the books of a particular trust complained of and within twenty-four hours those identified with that trust amended their regulations and reduced their prices. As it is now, section 498 of the Criminal Code is practically inoperative. Some time ago a prosecution was started against the milk combine in Toronto under section 498. A bill was preferred against a milk combine, but Mr. Justice Kelly and the crown prosecutor, Mr. White, refused to consider a bill of indictment, because, they said, the powers given under the Criminal Code, section 498, had been superseded by those conferred on the Board of Commerce. I would suggest to the government that they carefully confer with the Justice department and see whether, by broadening section 498 and bringing into operation the functions of grand juries, properly convened, action cannot be taken in the desired direction rather than pass legislation of this character. In that way no harm would be done to capital, to labour, or to any public interest and combines, trusts and restraints of trade would be subject to some practical, useful and effective public control.


Mr. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Before the second reading of this bill passes I would like to dispel an impression which may have been created in the minds of hon. gentlemen by certain references of an hon. member to the Canadian Press. The remarks in question were offered by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), and were very ably replied to by the Prime Minister whose statement I am glad to substantiate. Unfortunately those remarks have been accepted and commented on by subsequent speakers in this debate. In the first
25S8
Combines-Mr. Rinjret

place, I would like to correct the idea that the Canadian Press can prevent the publication of a newspaper in any city in this country, also that this organization is in any sense a "combine of opinion". It is not by any means in the power of the Canadian Press to prevent the publication of any paper in Canada. The only thing they can do, and which they have done in< certain cases, is to deny to certain papers applying for it the privilege of the interchange of news which is enjoyed by those papers composing the Canadian Press. That matter I will deal with at some length later on. But the Canadian Press, contrary to the view expressed by some hon. members opposite, is in no sense a "combine of opinion" because the opinion expressed by any paper has no place whatever in the exchange of news among the different papers concerned. What the Canadian Press does is to furnish to its members news of the events transpiring in different localities in Canada. This is merely carrying out on a larger scale the arrangement which formerly existed between the newspapers of Montreal and the newspapers of Quebec for the exchange of local news. In accordance with this arrangement a newspaper in Quebec would wire to its Montreal confrere local happenings of interest, and the Montreal newspaper would reciprocate by sending to Quebec news of interest from its own neighbourhood. It was thought that the papers in different cities of Canada might agree to an exchange of news and that great advantage might accrue, not only to the papers but also to the reading public, because it would enable the different papers to carry the news at a cheaper rate. But again I say, never has the opinion of a paper been called in question. Take for instance the report of the Canadian House of Commons. These reports are published by Tory papers and by Liberal papers and by Progressive organs, because they are merely a compendium of what takes place in the House. If a paper wishes to comment on speeches made in the House, or measures that are being presented by the government, it is for them to engage a special Ottawa correspondent or to take it up in the editorial columns. There is no question of opinion in the alleged combine of the Canadian press. A Tory paper that is a party to that association may later be bought by the Liberal party or by an independent party, yet it would retain the privileges it enjoys in the Canadian Press. I repeat it is not in the power of the Canadian Press to prevent any paper from starting publication in a city where papers 
belonging to the Canadian Press Association already exist. The only situation that is created is that a paper starting in without the services of the Canadian Press would naturally be placed under a certain handicap, and possibly in that regard the Canadian Press may come more or less within the scope of the bill now before the House. There is not the slightest understanding between any of the papers concerned in the Canadian Press with regard to the rates of advertisement, or the price the paper will charge for copies. I would submit that this news service cannot be handled by a private company. It might be said that it would be better if a private company would undertake to organize a service of that kind and to place it on the market at a certain price so that every paper in the country could buy it. But a private company, not having the machinery and not having the benefit of the organization of the newspapers in different parts of the country could not hope to undertake a service of that kind at a price moderate enough to allow any of the papers to use it. It will also be understood that a service of that kind cannot be unlimited in number of members forming the association. The principle of it is an interchange of news. If you have in that association a paper whose service is limited, and it enjoys the news service of a larger paper for which it does not give a corresponding news service, there certainly would be a lack in the organization that would not be for the good of the newspapers concerned generally or for the good of the public that it is intended to serve.
On the other hand, we cannot forget that this association gets a subsidy from the government, and it looks very much as if it came to a point where the government was subsidizing a certain number of papers ard leaving it in the hands of those papers to refuse admission of other papers in their association. I may say, quoting from memory, that article 7 of the charter of the Canadian Press of 1914 grants to the association the privilege of establishing regulations for the admission and expulsion of members. Possibly there is there too great a liberty given to the association. I would think that if the charter were amended in such a way that the Canadian Press could not refuse admission of papers applying for admission under certain conditions, we might remedy that part of it. But as I am connected with a paper which is now in the association of the Canadian Press, I thought it would be well, before the bill is read the second time, to give this explana-

Combines-Mr. Baxter
tion to the House. Personally I do not think,
outside of that point, that these papers are enjoying a subsidy of public money, I do not think there is anything wrong with the arrangement at all. I would say that if this bill is given effect to it might form the subject of an investigation, but I am quite sure the Canadian Press could withstand an investigation, and could show that its alleged combine is merely an arrangement whereby the Canadian public are getting news from alt over the Dominion, not of a political or contentious character, but merely facts, and they are getting it at a cheaper price than they could if that association did not exist.
I fully agree with the principle of this bill. Some hon. member asked last night, what is the principle of the bill? I think the principle is clear. It is giving the taxpayer an efficient weapon against combines. It has been argued against the bill that it is useless because section 498 of the Criminal Code deals with combines. It has also been argued against the bill that the proceedings provided are too long and of a circuitous character. It has also been argued that the registrar should have wider powers and also a penalizing power. Other arguments have been presented to the effect that this bill could be abused, and that we must protect trade against any demand for inquiry that would not be warranted, and also that we must have secrecy in the proceedings in order to prevent blackmailing or anything of that character. I think all these arguments presented against the bill answer themselves. The reason why the proceedings are of the character the bill provides for, and the reason why the registrar is not given too extended power, is precisely to prevent what other members are afraid the bill might do; that is that it might serve, in the hands of an unscrupulous man or group of unscrupulous men, a wrong purpose. I think it is perfectly right that the registrar should not have absolute power, and that his power should be merely, as the bill provides, to establish an inquiry. It is also perfectly right that whatever company is inquired into should have the right to present its defence. I believe that the argument presented by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that it was a wrong principle to give a chance to the accused party to know of an accusation and give that party time to answer the accusation, is a very wrong argument and altogether un-British. I think the bill is along the right lines. This bill gives the public an opportunity to apply to a registrar for an inquiry, something which it could not do under the criminal code on account of the expenses that
would be involved. It gives to the registrar power to restrict that inquiry, but it gives to the accused parties an opportunity to present their defence. I have sympathy for the proposal that has been made by some hon. members, including the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Marler), that a certain secrecy should be kept over these proceedings as long as the accused party has not been found guilty, because this would be the be= means to prevent any group of men from using this bill, not to fine a combine but merely to serve some other purpose.
In conclusion, I hope this bill will attain its end, not only by providing means to suppress existing combines, but, if it proves an efficient weapon in the hands of the peopD, by preventing the formation of combines in future. I believe that this should be the aim of all legislation, not only to remedy what evil already exists, but to prevent that evil from spreading in the future.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: After the number of speeches that we have heard upon this subject, which is an important one, I do not know whether I am acting wisely in continuing _to occupy the time of the House, as very much of the discussion will properly proceed upon the details of the measure when we are considering it in committee section by section. Yet there are some general observations which have occurred to me and which I feel are fundamental with respect to the measure, and that is my excuse for troubling the House after the debate has already proceeded so extensively.
In the first place, even at the risk of uttering some generalities, I think I may say that the speakers have been generally, if not entirely, in accord in recognizing as perhaps fundamental that combines, trusts and mergers are not necessarily injurious to the public interest. On the other hand, it is common experience that under certain circumstances, and carried on in a certain way, combines, trusts and mergers may produce a very great-injury to the public. I think we can all see that, in the very formation of great aggregations of capital or industry, the world is slowly working out the problem of co-operation which, in some form or other, perhaps one or perhaps many generations after the present time, will find a different method of adjusting
Combines-Mr. Baxter

human relationships from that which we now possess. It is not unnatural perhaps from this side of the House for me to take the traditionally Conservative view of desiring to be assured of what the next step is going to be before I take it. It is not to be wondered at that a certain portion of the community, which I might describe as radical, desires to take some extraordinary step regardless of consequences and rather for the sake of experimentation. Between the two seems to lie the traditionally Liberal view-I do not know whether I interpret it aright-of not saying whether they are going to take any step or not, but of waiting for things to turn up.
I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to legislation of the character which has been introduced in the House. Some remarks have fallen from the lips of hon. members rather intimating that there was no sincerity^ on the part of the previous government in dealing with this question. Some have said that the previous methods have not been effective. Really, Mr. Speaker, I would rather attribute that feature of the discussion, which we have heard in this Chamber, more to a desire to exploit the subject for political capital than to any real wish to bring something to bear upon the present measure and to discuss it on its merits, offering, if they can be made, helpful suggestions for the working out of the act. The past must always be the past, and I trust we are living in the present and looking toward the future; and it is for us, if we do not think that a suggested remedial measure reaches what is really perhaps a danger point in our civilization, to contribute something to the perfecting of that measure. I intend that what I say to-night shall be directed to that end, because before I conclude I trust I shall be able to make some suggestions which I believe would enable the present government and this parliament more effectively to deal with a question of this character than we are able to do under present circumstances.
Among the criticisms that we have heard of the past legislation was the remark of one hon. member that we had now got legislation with a kick in it, as he expressed it. I think I may fairly claim for past administrations, whether they have been Liberal or Conservative, that they have each and all recognized the difficulties which may be presented by some form of commercial combination and have each put forward some means of remedying this state of affairs, which means was thought to be adequate at the time it was promoted. I think the House could fairly agree to that; and it will be conceded, I have no doubt, that the measure introduced in the

time of Sir John A. Macdonald was quite sufficient to meet the evils that appeared in his time; that later legislation which was introduced by my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was believed by him and his party to be adequate for such evils as existed at that time; and that when we come down to the Board of Commerce and the combines legislation my right hon. friend who leads this side of the House (Mr. Meighen) was presenting what was believed to be the most adequate and the latest development in legislation for dealing with difficulties of the character that was being experienced in that day. Surely we must give some credit for a little honour and sincerity of purpose in public life; and I think that the House would do much better to trace the legislation step by step to see where improvements have been made and to find out what gaps, if any, have been left unfilled, and view the present proposition in the light of that history and present experience, with the object of getting some measure, if the present one is not the best, that will be adequate to meet the situation. It is entirely in that spirit, as I say, that I wish to approach the question.
Now, we have to start practically from the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act. There was legislation that I do not think can fairly be described as a wooden gun; it did not in any way lack a kick. The power was there for investigation, for prosecution, for punishment. If the old code provisions, about which I hope to say something before I get through, were not sufficient, at all events the government in 1919 took steps, by two reciprocal measures, to rid the country so far as possible of all unfair dealing in the necessaries of life and in articles of trade and commerce. I do not understand, I cannot find from the records, that a single criticism was offered at that time as to the possible ineffectiveness of the legislation. There was some criticism that the legislation was going too far, but we never heard, I think, on the floor of this House the suggestion that the legislation was in any way outside the competence of this parliament. Now, what happened? The legislation was called into question. We must expect that; every interest that is struck by legislation will naturally turn to the courts and look for relief. Certain interested parties did that; the case was ultimately submitted to the Privy Council, and whether we like it or not, whether or not we think it ought to be the law, we are bound to accept their decision as the law in this respect, and there is

Combines-Mr. Baxter
no appeal for us except to the supreme lawmaking assembly, the parliament of Great Britain.
What did the Privy fcouncil decide? I will not trouble the House by reading lengthy extracts from the judgment, but I think I can put it on this ground: The Privy Council recognized, as it must recognize, the division of powers as between the Dominion and the provinces as laid down by the British North America Act; that in the enumeration of powers vested solely in the province we have property and civil rights within the provinces, and that there is no power in this parliament to trench upon property and civil rights except in some mode ancillary to carrying out some one or more of the powers which are expressly and exclusively confided to this parliament by the British North America Act. I think that any layman, and a great many lawyers, in looking at the British North America Act and studying the allocation of subjects which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament, would have said that the words "trade and commerce" were ample to confer all possible and requisite jurisdiction upon this parliament. But a decision of the Privy Council has laid it down that the vast business of insurance, which has grown so mightily in the last few decades, is not a subject falling within trade and commerce. The Privy Council went much further when the Combines and Fair Prices Act was submitted to it. The Privy Council said that unless the subjects dealt with fell within trade and commerce, this parliament had no power over them at all. It went even a step farther and declared that you could not decide that a thing that fell within the class of "property and civil rights" within a province was noxious and, having decided that, take it out of the class of property and civil rights by calling it an infraction of the criminal law. Whether we like this as a decision or whether we do not, it is the law that binds us today and it' is the principle by which the act submitted by the right hon. Prime Minister must be judged. So that one of the objects of my address this evening is to clear away, if I can, what I humbly think are some misconceptions that prevail in this Chamber with regard to the power and the ability of the measure which has been presented.
I have heard hon. members discussing a subject into the details of which I do not propose to enter, namely, the regulation by an association of newspapers of a certain franchise. I know that some hon. members honestly feel that all that it is necessary to do is to get this bill enacted into law and that they
will then be able to use the investigator and resort to the courts in order to obtain a franchise for a newspaper which is now being denied a franchise. Well, all I can say is that in the light of the decisions to which I have referred, that is a complete misconception of the law. I am not afraid of being treated as a prophet; in fact, there is no prophecy involved in it. You can adopt every syllable of this bill and there will be no relief for that newspaper situation. Let us pass to something else entirely different. This law professes to strike at, possibly, combinations in insurance, but it will be futile in any attempt to deal with that question because insurance has been declared not to be a part of trade and commerce by the highest legal authority in the Empire, and merely putting insurance in this bill will not make it a part of trade and commerce. Unless you legislate with respect to trade and commerce in its widest and amplest sense, you are not legislating at all; there is no power here to deal with the matter. Where then, is the power? The Privy Council has said that it resides in the local legislatures. Unfortunately for the objects of this bill, it does; and before I get through I shall possibly suggest a remedy with regard to that.
Let us now come to something that gets much nearer home so far as a good many members of this House and a go. d many of their constituents are concerned. Mention was made in the course of the debate of the question of milk supply. I have not the slightest doubt that hon. members within the sound of my voice think that if this bill goes through it will be possible to stop any unfair or oppressive combination with regard to the distribution of milk or the fixing of prices for milk. But you cannot do it. If this parliament had the power, the bill would be effective, but the bill fails because parliament constitutionally has not the power. The sale of milk, the sale of butter, of eggs, of ordinary dairy products, of most of the things that we eat or drink or wear, form incidents in the law of property and civil rights which has by the wisdom of our forefathers been allocated to the provinces. Hon. members will recall last year the difficulty that was experienced with regard to a wheat board. That was another attempt of Union government to do a thing that was strongly desired by a part of this country; it failed in precisely the same way. Hon. members know the difficulties that have been experienced since in trying to get corresponding legislation from the provinces in order that a wheat board might be galvanized into partial life. The very same thing that creates that difficulty

Combines-Mr. Baxter

creates this one: you are simply up against the powers of the provincial legislatures and the want of power of this parliament.
Banks and banking. You have there a subject that belongs to the Dominion. You may pass legislation of this character dealing with banks and banking because you have control of the subject and you can pass any law that you want to with regard to the subject. With respect to insurance, as I have said, you cannot. Retail business within a province this parliament cannot touch because it does not fall under any of the heads of the powers that belong to this parliament. Wholesale business if limited to a single province would be equally out of the scope of the legislation, and I have already made a remark about the newspaper situation.
Now what is the remedy for this? In my judgment, and I am giving it for what it is worth, the proper way to reach this subject is to get the power in this parliament to deal with what is a very important phase of national life. I do not regard the compact of confederation as a thing that came into force on the 1st day of July, 1867, and that has never to be altered. I realize the immense difficulties there would be in getting the consent of the provinces to approach the Imperial parliament and have a resettling of those distributions of power, but I think we have got to come to it some day. I am not going to discuss by itself in any way the question of the wheat board that we had last winter, but I say that if wheat control is a necessary thing for Canada, if that be demonstrated then the obvious, the logical, the necessary thing to do is to go where the power can be given and get the power given to this parliament to deal with a question of that kind by Canada, instead of having it split up among the several provinces and become utterly ineffective. Just in the same way, if I am right in my interpretation of the judgment of the Privy Council, and I think I am, the remedy that ought to be applied today is not the enacting of legislation which is going to fall far, far short of the expectations of this House, is going to fall far, far short of the provisions that are contained in it, so far as effectiveness is concerned; the remedy is to get the provinces to co-operate and to ask the Imperial parliament to change the distribution of powers between the federal and the local legislatures and give the power to this body so that efficient legislation may be enacted. We are going to have, and have in increasing measure as time goes on, trusts and combines, mergers and monopolies, and it seems to me almost farcical to suggest that

they ever can or will be adequately dealt with by provincial legislation. Then if the power is not here, and the Privy Council has said that it is not here except in rare instances, again I repeat the obvious thing is to take the proper steps to get the power so that this parliament may function in accord with the will of the people.
But entirely apart from that I would like to take perhaps a few minutes to discuss what might be done at the present time, without seeking any delay, that would afford some relief, would give some power and would in my opinion be more effective than the measure that is proposed; in other words would d) very much the same thing but in a different sort of way. Reference has been made to section 498 of the Criminal Code. Reference has also been made to a judgment recently in an Ontario court, and to the observations of the Deputy Minister of Justice upon that decision. In my judgment-it may not be worth much but it is the best I have got- the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice is absolutely right and the obiter of the Chief Justice of Ontario-perhaps it was more than that-that the code provision was ultra vires is, I humbly submit, not a correct view of the law. I prefer and believe to be correct the judgment of the majority of the court and the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice. But this code provision which has been ii force now for a great many years has never been a wooden gun. It has never been an ineffective weapon. It has been simply, readily applied, easily operated, and it may surprise hon. members of the House to realize that it has been invoked at least with fair frequency and on the whole with a very great deal of success. If my hon. friends will take the trouble to take any modem book on Canadian criminal jurisprudence, turn to section 498 and look at the list of cases that are cited as having been decided under it, they will find that in the great majority of these cases the prosecutions were successful. I have not pretended-I did not think it worth while

to make an exhaustive digest of the cases because I realize that while parliament is a court in one sense, yet about the last thing that parliament desires is to hear a lawyer talking shop, and therefore I do not want to make a long bead-roll of cases. But I might point out that there was a wheat case in Manitoba. It is known as the Gage case. There the prosecution failed. But why did it fail? Because the court held, or the single judge before whom it was tried held, and the appellate court felt they could not interfere with him, that an agreement to exact a profit of one cent

cause he had formulated a different one. I would be driven to this position: I would have to say that it must be a matter of considerable doubt, and that the question could not be resolved until the opinion of the highest appellate tribunal in the Empire had been taken on the subject. Because, after all, there is no very great difference in the reasoning power among the members of my profession. It is just as possible for one man to read the judgment of the Privy Council and draw his deductions as it is for another; and I would not lightly let go of my opinion which I may say I have not formed except after a very great deal of study of the question. I believe that I am absolutely right, though I would be sorry to assert that in such a broad way if I were confronted with an opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice just as stoutly asserting the opposite.
Now, in the course of the Board of Commerce case the Privy Council pointed out pretty well what this parliament might do. In summing up the legislation of the Combines and Fair Prices Act they pointed out that it authorized the board, under that act, to restrict in cases of food, clothing and fuel, accumulations of these necessaries of life beyond the amount reasonably required in the case of a private person for his household not less than in the case of a trader for his business. They pointed out further that this was an interference in normal times with property and civil rights; that the authority of parliament to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce does not, by itself, enable interference with particular trades in which Canadians would, apart from any right of interference conferred by these words, be free to engage in the provinces. They further said that legislation implies a claim of title in the cases of non-traders as well as of traders to make orders prohibiting the accumulation of certain articles required for everyday life, and the withholding of such articles from sale at prices to be defined by the board, whenever they exceed the amount of material which appears to the board to be required for domestic purposes or ordinary purposes of business. The board was authorized, they say, to deal with individual cases, and not merely as the result of applying principles to be laid down as of general application.
Now, what is the present legislation? It is simply authorizing not a board but a registrar to deal with individual cases and is not merely the result of applying the principles to be laid down as of general application. The Prime Minister has, I think, considerably improved the structure of his bill by striking

words out of the combination section leaving so much to the opinion of the registrar. But still the expression "combine," as defined by the bill, is to be what? It is:
-to have reference to such combines immediately hereinafter defined as have operated or are likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or otherwise.
Limited as aforesaid the expression that is used in the bill is to be deemed to include certain things which are enumerated. I want to point out that while I, in common with every other member of this House, would be glad to see effective legislation which would prevent combinesters from attaining an object which they intended to reach in the future, yet when I read this language "have operated or are likely to operate," I realize that it is beyond the power of parliament to make a criminal act out of something that has not been committed. If this bill goes through in this form to the Privy Council, the moment they see that language they will say, "You cannot invoke the criminal law' to punish a man for what he has not yet done. You cannot with one foot step into the domain of provincial right, and place the other foot upon the bed rock of the Criminal Code, and try to straddle the question in that way. You tried it once with the Combines and Fair Prices Act, and we upset that; you cannot come back and try it under this slightly changed form of words, for the change is very slight."
What I am appealing to the House to consider is not at all the interests of any one who seeks to oppress the people, or the interests of any one who seeks to interfere with the trade and commerce or business of the country, and not the interests of any one who strives to make a purely partisan question out of this measure. I believe that the measure will go through, but I am trying to drive home to hon. members the fact-and they might as well know it before they vote for the bill-that when they have set the seal of legislation upon this measure they will have accomplished practically nothing, so far as effectiveness is concerned. They will have done one thing. They will have voted an indirect subsidy that will not be paid wholly out of the exchequer of this country, but that will be paid by scores of contributors throughout Canada to gentleman of my cloth, who will have an opportunity of discussing the defects of this measure before court after court, until it reaches the Privy Council, and in the meantime, once you get a case launched towards the Privy Council, you will have absolutely no attempt to enforce the law until

Combines-Mr. Baxter
that case is decided. You will have a veritable fit of paralysis.
My hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) was not able in his speech to accurately define the measure. He got a little bit off the track and was trying to put the blame on my right hon. leader. He has not described to us yet any nefarious device that my right hon. friend invented or made use of to prevent the Board of Commerce Act, or the Combines and Fair Prices Act, from working, but he says it did not work. The reason it did not work was that when the question was raised, and when the question was on its way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it would have been blind folly to have started prosecutions all over the country which might, and, as the result shows, would have been upset in their conclusions by that decision. I would ask if there is anything more specific in What the minister charged than what he has already said. I think the reason I have given is a complete answer to the remarks that he made, as I thought rather unfairly, trying to throw upon an individual blame for something which, if there is blame at all in connection with it, is due to the Fathers of Confederation, who, perhaps somewhat unwisely, divided the legislative power between the Dominion and the provinces. My right hon. friend can scarcely be accused of that, and I do not know that any one political party can be accused of it. We are learning and we are developing, and I am suggesting that there is a way out of the difficulty by a reallocation of those powers. Going back to section 2, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that the word "such" in the third line be struck out so that the section would read:
The expression "combine" in this act shall be deemed to have reference to combines hereinafter defined, or to combines immediately affecting trade and commerce and defined as having operated or likely to operate.
I have even great doubt of the wisdom of employing the words "likely to operate." It seems to me the only way this measure can be made effective is to couple it up with something that directly affects trade or commerce. Unless we have the power of getting rid of the Privy Council, we cannot legislate for anything outside of trade and commerce. As the section is drafted, it appears in a mere incidental form in the last clause-
-or otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce.
But it can hardly be necessary to set up a board for the purpose of doing the one thing, or to appoint a registrar for the purpose of
doing one thing, that the Privy Council has said we may validly do. I read from the judgment that the Dominion can call for statistical and other information which may be valuable for guidance in affecting Canada as a whole. Such information may be required before any power to regulate trade and commerce can be properly exercised. They cannot confer capacity to regulate particular trades and businesses.
Now against that vital portion of the judgment this legislation is bound to come, and when the two come in conflict, the legislation is going to fall, and not the decision of the Privy Council. I know that if I were dealing with this matter from a purely political and partisan standpoint, if we were indulging in repartee on both sides of the House, and if we were having a good election field night the discussion would be intensely more interesting, but I cannot help it. Law is a dry subject, and I cannot handle it in any other than a dry manner. Still I want the House to have the patience to follow me a little bit through the provisions of the code. Section 498 of the code says
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding $4,000 and not less than $200.
And those can be increased by simple amendments.
Or to two years' imprisonment, or if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding $10,000 and not less than $1,000, who-
Does what?
-conspires-
Now we have all power to legislate criminally against conspiracy. We are on solid ground. The section continues-
-agrees or arranges with any other person or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing, or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce-
Whoever drafted that section scouted and rather condemned absolute safeguards, and yet whoever drafted that section had pre-vision of the decision of the Privy Council, was so good a constitutional lawyer that the Privv Council, nearly two decades afterwards, hat-fallen into line with him, because he confined this thing to trade and commerce, the effective subjects upon which we can legislate. The section continues:
-or to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity, or -to unduly prevent, limit or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof, or,
-to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the pro-
Combines-Mr. Baxter

duction, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon persons or property.
It is impossible, by talking about the matter, to make comparisons that will be visible. If hon. members could lay those provisions with the words separated, in the rough analysis that I have given, side by side with the proposed measure, they would find that really there is in the proposed measure not very much that is not in the code. There are, however, some things that are covered by the code, and I do not think will be reached by the measure. I am not going to take them all in detail. There is the subject of transportation, which is now under inquiry, not under the proposed legislation, but under a special commission appointed for the purpose. We know in a general way the complaint about the taking, practically the absorption, by the transportation companies, of the profits gained from the soil. Yet if those transportation companies operate wholly within the limits of a single province, the new legislation will not be effective as regards them. If the transportation is between two provinces, or between Canada and a foreign country, there will then be ground upon which this legislation can be based.
I do not think it will be worth while to continue a technical discussion of this character at greater length. I simply say that the way for this House to deal with this subject at present is by adding to the Criminal Code such provisions as are deemed to be vitally necessary. Then you have a straight, clear, direct way of enforcing punishment upon the people who violate those provisions. The other thing that can be done is with the concurrence of the provinces, to apply to the Imperial parliament, to change the British North America Act so that we may do what we ought to be able to do here, validly to legislate on a subject of this character as comprehensively as possible. That I believe can be accomplished; but in the meantime there is no use; in fact, it is unfair-I withdraw the remark "it is unfair"

it is of no use to represent to the people of this country that a wonderful panacea for social ills has been discovered and is now being presented to the country. I withdraw the remark that it is unfair, because I believe in the sincerity of the right hon. gentleman who introduced it and a number of hon. gentlemen who have spoken in support. No, I must withdraw that, because I have not heard, outside of two members, any who have spoken absolutely in its support. Most hon. members on the government side have found
[Mr. Baxter. 1
fault with it, and I have not heard very great faith expressed, except by one hon. gentleman in the other portion of this side of the House; but I think those who are putting it forward are sincere. I also think, and I have the right to think, they are absolutely mistaken, and that when this measure becomes law, when the official is appointed for whom the place is being made ready, when he has his cohorts around him, when ho begins trying to persuade the Attorney General of a province to take action-and that has not been easily accomplished in the past -when he falls back on the Attorney General of Canada or the Solicitor General of Canada and gets some prosecution going, I am not absolutely sure that the people of Canada are not in for another great disillusion. For a few days it will go through the country that a wonderful remedy that nobody ever thought of before has been provided; but after the lapse of a year or so, it will go into the discard along with other legislation that has been passed and that has been found to be ineffective.
I will not make any remarks of a partisan character. I simply appeal to the right hon. gentleman in charge of the bill to give it some more consideration, and if he will, to adopt the suggestion of strengthening the criminal code and letting the Attorney General
9 p.m. of Canada or the Solicitor General of Canada, armed with a real gun that will shoot, go into the courts and bring down some of those "combinesters" that we heard so much about during the last election, and that up to this hour no hon. gentleman opposite has either named or even indicated by a vibrant finger pointing in many directions at almost the same time. The province of Ontario was flooded with speeches from an hon. gentleman who, I see, is taking hypocrisy out of public life by retiring himself. I refer to Attorney General Raney, who went throughout the length and breadth of Ontario preaching against the combine in connection with the Ford Motor Company and telling the farmers of Ontario how they were being robbed by the iniquitous government which was putting thousands and millions of dollars into the Ford Company. Last night I was in earnest, I was not joking, when I asked the Minister of Labour to name some of those combines that the government wants to get after. I thought he would name the Ford Company, but he did not. He was invited from this side of the House to name a number; but, oh, with that smile that this House enjoys so much, and with that oratorical utterance that is so pleasant to us all, he just waved aside all interruptions, looking as if he was perfectlv

Combines-Mr. Putnam.
happy about what he was saying, managed to side-step everything and, in the end, took his seat without having expressed his faith in the existence of anything but some vague, nebulous combine that he did not propose to name and that he would not even assure us that he could name if he would.
While last session this question which I must ask, would not, perhaps, have been quite pertinent, this session it is surely reasonably fair. We were accused of being the party standing in with combines, mergers and monopolies. We were the oppressors of the poor. Every rise in the cost of living was charged to us and our wicked associates. But our hon. friends have now had a fairly reasonable time to put into effect the somewhat vigorous existing provisions of the criminal code; they have had a fairly decent time in which to prepare special legislation, naming the villains if they want to get at them directly. Have they done so? Under those circumstances, is this bill after all marked with all the sincerity that I have been giving its authors credit for, or is it just one more scene in the vast camouflage of politics?


Mr. HAROLD PUTNAM (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I had not the privilege of hearing the whole of this discussion, and I may set the House at rest by saying that my observations shall be very few. I want to tell the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) that I have very much enjoyed his speech, and I have no mental reservations in telling him that I particularly enjoyed that major portion of it which was devoted to a legal discussion of this question. The hon. gentleman, I am sure, would receive a respectful hearing on a legal question wherever he chose to present himself. There was one observation of his with which I might have the temerity to take issue, or at least to discuss with himself and the House. He seemed to imply that if the person laying the information in the early stages could arrive at no further point than to show that there was a state of facts, or that there were doings or circumstances which produced nothing more than the imminence of an objectionable combine there would be no offence under the act. I cannot follow the hon. gentleman there. The bill does presume a state of affairs wherein a combine is imminent; it does presuppose a state of affairs wherein a combine, may or might result from certain indicated circumstances; and it says in effect that you may nip the mischief in the bud and go on with the investigation. The very clauses read by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) from the Criminal Code went no further than that; and yet that was by his own admission a distinct crime, because those clauses read by him from the Criminal Code, I take it, relate merely to a conspiracy to do certain things. I think therefore that a state of affairs which reveals the imminence of an objectionable combine is an offence just as truly as are the cases which were cited by my hon. friend when he read from the Criminal Code itself. In the other and more elaborate phase of the hon. gentleman's very interesting and lucid legal argument, I do not presume to follow him to-night further than to say that to me it . was very interesting and I thought substantially fair. I am in hopes that this is entirely intra vires legislation. However, if it is not it will but prove another of those little knocks by which from experience we have come to understand the Act of Confederation better and better as the years roll on.
The bill has been considerably criticized on the ground that it is too easy and informal a proceeding to allow, as it does, six persons to put their heads together and submit a complaint seeking thereby an investigation. Looking at the surrounding circumstances, we must presume that the registrar will be a man of intelligence, of reasonable shrewdness and of judicial temperament. We must presume that, as a juror, he will know or can ascertain, to some substantial extent, the character of the six persons who make the complaint. It is suggested that a man might have a spite against an employer who may have dismissed him from his factory, and that for that reason he would start a merely vexatious prosecution. Well, the remedy for that lies in the common sense of the registrar. I know that in my home town we have a stipendiary magistrate, who, if someone comes and lays a charge against an alleged rum-seller, and if he detects any element of spite in the conduct of the complainant, generally gives such a man pretty short shrift in his court. So that I would take it that one who held so important an office as registrar for the Dominion under this legislation would have an opportunity of becoming fairly well acquainted with the bona fides of a complaint that was submitted to him. Further, six men are a fairly substantial number to lodge a complaint, and it is not at all probable that they would be just so many ne'er-do-wells trying to start trouble. But if they were, as I say, the registrar by a little local inquiry could easily ascertain their character and the bona fides or the mala fides of the complaint, which would largely influence him in coming to a conclusion in the matter and would make for thoroughness and care before the undertaking of an investigation. But the registrar need not be content with a mere verbal or
259S
Combines-Mr. Putnam

written statement; he can at once invoke section 17 and require the complainants to go upon oath; and every layman knows that if he is reckless in a solemn affirmation or affidavit he is immediately open to the charge of perjury. Section 17a provides:
The registrar and every commissioner may accept or require evidence upon affidavit or written affirmation, in every case in which it seems to him proper-to do so.
That means that, at any stage, he may declare himself dissatisfied with the statement submitted to him and require an affidavit upon which to base the investigation. So that the mode of instituting the investigation is not quite so plain and easy and informal as many a critic in this House may imagine. The origin of an investigation is something more substantial than that; it is not nearly so intangible as many hon. members evidently suppose.
There is some misconception abroad already with regard to this bill. I find that the Ottawa Journal in an editorial has the ridiculous supposition that if the registrar produces a certificate that in his view the matter should go to the criminal court, that is all the evidence that the Attorney General will require to obtain conviction. Let me read one paragraph from the editorial. It is interesting merely as showing how wide of the mark the writer has been:
The registrar may, if he sees fit, conduct his proceedings in camera. If he signs a certificate that a combine is in existence which is detrimental to the public interest, such certificate by him is all that the prosecuting attorney need present to the court in asking for a conviction and the accused, although before the court, may be denied the right to establish or attempt to establish his innocence; the courts under this bill may become merely sentencing bodies.
This is interesting only by reason of the fact that interested parties are deluging members of parliament with propaganda; and I would suggest that if they undertake to give it the dignity of print they should be much more careful with reference to their facts. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) himself expressed an opinion entirely contrary to this only last night. His fear was that you would reveal the evidence upon which the prosecution would be based and that you would not get a conviction. He was decidedly of the view that up to the time the matter reached the criminal court nothing would have been done in the way of having a legal pronouncement made as to the guilt or innocence of the man against whom an objectionable combine was charged. He properly explained that a complete trial would have to take place in the criminal court. I am sorry the right lion, gentleman is not at this moment in his place, 
but he appeared to think that it would be a calamity if the accused were not convicted I do not look upon the matter in that light at all. It might well be that while the accused did not go over the edge of the precipice and did not actually form an objectionable combine he might have come very near the mark and that his conduct was properly a matter for investigation. We are not after blood; if it is shown that he did not go that full length, no possible harm is done. But I should say that if a responsible registrar sent the case that far it is highly probable that a man whose conduct in connection with the class of trade in which he was engaged was the subject of such suspicion, he would be pretty well warned at that stage, and the publicity would do no harm but good. Moreover, the? bill safeguards him by providing that the inquiry shall be conducted in camera if there is nothing to send up to the criminal court.
Almost every hon. member concedes that we should have laws and regulations against the miserable device of combines, trusts and mergers that are really inimical to the public interest. But hon. gentlemen opposite say: We have a criminal code that is an almost perfect remedy in itself; with a little amendment it would be a perfect remedy. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been used to a federal statute dealing with alleged combines and mergers, apart from the criminal code, and we should continue to have such a law specially dealing with cases of that kind. Even if this is not a perfect act the deterrent effect will be of value. I say that another warning hand should be held out, in addition to what is involved in section 498, which is practically hidden away in the criminal code. Let the public know that we have made this effort; it will not interfere with legitimate or honest business. Imperfect though the bill may be, it can be improved with practice and experience at subsequent sessions of parliament. Let us make a start, because at present we practically have to fall back entirely on the criminal code.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition said, I think it was last night, that we could get so far with the procedure under this bill but no farther. I confess I could not follow him in that. He said: "You say what a combine is; you bring your evidence, but you do not tell the man complained against what he shall not do or what he shall do henceforth." Well, it seems to me that you might as well say that if at a given level crossing there were no accidents in the course of a year, you might reasonably take down the conspicuously painted sign which directed the

Combines-Mr. Lewis
attention of the public to the fact that that was a railway crossing and warned them to be careful. Or you might as well say that if in a given community nobody was prosecuted for theft during the period of a year, the provision against theft might well be struck out of the criminal code. It is only a quibble to say that the publicity of the evidence and the pronouncement of the judge for conviction or acquittal will not indicate to a reasonable merchant whose conduct has been called in question that he should adopt a certain course. It is only a quibble to say that that experience will not give him the cue as to what he shall do or what he shall not do, or as to how he shall or shall not henceforth carry on his business.


Mr. A. J. LEWIS (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up very much time to-night; a great deal of what I had intended to say has already been said. I have listened to the various arguments for and against the proposed legislation, and I was particularly interested in the new line of argument presented by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) namely, the constitutional aspect of the question. I do not know very much about the constitutional law of Canada, but it does seem to me that colour is lent to his argument when comparison is made with the neighbouring republic to the south. There we find that there is a federal law' in regard to trusts and combines, and the great majority of the states as well have legislation dealing with the same subject. Whether or not this applies to Canada I am not in a position to say, but it does seem to me that some such legislation is needed in Canada at the present time. I do not think anyone can read the evidence that has been given before the various committees in this House without feeling that there is need for legislation such as is now proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I wish to speak not so much in regard to the spirit of the bill as to the need of it. I was particularly struck with a certain sentence uttered by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). He said that somehow or other the common people of Canada had got the idea that the high prices, the high cost of living, were due to trusts and combines.


Mr. MARLER:: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. Is he reading from Hansard?


Arthur John Lewis: I quote:
I think I am right in saying that the public mind has for many years associated the high cost of living with the existence of combines, trusts and mergers ao-[DOT]called.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member used
the words "common people;" I never used that expression. I do not believe the people are common people.


Arthur John Lewis: The public mind, then.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Quite so.


Arthur John Lewis: I think the public mind
judges pretty fairly the conditions as they exist. Now, I read the bill carefully and I was heartily in support of it, but I was just a little bit disappointed when the right hon. Prime Minister, in his remarks yesterday, explained its application. It seems to me that by his explanation the bill was largely robbed of its virtue. His w'ords w'ere-I think I can quote them also exactly-that in the industrial world as we find it at the present time, combines and mergers are essential, and that there are such things as just combines and agreements. What I want to ask the House is this: What is the general reason why we have a trust? There must be some reason why business men get together to form trusts, combines and mergers. In the United States some years ago, when mergers and combines had become prevalent, an investigation was made during the course of which organizers of combines, trusts, and so on were interviewed. In almost every case it was stated by those people that the purpose of the combination was to suppress competition and to gain control. One particular sentence is significant in that connection, and I will read it. It says:
It throws off the restraint of competition by absorbing overawing or crushing out competition.
That was the reason, the investigators said, why they had combines and mergers in the United States. Now in looking over this bill and over the history of Canada it seems to me that this sentence is particularly applicable to the banking history of this country, when you consider the number of banks that have passed out of existence and the financial control that has been centered in the hands of a few men simply by absorbing and crushing out and beating out competition. In this bill I am sorry to say 1 see nothing in regard to financial combinations. It seems to me that the financial end should also be included in the bill. I can readily understand that from the standpoint of the business man competition is an evil. The chief thing that a manufacturer desires is high prices for his products. I think it is a well known economic fact and law that where combination is possible competition becomes impossible. I was speaking to one of the wholesalers in Saskatchewan only a few weeks ago, and he said that he comes down
Combines-.1/r. Lewis

east to Montreal or Toronto to buy his goods for the whole year about the 1st of May, but he said that he cannot buy them on that date. He must wait a certain time, possibly till the 15th, and then on the 15th of May he is told the price of his goods. He said that it would not make any difference to him whether he went to one man or another. There may be six firms manufacturing the same thing, but they would all have the same price. The price had already been set by the combination of these firms. So it does seem to me that where this exists, and we seem to know instinctively that such mergers and combinations do exist and set prices in Canada, such legislation as this is really needed.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) mentioned a fact last night in regard to the tariff. I notice in the bill that one of the remedies that is proposed in section 23 is the lowering of the tariff if the price charged the consumer is too great. Now in the United States some years ago a certain man named Havemeyer uttered this sentence, "The protective tariff is the mother of trusts.'' I .do not think that statement can be swept away without some consideration. It has been said repeatedly in this House that the tariff has nothing to do with combines, mergers and such like. I believe that the tariff has something to do with them. I believe that another factor enters into it also. One is the industrial situation as we have it at the present time. We have a competitive system, and the logical outcome of any competitive system is this, that the manufacturers will endeavour to save themselves from any competition that would destroy them, and so for that reason the logical sequence of a competitive system is naturally combines and mergers for the salvation of those in the business, and until we can change our system and have some other form of co-operation it will be necessary to have combines and mergers as we have them at the present time. In the United States, with all the drastic legislation they have enacted, means have been found of outwitting the legislation and beating the anti-trust laws as they have them there.
In regard to the sentence I quoted a moment ago as to the tariff you can readily understand, Mr. Speaker, that high tariff duties charged on many articles permitted a largo measure of profit to the manufacturers with the result that there was a duplication of plants, and as a result of that duplication ruinous competition and production, and in order to escape the latter trusts were organ-

ized. Now if the tariff h*ad not granted immunity from foreign competition, people would not have ventured to place their capital in those industries. So in the first place it is a tesult of the high tariff. This artificial barrier has led to goods being manufactured in this country that never should have been produced here, and that has made it necessary for us to have combines. Where it can be materially proved that combines exist as a result of the tariff I think that section 23, if applied drastically, will have the effect of remedying the situation.
There is another thing that I feel is a great evil in regard to combines. Certain hon. members of this House have said that combines are not necessary evils. As I look over the history of combines in this country, what do I find? I find that possibly some ten, fifteen or twenty companies have been merged into one great company, and when you compare the total capitalization of ah the companies that entered into the merger with the capitalization of the merger you will find that in the new merger the capitalization is overwhelmingly above that of the sum total of the smaller companies. The result is that in a merger we get an over-capitalization. What effect has that on the consuming public? The man who is put in charge of this new merger demands that his company shall pay dividends on the over-capitalization, with the result that these mergers instead of producing a commodity at a lower price through the smaller economies that can be effected by means of a large organization, are swallowing up such benefits by paying large dividends on over-capitalized stock, with the result that the combination is of no benefit to the consumer.
Professor Jenks on behalf of the Industrial Commission in the United States refutes the thought that combines through the small economies effected bring about cheaper prices. He cites two instances, the instance of the Standard Oil Company and also the Sugar Trust. It is true that as a result of the Standard Oil Company coming into being, although that one great organization passed out of existence some years ago as far as legislation was concerned, they did lower the price, but when an investigation was made it was found that the crude oil had also been lowered in price and that the difference to the consumer was even smaller than the difference in the price which the Standard Oil had to pay for its crude oil. The same relation was also proven in regard to the sugar industry.
I view with a great deal of alarm the centralization of capital in large-scale industries

It is said that it is necessary for us to have large industries in order that we may compete successfully with other countries in other parts of the world, and yet when we look at the prices that our products sell for in foreign countries we find them very much lower than the prices in our own country. So the argument does not work out very well. It is a well known fact that in Great Britain, the United States and Canada the home consumer usually has to pay for the export trade. Large scale industries may not be an evil in themselves. They may save a great many small economies, but so far as I am concerned I believe m legislation that will be drastic enough to have complete power to investigate any merger or combine, and if it is found that it is working against the interests of the public it should be amenable to law and that the law of Canada.
I should have liked to speak in regard to the history of some of these combines and mergers in the United States. During what we might term the year of combines there we find that 149 combinations were formed in which the subscribed capital amounted to over three billions of dollars, a menace practically to the public. It was the fear of destructive elements of competition that forced these people to combine. I ask the government, could this have taken place in the United States or in Canada if free trade had prevailed? As a result of combination in the United States the Standard Oil Company paid 12 per cent in dividends in 1891 and in 1902 no less than 45 per cent. Yet to all appearances, they give some semblance of competition to the people of the United States. As far as possible the authorities have endeavoured in the United States to overcome these combinations. I understand that in 1892 the Supreme Court of New York state declared that the organization of the Standard Trust Company was illegal. What did the company do? Immediately following the declaration they adopted a new plan. They divided up the shares, but continued to hold the great majority of them just as completely as in the case of the old Trust Company. That is the danger in regard to any legislation that we put upon the statute books.
The spirit of the measure that we are now called upon to pass is all right. It is a step, and a good step, in the right direction; but I would like to see the responsibility for taking action placed not upon any six individuals, but upon the government. The rights of the people are in question here. They are bearing a heavy burden at the
8, 1923	.
Combines-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
present time, as we find out from the evidence given before investigating parliamentary committees; and it seems to me that the government should not only enact this legislation but follow it up by such action as will free the people from the operations of these unjust mergers and combines. Combinations may be necessary in the industrial life of the country but when they operate unjustly the people should be given a chance to escape from the extortionate cnarges which these combines often exact instead of remaining satisfied with legitimate profits.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: I do not intend to offer any very extended remarks at this late hour, but believing this to be the most important legislation that has come before the House this session I wish to put myself on record as being strong'y in its favour. During the past few years the subject with which this bill deals has been a very live one throughout the Dominion, and has been discussed pro and con from every platform. Now we believe the time has arrived when some relief should be given the public along the line indicated.
The criticisms which have been directed against the measure to-night are not very well founded in my opinion. Y e must make a start somewhere. Legal questions will always be raised in connection with any proposed legislation; gentlemen of the legal profession will always discover points for discussion no matter what the provisions of a bill may be.
I believe this is a start in the right direction. We do not want any better evidence of that than the sensation which it has created throughout the country. Hon. members have been receiving letters and circulars from combines and trusts showing they have awakened to the situation which confronts them and realize there is going to be something doing in the future. I cannot altogether follow the argument of some hon. members who maintain that in a free trade country there will be no combines. Personally, I am strongly in favour of a policy of free trade and I would like the time to come when we, in the lower provinces at least, might enjoy that great boon. But the existence of free trade is no deterrent against the formation of combines and trusts. We read in the public journals that in the case of articles upon which there is a low rate of duty combinations have been formed on both sides of the international boundary for the purpose of getting together and holding up prices. So that I am not able to follow the reasoning of hon. gentlemen who argue that combines will not exist where free trade obtains.
Combines-Mr. COMMONS
Mackenzie King
I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) this afternoon. He sounded a splendid note in his address and I believe his remarks will have their due effect on some of the combines to which he referred, notably the sugar trust. We know, also, that the manufacturers on a large scale of hats, caps, boots and shoes are seemingly making exorbitant profits. If this bill is brought into operation and one or two of the offenders taught a severe lesson I believe it will tend to put an end to this unjust system and that in future those who conduct industrial enterprises will be satisfied with a more reasonable margin of profit. I do not think anyone in this House wishes to crowd any manufacturer out of business. What we do desire is that he shall be satisfied with a fair profit and not exact exorbitant rates from the consuming public.
I am strongly in favour of this legislation and am proud to belong to the party responsible for introducing it. I am only too glad to follow a Prime Minister who has brought such a bill as this before parliament; it is one that should receive the support of every hon. member. Let us adopt this measure and show the country that we are behind the Prime Minister and intend to see that it is put into force. I do not take much stock in the argument that this bill is not workrl le. As I say, this legislation is a start in the right direction and if experience discloses any imperfections the law can be amended from time to time. Let us all unite in passing this bill and show the country that we mean business.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: If any hon.
member desires to speak he should take advantage of the present opportunity before the mover of the resolution closes the debate.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The discussion which has continued now for the greater part of two days has disclosed, as has already been alluded to by one hon. member opposite, that the House is practically unanimously agreed that in this age of competition it is unavoidable that there should be large combinations of capital and business interests. It was pretty generally admitted, with the exception of possibly one speaker, that industrial combinations in one form or another were inevitable having regard to world competition as it exists to-day. This legislation starts out from the point of view that such is the case. The hon. member to whom I have referred, also mentioned that new times bring new dei elopments and new methods of dealing with new situations. I think it is worthy of note in that connection that from the point of view of

legislation on matters of this kind a real advance has been made. The Canadian parliament in 1909 was virtually the first parliament to take the attitude that it was not proper to legislate against combinations as such, but rather that it was from the point of view of guarding against the ill effects of large combination that legislation of this kind should proceed. It has now become pretty generally accepted that that is the correct point of view to adopt.
Let me refer by way of example to the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation of the United States, regarded at the time as the best possible method of proceeding. It started from the point of view that combinations as such were wrong, and that combinations of large business interests were an evil. It was found, as endeavours were made to enforce that law, that its enforcement was an impossibility: that it was really proceeding from a wrong point of view. To-day we find that members on both sides of the House are in general agreement as to the right of combination where it is legitimately carried on. This would have been impossible fifteen years ago. We may feel in the circumstance that the world has moved a step forward in an understanding of the problems of modern business.
Another point on which the House has been m agreement is that combinations which operate against the public interest or are detrimental to the public interest should not be supported or permitted. Well if we are in agreement on both these points, I fail to see wherein any reasonable objection can be urged to the legislation which is being presented to parliament to-night. It is based on the supposition that combinations will continue to exist; and if properly conducted have a right to exist. The only kind of combination which it pretends in any way adversely to affect is a combination carried to the point where the public interest suffers in order that private interests may make gains to which they are rightly entitled. If the country will appreciate, and the House will appreciate that such is the sole purpose of the legislation, the bringing to time, so to speak, combinations that in their secret business methods go beyond what is reasonable and fair, to prevent what amounts to extortion as regards the public, and that this is all that is being aimed at in this legislation, there should, I think, be unanimity of expression in favour of some legislation of the kind.
Let me say a word about the relations of the public to big business. I have heard a great deal in th's debate about the business interests and the rights of business, and the

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
non-interference with private rights and the like. I think it is sometimes forgotten that perhaps, after all, the public is one of the parties to industry just as much as any of the other parties. It was assumed at one time that all the problems of industry were problems that related solely to labour and capital. Then there came forward another class that claimed the right to be considered in the discussion of these problems. That was the class that describes itself as management, those possessing managerial ability. It was pointed out that while capital could do a great deal, and labour could do a great deal, unless the two vTere in some way brought together and directed intelligently under the skill, the business ability of a guiding genius very little could be accomplished in the way of large business. It is now admitted that these three groups are entitled to consideration in matters pertaining to industry but a fourth group of late has come more and more to the fore, and is beginning to receive more and more its due consideration,, I mean the public; the public which, for a long time, was ignored altogether. Labour, capital and managerial ability each claimed its share of consideration in the distribution of the fruits of industry, but the public was left to shift for itself. So. far as this legislation is concerned, it is brought forward in the name of that fourth party, in the name of the public without whom neither labour nor capital nor managerial ability could accomplish or achieve anything.
It may be asked, Mr. Speaker, how it is that large businesses are able to expand and to carry on to the extent they do? It is in virtue of what the public does, or permits to be done, through its organization in one form or another. Were it not for law and order as preserved by the public through governments what could large businesses achieve? Were it not for what the public permits in the way of organization of transportation, organized banking and credit facilities, agencies of communication and the like, what could large business achieve one way or the other? Were it not for what the public does in furthering education, encouraging invention, stimulating trade through its consular representatives, through its trade agencies and the like, were it not for what is achieved by diplomatic representatives, where would large business be in its successful ventures throughout the world? I might go on and mention the very direct aids that are given to big business in such matters as have been referred to frequently in this debate, as for example the tariff, bounties and other
forms of special protection given to large business. By whom? By the public, through the agency of its representatives in parliament. Well, if it is true that the public is rendering this service to industry, surely the public has a right to demand of industry and business that, so far as it is concerned, it will be protected from any extreme and extortionate act on the part of large business through the facilities it affords. That is all the government is asking for in this bill.
We come in the name of the fourth party to industry, we come in the name of the public, the people at large, and say to large business interests, whether it be manufacturing, wholesale or retail businesses, agencies of communication, commercial enterprises or the like, but for what the people do, not merely in creating demands for commodities of these industries and arranging for their distribution, but in the other ways to which I have referred, large business would not have any place in the community at all. We say, in consequence of that, the public is entitled to know where it stands in reference to its part and relation to industry as a whole.
A great discussion over this measure has had special reference to the criminal offence which is created in this enactment. Hon. members opposite, and particularly my hon. friend for St. John (Mr. Baxter) have spoken more especially in reference to the criminal section of this bill. I would like for the moment to have hon. members forget that there is a criminal section in the bill, or a criminal offence intended to be created by the legislation. As I explained briefly, both at the time of introducing the measure and on moving the second reading, the law falls broadly into two phases. The first has to do with investigations, and the second has to do with criminal prosecutions. Let us for the moment leave to one side altogether the possible intra vires of the legislation, so far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, and consider the other aspect of the legislation, that namely which has to do with investigation. So far as I am concerned, in my own view of it, I would say that the powers of investigation given under the act are likely to be more effective in achieving the end aimed at than the new criminal offence which the bill creates. I think powers of investigation, rightly, legitimately and carefully exercised will go far towards curing ills, with respect to which penalties would be found wholly ineffective. In other words, as I expressed it the other day, there are certain classes of offences, those particularly which relate to social and economic conditions.

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
which publicity is infinitely more effective to prevent and to redress than penalty. Once the public has the facts before it, once it has the necessary information, has got at the truth, once the situation is known from within, and that it affects the public adversely, the public may be expected to find some means, through its parliament and in other ways, to provide the necessary remedy or cure for any particular situation. That is the point of view from which this legislation proceeds. It seeks to frame machinery through the agency of which the light of day can be let into transactions with a view of disclosing whether these transactions are in the public interest or against it. In other words, it seeks to do for the social system in the matter of its moral health what the light of day or the sun does for the physical body in the matter of its health. Exclude the sun and its power from the physical universe, and very soon you find disease setting in where there should be health and vigour. Prevent the light of day from penetrating the secret recesses of various business devices, and very soon industry, instead of being the great servant of humanity which it should be, comes to be an instrument to be used against the well-being of the people themselves.
This legislation, in providing for investigation, does so, as I have said, for the purpose of bringing out the facts, bringing out information. My right hon. friend said that the measure was of no value, because it meant simply one investigation after another. At this point, may I draw attention to the character of the criticism which has proceeded from hon. gentlemen opposite? The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was the first to speak at great length on this legislation, his whole attack was that it went too far; that it was vexatious; that it was altogether harassing and extreme, and that it would be an injury to private business. The leader of the Opposition went to the other extreme-


Arthur Meighen: I said the same thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the right hon. member said the same thing, and he also said something directly the opposite.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. He generally takes both sides at the same time. He said that the legislation had no teeth in it.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. I think he remembers that. On the one hand it was exfMr. Mackenzie King.]
treme in one direction, and on the other it was extreme in the other direction.


Arthur Meighen: Legislation can be very vexatious without having teeth in it. That can be done by the effect of its claws.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we have succeeded in bringing into this House legislation which to one section of our opponents opposite appears to be altogether short of the mark, and to another section appears to go much too far in the other direction, that is pretty good evidence that we have struck the happy medium by avoiding extremes. That is exactly what we have sought to do. As to the investigation having no advantages, might I ask my right hon. friend, when he says investigation is powerless to be of any service, how is it that we have royal commissions appointed to inquire into problems with respect to which light is needed? Why is it, might I ask, that we have committees of parliament at the present time trying to get at the truth in regard to many important matters? Is it not a faot that both royal commissions and committees of parliament sitting at this very time are recognized by all hon. members as rendering the kind of service that is essential for legislation along right and proper lines, and for adequately informing public opinion? Is that not the best answer to anything that can be said against investigations into combines, monopolies, trusts or mergers which may tend to operate against the public interest? If the facts can be ascertained, a remedy will very soon be found.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. member puts that as a question to me. I do not say that investigation is useless; but I say that a permanent body for purely investigational purposes without power to enforce its finding, is a surplusage. The power of investigation, in any individual instance or contingency the government has without this legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not a permanent body that this particular legislation undertakes to create.


Arthur Meighen: The registrar?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The registrar
is one individual; he is not a permanent body in the sense in which that term is generally used. The effective investigations will be by the different commissioners who will be appointed to deal with cases which the registrar thinks are deserving of more careful investigation. My right hon. friend says that because there is no power to enforce the finding of the particular commissioner, the investigation is, therefore, of no value. To argue

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
in that way is to deny any value to public opinion, to deny all value to the power of parliament, and those are the two greatest powers which the people have in the matter of self-protection. The power of a well-informed public opinion and the power of parliament to deal with any situation of which it may have accurate and concrete knowledge

that is the power which this legislation brings into being. It provides the machinery whereby, in regard to matters which directly affect the people, which affect them vitally as regards their food, clothing, housing and all the things which go to make up the necessities of their existence, they may get accurate information; this it does in order that the framers of public opinion throughout the country, whether they be in parliament, on the platform, of the press or in whatever form public opinion cares to express itself, may have an opportunity to help to redress a public wrong. I ask hon. members if that is not the greatest power which it is possible to give. What is the power
10 p.m. of the criminal code to prosecute some particular person or group of persons in comparison with the power of spreading broadcast throughout the land accurate and true information with regard to a situation which is inimical to the public interest, and which the people themselves are certain to be concerned in remedying. Take it as respects legislation. How is parliament to know what is the best course to take in the matter of legislation unless it gets true and accurate information? If you wait until the criminal code is put into operation against some particular concern, you may never hear of the evil. An important inquiry has been going on respecting freight rates on the Great Lakes. I imagine the country has become pretty well aware at the present moment of how necessary that inquiry has been. I wonder if that inquiry would ever have taken place under the criminal code if there had been no investigation. Investigation where properly conducted is the one thing which will bring to the attention of parliament what is necessary in the way of legislation to protect the public interest. Therefore, if this legislation went no further than simply to provide what it does in the way of machinery for investigation, it would be rendering a great and much needed public service.
But there are other immediate methods of action which follow upon investigation, apart altogether from the criminal procedure. Under this legislation the Governor in Council with respect to an article of commerce which is shewn to be unduly enhanced in price as a consequence of the tariff, has power immediately to reduce the duty or to wipe out the duty altogether. That is apart from any criminal offence created in the measure. That is a power given to the government itself to be exercised at any and at all times.
May I draw this further fact to the attention of the House? The value of a measure of this kind is not to be estimated by the number of prosecutions that take place, nor by the number of investigations. Rather is it to be estimated by the power of prevention which lies in the fact that it is known that a certain course of procedure will inevitably lead to an investigation and disclosure of conduct that is contrary to the public interest. Is it not desirable to have upon the statute books of this country a power of that kind which stands at all times as a safeguard of the interest of the public?
As regards big business itself, I think it is rendering big business the greatest possible service that such a power should at any and at all times be found on our statutes. There are members of this House who view with alarm at times the advance of what they refer to as socialism, the tendency for the state itself to take over control in a variety of directions. What is it that more than anything else has been responsible for the advance which socialism has made? It has been the feeling in the minds of the masses of the people that, in some way or another, their interests are not being protected or looked after; that in some way a power other than themselves is greater than the power of the state itself. You help to remove a feeling of that kind when you put it into the hands of any six persons, who have reason to think there is some social injustice under which they are suffering, to have that matter investigated and to have their minds set right as to whether or not the facts which they believe, are true.
A reference has been made to the old Combines Investigation Act of 1910, under which it has been stated, there were only one or two prosecutions. I had a little to do with the administration of that act, and I know that as respects a number of industries in connection with which people believed or were asserting that some injustice was being worked, once these people had it within their power to bring about an investigation, they refrained altogether from taking action because they were unable to submit even a prima facie case sufficient to establish ground for an investigation of the charges they had so freely made. I believe it will be so in the case of this legislation. I believe that men who get up and, without any justification for their words, begin to attack large business

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
simply because it is large, once they are given an opportunity to make good the charges which they are ready to bring against such business will be more careful about the use of their words and directing accusations against big concerns. From that point of view I think the legislation is calculated to be of service to large business as well as to the public itself.
Now I may touch upon one or two other points that have been referred to. But first of all let me say that if at the time of introducing the legislation, I had had any doubts about the wisdom of it, those doubts have been completely removed through the endeavours that have been made, in the name of so-called private business interests to prevent any investigation whatever. What has legitimate business to fear from the light of day? Why should men be afraid that the power of investigation is going to lead to all kinds of serious trouble, if there is nothing to conceal? I think that there must be plenty of work to be done under legislation of this kind if some of the fears which appear to be entertained by some gentlemen are real. So far as anything is reasonable or fair or just in business relations it will not be affected by this legislation; but if there are existent, in connection with business, practices which will not stand the light of day, then probably there is justification for some of the alarm and some of the fear that has been expressed as a possible consequence of investigation. That however is only a reason why this parliament, which is here to protect the interests of the people as a whole, should Bee to it that legislation such as that being con-considered, is placed upon the statutes.
Now, it has been asserted that many of the methods which large industry adopts in price fixing and in other forms of combination and agreement are wholly in the public interest.
I admit that; I have so stated; and I am willing to agree with anyone who points out that by large combination and price fixing you may help to bring about in industry a stability which otherwise it might not possess, as well as economies and increased efficiency. That is all perfectly true. But it is also true that by these very same methods men who are not actuated by a public spirit, but who think primarily of all that it is possible for them to exact from the public, may carry their price fixing and their agreements to the point of monopoly in a manner which will be detrimental to the public interest; and as soon as private rights reach the point where they become public wrongs, at that moment it

seems to me there has been a departure from what is just and fair and the commission of a wrong that to all intents and purposes is a crime. When you get a public wrong that affects the people as a whole then surely the government of the country is entitled to make a criminal offence out of that which is against the interests of the public. That is all that this legislation seeks to do. It makes no>
criminal offence until it has been established, by the most careful and conservative processes conceivable that there is reason to believe that the public in some way has suffered an injustice from certain conditions complained of. Take the steps leading up to the creation of a criminal offence. I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who said that this legislation tended to erect a crime out of what was common sense. That was his way of stating the criminal aspect of the bill. Well, at what point does the legislation erect a crime out of common sense, as the hon. gentleman says? In the first place, at least six persons who are British subjects must present to the registrar, who will be appointed by the government, which will be responsible to parliament for the kind of appointment it makes, sufficient ground for him to believe that there exists a combination which is operating to the detriment of the public and against its interest. The registrar is given power to call before him the parties concerned, to go to their place of business if he so desires and thinks it necessary, and to gather information from various sources, with a view to ascertaining whether there is really sufficient ground to believe that the business is not being conducted in accordance with legitimate and accepted methods but is going beyond that to the injury of the people at large. Unless the registrar is satisfied that such is the case, there is no further investigation of the particular combination of which complaint has been made. If the registrar, after having examined the case carefully, comes to the conclusion that the men who have presented their complaint are not cranks nor disgruntled, dismissed employees, nor any of like classes to which reference has been made, but that they are sober, sensible citizens who have a regard for the well-being of the public at large,-if in short he comes to the conclusion that there are just reasons for believing that a combination is operating to the detriment of the people, then he reports to the minister, who thereupon asks 'the Govemor-in-Council to appoint a commissioner to make a larger and more careful inquiry. Now, the government is responsible for the commissioner that will.

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
be appointed; no government is likely to appoint at random any kind of an individual to that position. The government will be responsible to parliament for the class of men it appoints to discharge this responsible duty. The worth of any finding that will be made by a commissioner will depend on the class of man chosen for the particular position; and unless the commissioner, after having made a full inquiry, after having given all the parties concerned the fullest opportunity of making out their case, is convinced that the action of the combine is against the public interest, nothing further comes of the matter; nothing at all by way of prosecution. But that is not all. Even after the commissioner has presented his report, which parliament will be in a position to call for at any time, it then remains for the attorney general of a province or the Solicitor General of the Dominion to enter prosecution against the combine concerned. The question is, will an attorney general of a province or the Solicitor General of the Dominion enter a prosecution against some concern with respect to which the evidence is not strong enough in his opinion to effect a conviction? Up to that point there is possible nothing in the nature of a criminal prosecution against any concern which is alleged to be injuring the public interest. Yet my hon. friend says that the legislation seeks to erect a crime out of what is common sense. I think that if we have regard to the different stages that have to be passed before we reach the criminal stage we shall agree that by the time we get to that point it is high time that some legislation should "erect" a crime out of a course of behaviour that would lead that number of different persons, looking at all sides of the case, to the belief that the public is suffering a wrong by reason of a certain course of conduct. So much, then, for the criminal offence which the act creates.
But my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition and those associated with him have said to us over and over again, "Why not rely on the Criminal Code? You have everything in the Criminal Code which you want. Why add any other legislation?" Well, may I ask my hon. friend, why did he not, when in office, rely upon the Criminal Code, if it was sufficient? Why did he introduce the Combines and Fair Prices Act or the Board of Commerce Act if the Criminal Code was sufficient for all purposes?


Arthur Meighen: I told my hon. friend that when I spoke.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the answer?


Arthur Meighen: I stated that in those days there was very great business activity and that very large profits were being made. It is all right to erect a Board of Commerce; there is some result in it if you give that board power to give effect to its findings. I stated to the Prime Minister that if he thought similar conditions existed now he might go ahead, but that he should give his board power to give effect to its findings, and that until he did that his legislation was a sham.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This afternoon, my right hon. friend's associate,-the hon.member for South York (Mr. Maclean), said, I think, that he believed that to-day very large profits were being made, that to-day business was being conducted very much as it had been when my right hon. friend was in office. If that is the case, there was just as much need for the Criminal Code when he was in office as there is to-day, and the Criminal Code ought to have been just as effective then as it is now.


Arthur Meighen: It was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my right hon. friend did not rely on the Criminal Code; he introduced the Combines and Fair Prices Act and he introduced the Board of Commerce Act. I am not complaining of his action; I think he did what was right, except in restricting actions under the code. I think he was right in believing that the Criminal Code of itself was really of very little use.
It is a fact, and no one knows it better than my right hon. friend, that in regard to the class of subjects which we have been discussing to-day, the criminal law is in a very different position from that which obtains when we are dealing with the class of criminal cases to which we are most accustomed. In cases of theft, murder, perjury, any of these crimes, there is little or no difficulty in ascertaining that a certain wrong has been done; the difficulty is to apprehend the wrong-doer and bring him to justice. As regards the average subject with which the criminal law deals the offence itself is apparent on the surface, but it is not so in respect to most of the evils that arise out of the methods resorted to by combinations in restraint of trade. As a rule these are framed with the assistance of the best legal advice that can be obtained; they are worked out in the most careful manner. The men who have to ao with the administering of questionable methods of proceeding in business usually take all possible precautions to see that there is as little publicity as possible with respect to what is being



Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
done. In such cases the difficulty is to discover and bring to light the evil of which complaint is made, but when it is discovered, when the facts are brought to light, then the Criminal Code may well become effective. That is the basis on which . this legislation proceeds. It seeks by the agency of investigation to briDg to light methods which will not stand the light of day, if there be any such. And when they are brought to light, then, with the evidence assembled, the bill provides a means whereby that evidence may, at the instance of the Attorney Geneial or of the Solicitor General, be used for the purpose of bringing the combine into court and obtaining such redress as may be possible by means of a criminal prosecution.
Mention has been made of au alleged inquisitorial phase of the legislation I think the member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said that because this investigation was to be carried on in private before the registrar or before the commissioners, it, was in the nature of a star chamber proceeding. Well, so far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing to have that investigation as open as the day, both before the registrar and before the commissioners, and if my hon. friend will move an amendment to that effect, I shall be willing to abide by what the House says in regard to it. The reason that the investigation has been made private is because the so-called interests, those that have made their representations, have expressed it as their opinion that.it should be in private.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the public think otherwise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The public may think otherwise, but I think the interests are right in the point of view which they present, for this reason; the investigation may be made at the instance of any six persons, and I do not think it is desirable, if it can be avoided, to have the affairs of any business brought out before the public to any greater extent than may be necessary, until it is shown that the course of procedure complained of is really contrary to the public interest. That is the nature of the protection which this legislation gives to legitimate business. It seeks to prevent any undue publicity; but if and when it is shown before the registrar or before the commissioners that the method of procedure of the combine in question is contrary to the public interest, then the veil of privacy which for the time being has been thrown about what has been assumed to be a legitimate business is withdrawn; the evidence may then be made public. The particular

combine, if it has been operating against the public interest, no longer gets any protection in the way of privacy; on the contrary, the public at large are given all the information that has been secured. I think that is perhaps the best way of proceeding.
My right hon. friend says that what we have in this legislation exists in large part in other legislation. He referred to the provisions of the Customs Act which give to the Governor in Council power to reduce the tariff after an inquiry by a judge, and he referred also to certain powers given under the Patent Act for the revocation of patent rights. Well, that legislation was in existence when the Combines Act of 1909 came into effect. It was thought advisable to make it clear in that act just what the different classes of remedies were to which the public might look when there was evidence adduced that the public interest was suffering through combines in restraint of trade. That legislation existed exactly in the form in which it exists to-day, when my right hon. friend introduced his Combines and Fair Prices Act and his Board of Commerce Act; and he embodied both the clauses-the very clauses that we have here- in that legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly-if the right hon. gentleman will permit me. I do not find fault with putting them in. But we have these clauses in other statutes and there is no need of a new bill merely to enact them twice. What I say is that my right hon. friend, while he is having his legislation, may just as well have all the remedies in one bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now my right hon. friend is coming to my point of view. That is precisely what the government seeks to do; it is seeking to assemble in one piece of legislation all that is relevant to the particular subject under consideration. By bringing together the different parts of existing legislation that have a direct relation to the investigation and prosecution of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, in whatever form these pieces of legislation may appear, we have perhaps taken the most effective means of preventing combines of one kind or another from proceeding contrary to the public interest.
As to the constitutional aspect of the question. to which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) has referred, I think the House may well accept, for the time being at all events, the opinion of the Department of Justice that what we are doing in this legislation is entirely intra vires of this parliament. However, if it is not, I would still think it was



S, 1923

[Stage Direction]
Combines-Division
advisable to introduce this legislation at the present session rather than to wait a little longer. The sooner we find out how far we can legislate in this matter the better, and I would say to my right hon. friend that if at any time it should appear that this legislation in any particular is not intra vires of this parliament, and that by expanding the Criminal Code or adding to it in any way we can still deal effectively with the evil we are seeking to remedy, if the present government should remain in office and be there in office, very little time would be lost in making the Criminal Code all that he or any other member of the House may desire in that regard.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) which was agreed to on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs.
Archambnult,	Gould,
Baldwin,	Graham,
Bancroft,	Hammell,
Beaubien,	Hatfield,
B61and,	Healy,
Benoit,	Hod gins,
Binette,	Hoey,
Bird,	Hopkins,
Black (Huron),	Hudson,
Bouchard,	Humphrey,
Boucher,	Irvine,
Bourassa,	Jacobs,
Brethen,	Jelliff,
Bureau,	Johnston,
Cahill,	Kennedy (Glengarry &
Caldwell,	Stormont),
Campbell,	Kennedy (Port Arthur &
Cannon,	Kenora),
Cardin.	King (Huron).
Carmichael,	King (Kootenay),
Carroll,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Carruthers,	Knox,
Casgrain,	Lanctot,
Chevrier,	Lapierre,
Clifford,	Lapointe,
Copp,	Leader,
d'Anjou,	Leger,
Davies,	Lewis,
Dechene,	Lovett,
Delisle,	Lovie,
Denis (Jolictte),	Low,
Denis (St. Denis),	Lucas,
Desaulniers.	MacLean (Prince. P.E.I.).
Desrochers.	Maclean (York),
Drummond,	Macphail,
Elliott (Dundas),	McBride,
Euler,	McConica,
Evans.	McGiverin,
Fafard,	Mclsaac,
Fielding,	McKay,
Findlay,	Me Master,
Fontaine,	McMurray,
Forke,	Marcile (Bagot),
Fortier,	Marler,
Fournier,	Martell,
Gardiner,	Mercier,
Gauvreau,	Michaud,
Gervais,	Millar,
Good,	Milne,
Gordon,	Mitchell,
Motherwell,	Sales,
Munro,	Savard,
Murdock,	Seguin,
Neill, .	Sexsmitli,
Ouimet,	Shaw,
Papineau,	Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.),
Parent,	Speakman,
Prevost,	Spencer,
Pritchard,	Steedsman,
Putnam,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Rankin,	Stewart (Humboldt),
^Raymond,	Stork,
Reed,	Thurston,
Rinfret,	Tobin,
Roberge,	Vien,
Robichaud,	Walsh,
Robinson,	Ward,
Robitaille,	Warner,
Ross (Simcoe),	Woods.
St. Pere,	Woodsworth-138.
Arthurs,	NAYS Messrs. Manion,
Baxter,	Meighen,
Black (Yukon),	Preston,
Boys,	Ryckman,
Charters,	Senn,
Clark,	Spence,
Dickie,	Stansell,
Grimmer,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Hubbs,	Stewart (Leeds),
Jones,	Tolmie-21.
MacKelvie, (The list of pairs	PAIRS is furnished by the Chief Whips)
Logan,	Messrs. Bristol,
Murphy,	Porter,
Power,	Mewburn,
Rheaume,	LeSueur,
Kyte,	Drayton.
McKinnon,	McQuarrie,
MeCrea,	Stevens,
Malcolm,	Duncan,
German,	Chaplin,
Kay,	Wilson,
Mitchell,	Manion,
Maclean (Halifax),	Guthrie,
Chew,	MacLaren,
Pelletier,	Hanson,
Sinclair (Oxford),	McKillop,
Lavigueur,	Sheard,
Gendron,	Garland (Carleton),
Robb,	Porter.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. MeCrea). Had I voted I should have voted against the motion.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard). Had I voted I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Chew). Had I voted I should have voted against the motion.
Supply-M mine


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Duncan). Had I voted I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. GENDRON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I should have voted for the motion.


Mr. McKILLOP:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sinclair). Had I voted I should have voted against the motion.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions "combine":


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think this clause will cause some discussion. I there fore move the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Ocean and river service-examination of masters and mates, $20 000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister give us an explanation of that item?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: This item is to provide for the examination and certification of masters and mates of ships. The law requires them to have certificates. There are three districts in which examinations are held, the eastern divison, the Great Lakes division and the western division. The expenditure last year was $19,958.29. It will be about the same this year.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Who conducts the examination?


Ernest Lapointe: The department has a certain number of officers in every district. In my hon. friend's district we have Captain Charles Eddy, who is the supervising examiner at Vancouver, Captain Davis at Victoria, and Captain Lindsay at Nelson.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are these examinations held once a year?


Ernest Lapointe: No, only when candidates offer themselves for examination. In Vancouver there were twenty-three masters examined last year and given certificates, thir-

teen mates and five second mates; and in the same proportion in other places in the western division.


Arthur Meighen: What are the masters and mates for? The mercantile marine or the Canadian navy?


Ernest Lapointe: For all Canadian ships.


Arthur Meighen: Including the navy?


Ernest Lapointe: Well, the Canadian merchant marine or any ship operating in Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Any ship operating in Canada?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Only on Canadian
waters?	.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The examiner of masters and mates can examine for deep-sea certificates?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend said just for Canadian waters.


Ernest Lapointe: I meant also deep-sea certificates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does this appropriation include payment for lecturers? I remember the question arose last year.


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is for navigation schools. There is a special item for that.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Where is the examiner
for Manitoba located?


Ernest Lapointe: Manitoba is in the Great Lakes division, because it is nearer to the Great Lakes than it is to the Pacific ocean. There are only three divisions: the eastern division, the Great Lakes division and the western division. The Great Lakes division comprises Toronto, Collingwood, Pori Arthur in Ontario, and Selkirk in Manitobs Selkirk being at the moment vacant.


Arthur Meighen: Does this provide for certificates for masters and mates on our trawlers?


Mr. BUREAU:: They are not trawlers; they are chasers.


Ernest Lapointe: I have nothing to do with the chasers to which my right hon. friend refers. They are outside of my jurisdiction altogether.
Item agi'eed to.

Questions


Ernest Lapointe: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I just wanted to get into the estimates, so that I could go on with them any day.
Progress reported.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS. JOINT COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER MATTERS OF COMMON INTEREST

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a message from the Senate requesting the House of Commons to unite with the Senate in the appointment of a joint committee to be composed of an equal number of members, not exceeding five, of each House to consider the following matters:
1.	The forms of bills and the best means of affording information and assistance in the consideration thereof at all stages of legislation in both Houses of parliament.
2.	The better distribution of the work of legislation between the two Houses.
3.	The practical operation of the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C., 1906. chapter 10, respecting the attendance of Senators and members of the House of Commons and the expediency of making any alterations in these provisions;
And that the hon. Messieurs Beique, Belcourt, Calder, Green and Pardee have been appointed to act on behalf of the Senate as members of said joint committee.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, May 9, 1923