1923-05-07

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 154 (from the Senate), to incorporate Trans-Continental Assurance Company.-Mr. Carroll.

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What has been the revenue, and cost of collecting same, during each of the past five years, from: (a) Coal; (b) Petroleum; (c) Grazing Lands; (d) Sale of Crown Lands in Alberta?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Answers as far as the Department of the Interior is concerned.


STATEMENT OF NET REVENUE RECEIVED DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS FROM COAL, PETROLEUM AND GRAZING LEASES, AND SALES OF DOMINION LANDS, WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year	Coal	Petroleum and Natural Gas	Grazing Leases	Sales of Land	Total Revenue1918-	19	
1919-	20	$ 366.504 73 336,524,69 445,254 21 400,085 95 345,750 69	$ 85,782 28 282,392 33 535,433 42 273,453 55 244,577 08	$ 66,511 50 78,822 76 79,479 52 60,535 20 70,665 14	$ 605,546 44 743,923 11 546,094 85 260,458 85 65,258 66	$ 1,124,344 95 1,441,662 89 1,606,262 00 994,533 55 726,251 o71920-21	1921-	22	
1922-	23	
§ 1,894,120 27	$ 1,421,638 66	$ 356,014 12	$ 2,221,281 91	$ 5,893,054 96

[Stage Direction]
Statement of expenses (including salaries) paid in various offices of the Department of the Interior, in the Province of Alberta, in connection with the collection of revenue from mines, petroleum wells, grazing lands, and sale of Crown Lands for the past five years.
Name of Office	1918-19	1919-20	1920-21	1921-22	1922-23	Sub-total	Total Direct Charges of CollectionCalgary Mining Office	S 5,969 53	8 7,060 09	S 9,801 77	$ 9,631 97	$ 7,606 02	$ 40,069 38	$ 40,069 38Calgary Petroleum Office. . .	Nil	2,685 26	7,741 10	8,152 27	9,861 89	28,440 52	28,440 52Calgary Grazing Lands Office	6,063 65	6,380 12	7,414 99	11,304 25	10,474 46	41,637 47	41,637 47Dominion Land Agencies... . Dominion Land Sub-Agen-	116,653 00	129,156 05	141,615 28	137,324 80	133,738 12	658,487 25	526,789 80(80%)cies	15,984 68	15,651 76	15,577 08	14,753 63	13,260 00	75,227 15	60,181 72 (80%)Totals	$ 144,670 86	$ 160,933 28	8 182,150 22	$ 181,166 92	$ 174,940 49	$ 843,861 77	$ 697,118 89
Note:-The revenue derived from Coal, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Grazing Leases and Sales of land during the past five years in the Province of Alberta is 80% of the total revenue credited to that Province by-the Department of the Interior. The same percentage was therefore used as the basis upon which to reckon charges of collection in respect of the total expenditure incurred in the Land and Sub-Land Agencies within that Province.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Memorandum bf Explanation-The total revenue derived by the Department of the Interior from the province of Alberta in connection with coal, petroleum and natural gas, grazing leases and sales of land for a period of five years is shown as 85,893,054.96 and the direct cost of collecting same as 8697,118.89 This cost of collection, however, does not take into account a number of indirect charges which ultimately should enter into the cost of administering the Dominion lands and other resources in Alberta and the collection of revenue.
In connection with the above mentioned administration and collection of revenue, a proportional amount of the expenditure incurred by Land Patents, Mining Lands and Yukon, Timber and Grazing, Dominion Lands and Accounts branches should be charged against the Province of Alberta. This also applies to a proportion of the expenditure of officials of the department in Ottawa responsible for the administration of other branches and whose duties and jurisdiction have a bearing on the Department of the Interior activities in the province of Alberta. It is, however, impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the actual amount involved in these proportional charges and any figures which might be compiled could not in any way be looked upon as a true and correct statement of the case.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Is any official of any department of the government to be stationed at Whitehorse, Yukon territory, for the purpose of inspecting eggs or other foods imported into Yukon?
2.	If so, what is his name and position?
3.	What are his official duties?
4.	At what cost will he be so stationed and acting?
5.	At whose request or suggestion is such official to be so stationed?
6.	What information has the government of the necessity of incurring the expense of such action?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	There is no present intention of station-ng an officer of the Department of Agriculture it Whitehorse, Yukon territory.
2,	3, 4, 5. Answered by No. 1.
6. It was expected at one time that it would oe necessary, under the regulations, to appoint an egg inspector for the Yukon territory, to inspect egg3 imported from the United States. Owing to the fact, however, that the Yukon is now purchasing eggs from British Columbia rather than from the United States, largely due to activities by the Department of Agriculture, there is no immediate necessity for such an appointment.
I Mr. C. A. Stewart.]


RALSTON COMMISSION-FINAL REPORT
Mr. CHURCH:: When will the final report of the Colonel Ralston commission on soldiers' civil re-establsihment be received ?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: It is expected that ar interim report in respect to certain questions of soldiers' civil re-establishment will be available for presentation within the next two weeks; it is unlikely that the final report of the commission will be available before the close of the session.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE-INQUIRY BRANCH
Mr. DENIS (St. Denis):: 1.	What is the name of the person lately appointed to the position of senior clerk in the Inquiry Branch at the Montreal post office?
2.	What length of time has the above person been in
the service?	.
3.	Did said person pass examination for this promotion?
4.	If so, how many competitors were there?
5.	What are their names and years of service?
6.	Were arrears of salary, from 1919, to the amount of $1,100 paid to said person after promotion as senior clerk ?
7.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	There has been no recent appointment to the position of senior clerk in the inquiry section of the Montreal post office. Recently Miss Boisseau who was performing the duties of postal information clerk as from 1918 was confirmed in her classification of postal information clerk retroactive to the 1st of April, 1919.
2.	Since 1st January, 1916 -7 years and 5 months.
3.	Miss Boisseau qualified by examination for the promotion referred to in No. 1.
4.	There were three candidates in that promotional examination.
5.	Miss Blanche B. Boisseau, appointed 1st January, 1916; Miss B. Duckett, appointed 8th June, 1917; Mr. Lucien Gervais, appointed 22nd May, 1914.
6.	Yes.
7.	The salary of the position of postal information clerk was revised to the same as that of a senior postal clerk as from 1st April, 1919, on the understanding that the employees holding such positions demonstrated by a practical examination that they were capable of properly fulfilling the duties of the position. Miss Boisseau passed the practical examination, and as she assumed the duties of the position in 1918 she was given the classification retroactive to 1st April, 1919, the date the classification became effective.

Questions


HOUSING AND OLD AGE PENSIONS
Thomas Langton Church: Does the government intend this session to introduce any legislation to aid and assist the following important economic problems, for the general advantage of Canada, namely:-(a) The Housing Problem; (b) Old Age Pensions?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for the government to give a final answer at the present time.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD, EDMONTON- INSURANCE
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Has it been . the policy of the government with respect to insurance arising out of the business of the Soldier Settlement Board at Edmonton, Alberta, to divide such insurance amongst ex-service men in the city of Edmonton engaged in the business of insurance?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to discontinue that policy? If so, wh'at is the new policy of the government in this respect ?
3.	Is it a fact that the business of insurance arising out of the transactions of the Soldier Settlement Board at Edmonton, Alberta, is to be given to three selected persons, some of whom have no service overseas in the late war?
[DOT] 4. If so, have any selections been made? If so. whom?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.	.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	Were a certain number of officials of the Immigration department of New Brunswick or elsewhere, transferred, last spring, to the Immigration department at the Port of Quebec? If so, did they understand and speak the French language?
2.	Is it the intention of the Immigration department fto transfer said staff this year?
3.	Were complaints made by French-speaking immigrants and citizens, that a great number of said staff could not speak or understand the French language?
4.	What salary is paid to each of the said officials and employees for the immigration season?
5.	How much is allowed to each for their expenses?
6.	What salary is paid to 'citizens of Quebec, who occupy similar positions to the ones occupied by these strangers transferred to Quebec?
7.	Can Mr. Joseph H. Byrne, caterer for the Immigration department at Quebec, by virtue of a certain clause in his contract recently agreed upon with the Immigration department, employ French Canadians who do not speak English fluently?
8.	Can said Mr. Joseph H. Byrne, under his contract recently agreed upon with the Immigration department, offer for sale without special authorization, all the products made by manufacturers of the city of Quebec?


PUBLIC WORKS-CHIEF ARCHITECTS BRANCH
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1. What are the names, official titles, and salaries of officers-in-charge of Dominion Buildings, Chief Architect's Branch, Department of Public Works, on January 1st, 1912, 1922 and 1923?
2.	In what cities or towns are located the offices of each ?
3.	What is the date of their appointment and how have they been classified?
4.	What was the number of employees under each officer-in-charge on January 1st, 1912, 1922 and 1923?
5.	What is the number of buildings eacji officer-incharge had under his charge on January 1st 1912, 1922 and 1923?
6.	Have all the positions of these officers-in-charge been classified by the Civil Service Commission or Arthur Young & Company?
7.	Are there any positions of these officers in charge vacant?
8.	If so, what are they and since what date are they vacant?
9.	What are the causes of these vacancies?
10.	In what locality have they occurred?



SHIPPING RATES-GRAIN

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other communications passing during the summer or fall of 1922 between the Dominion government or any of its ministers or representatives and the Dominion Marine Association or any of its agents or representatives, or of any other person or persons whatsoever, in any way relating to the abrogation or suspension of the Dominion Coastal Shipping Regulations, or in any way relating to the grain congestion at lake ports or Montreal, or to the alleged combine, or the imposition of exorbitant rates by shipping interests engaged in the grain trade.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John and Albert):: May I ask why the government proposes to allow this resolution to be adopted, in view of its refusal to giye me the same information regarding a portion of the question, in response to an inquiry I placed on the order paper? This distinctly calls for, among other things, the correspondence with Mr. W. T. R. Preston and his correspondence with the government. I do not object to the motion; it calls for information that I desired to get, and something in addition. But why is one policy followed in respect to some members and a different policy in respect to others?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps this motion had better stand until the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) is here. Speaking offhand, I am inclined to think that the answer to my hon. friend is this: At the time he asked for this information it would not have been expedient to make public some of the particulars that were desired, but tile time has now arrived when it is really immaterial whether they are given to the public or not.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I may say that, in respect to the information I asked for, everything had been made public, as Mr. Preston's report.
Unopposed Motions

in the columns of the Toronto Globe. The information, however, was refused this House.
Motion stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, memorandums, correspondence, reports of investigations, and other documents which have been received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries since 1920 concerning the sardine herring fishery in New Brunswick, particularly any matter with reference to the sale and price of said fish.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REAL ESTATE

Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: For return showing all real estate properties, with the approximate location and area and brief description of each, sold or agreed to be sold by the Canadian National Railway Company or its subsidiaries since October 4th, 1922, and showing, secondly, all real estate properties purchased or agreed to be purchased or in respect of which an offer to purchase has been made by the Canadian National Railway Company or any of its subsidiaries since said date, and in each case showing the sale price or the purchase price, as the case may be, and the names of the purchasers and vendors.


Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, contracts, agreements, letters, telegrams and other documents, relating to the purchase of property on the north west corner of King and Yonge Streets, Toronto, by the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways, for railway purposes.



SALE OF MERCHANT SHIPS

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all papers, documents, sale specifications, terms and conditions of sale, agreements, official reports recommending sale, and all other correspondence relating to the sale of about 27 of the smaller ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine (Limited).



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister cf Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend The Dairy Industry Act, 1914, and to provide regulations regarding butter substitute and the remanufacture of butter, the character and weight of butter, the keeping of records by manufacturers or dealers in butter and cheese, and the examination of such records by inspectors, methods of establishing the guilt of persons charged with the violation of the Act, and the procedure to be followed in all such cases.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution and has commended it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 9th instant, it stand adjourned until Friday, the 11th instant.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I suggest that this motion be amended to provide that we sit on Wednesday evenings. The Prime Minister stated the other day that in this respect he was in the hands of the House, and I think I voice the sentiment of the whole House when I ask that we sit on Wednesday evenings, if not from this Wednesday, at least from Wednesday week until the end of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did say that the government was prepared to be guided by the wish of the House in the matter. So far as I have been able to ascertain from the whips, it would appear that the members favour retaining Wednesday evening, and judging from the amount of applause that has greeted the suggestion of my hon. friend, I do not think the majority of the House are with him just at present. In any case, I imagine that a number of hon. members have made engagements for this Wednesday evening, therefore we had better let the motion stand as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	-

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Is the Prime Minister able to tell us what further government legislation is to be introduced this session? I noticed that in answer to a question put by. an hon. member asking whether the government had legislation for this session on, (a) the housing problem, and (to) old age pensions, the Prime Minister stated that no final answer could be given. I venture to suggest that the government has no legislation on either one; the accuracy of my prediction can be better judged later. But it would seem to me that if the government has legislation on such subjects as these, or on any subject, the House might now be informed.


Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think my right hon. friend is correct in what he surmises about the legislation referred to, but I would not like to tie the hands of the government on any matter of legislation until the reports of all the committees have been

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
brought into the House. The government has brought down its important legislation. There may be further legislation arising out of the reports of committees that are at present sitting, also some railway legislation and possibly other legislation on minor matters. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has some legislation. I will endeavour to let my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) have a list at an early date.



PENSION REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the government, in view of the controversy which seems to be in progress between the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Great War Veterans' Association, whether the government proposes any action in the matter, and if so what action?
Henri Sévérin Béland: A similar question was asked a few days ago, and I informed the House that it was the intention of the government to introduce a bill during this session to carry out the recommendations of the royal commission contained in the interim report which has been laid on the Table of the House.



CANNED SALMON VIA PANAMA CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I desire to ask the government for an explanation respecting certain regulations of the Customs department. It appears that the Minister of Customs sent a telegram to the Gosse-Millerd Canning Company, of Vancouver, informing them that on shipments of canned salmon consigned via the Panama canal and New York to Halifax and other Canadian ports, a tariff would be imposed on the goods entering Canada. Other instances can be brought to the attention of the government, but this one is sufficient for my purpose. I wish to ask when and by whose authority such a regulation was established?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I happen to know that the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) has this matter under consideration. He is not in the House at the moment, but as soon as he comes in I will direct his attention to my hon. friend's question and try to get a reply for him.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
George Gibson Coote: I rise to a question of privilege. It is reported in the Ottawa Citizen of last Saturday that I voted against an amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I wish to point out that that report is quite in error as I voted for the amendment.



OLEOMARGARINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT EORKE (Brandon):: I wish to ask the government what is their intention with regard to bringing down an oleomargarine bill. Do they wish to renew the legislation?


Mr. MARTELL:: Let it die.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall try to give my hon. friend an answer at an early date.


Arthur Meighen: I might remind the Prime Minister that he told me not so long ago that the government would await the verdict on he resolution of the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll). Could he give us an idea of when he is going to have the House discuss that resolution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall try to do so at an early date.


Arthur Meighen: No policy.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: At an early date.



COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 54, to provide for the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried.


Arthur Meighen: I was waiting for the Prime Minister to expound his bill.


Hewitt Bostock: I paused for a moment.


Arthur Meighen: I paused for a moment too, but both of us were disappointed.


Hewitt Bostock: I have only to withdraw the word "Carried".


Arthur Meighen: I merely want to say that I understand the Prime Minister had several amendments to propose. If so, it would ap-
2520	COMMONS
Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
pear to me that these amendments should be laid before the House and some time be given for their consideration, but if it is the desire of the government that the second reading be given now I wish to state that we want to reserve all rights of discussion in committee both as to principle and detail.
Mr. ROBERT FORIvE (Brandon): I would like to make the same statement on behalf of several members who have made the request that they have an opportunity of discussing this bill at a future date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say in reply to my right hon. friend that I did not attempt any remarks on the second reading because I went rather fully into an explanation of the bill and its merits at the time of introducing the resolution. I also thought that possibly the time of the House would be saved if I waited before going on with the second reading to hear and reply to any criticisms which hon. members might have. I have purposely left the second reading over for a considerable period of time in order that all hon. members of the House might have an opportunity of studying the provisions of the bill carefully. I think it is almost two months since the bill was presented to the House, and in that period of time I have had the privilege of receiving a large number of communications and a large number of deputations in reference to the measure, and I think that both inside and outside of the House there is a pretty general understanding of its main provisions.
I would like to say, however, speaking broadly in reference to the criticisms that have been directed against the bill, that many of them are due to an entire misapprehension of what the government has in mind in the legislation which it has introduced. For example, I notice that many of the newspapers of the country have reported that the government is endeavouring by this legislation to legislate against combines as such, to legislate against the right of manufacturers or merchants to fix a resale price. There is nothing of the kind in the legislation. As a matter of fact, it proceeds from a diametrically opposite point of view. I explained that, I think, pretty fully at the time of introducing the bill. It proceeds broadly on the theory that in this age of commercial and industrial competition, not merely between industry and industry and locality and locality, between the industries of one province and those of another, but between the industries of one countiy and those of another, the industries one might almost say, of one continent and those of another, large combinafMr. Meiehen.l
tions of capital, organizations of business in a large way, are an absolute essential if the business of our country is to hold its own in competition with the business of other countries. But just because it is recognized that it is necessary to have these large organizations of business, so the government recognizes that some restraint must be placed on the possible abuse of great power which may come into their hands. The legislation does not seek in any way to restrict just combinations or agreements between business and industrial houses and firms, but it does seek to protect the public against the possible ill effects of these combinations.
The definition of the word "combine" as related to the provisions of the Act has perhaps occasioned a number of persons that measure of alarm which some of them seem to have had who have not read the definition carefully, and who have thought that the definition goes much further than it does. If the House will look at the definition, and I will draw particular attention to the wording when we are in committee, hon. members will see that the kind of combination referred to is limited to a combination that operates or tends to operate, that has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others. No other class of combinations comes within the provisions of this act. If that point is quite clear, I think it will help to remove a good deal of the misconception that has arisen in reference to the legislation. For example, I notice in one press report it was stated that the act did not distinguish between good combines and bad combines. Well, that is the very distinction that is carefully made in the definition itself. Any combination, whether it is in the nature of a trust or merger or the result of some agreement, which is carrying on its business in a reasonable way, not operating to the detriment of the public or against the interest of the public, would not come under the important provisions of this legislation; once, however, it is shown that a combination is so operating as to prejudice the public interest, then that class of combination comes within the provisions of the act, first for purposes of investigation, and secondly, if need be, for purposes of prosecution under the criminal section which has been suggested.
My right hon. friend mentioned that he understood I had a number of amendments to move. I do not know where he got his information; I have one or two very slight amendments which I will mention to the House at the moment. One is to strike out

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the defining clause the words "in the opinion of the registrar or any commissioner" which appear before the words "have operated or are likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public." Those words were inserted with reference more particularly to the part of the act which deals with investigation, but when they are read in conjunction with the clause dealing with the new criminal offence which is created by the act, they acquire a significance they were not intended to have, and it is therefore my intention to move when we get into committee thaf those words be stricken out.
I might mention that some of the deputations that have waited on the government have pointed out that perhaps the act was too broad in permitting any individual to lay a complaint before the registrar, and it was suggested that possibly the language of the old Combines Investigation Act which required six persons to unite in presenting a request for an investigation would be a proper safeguard, and that those persons should be restricted, as they were in the old act, to British subjects. I think that is a perfectly proper amendment to have made in the act, and I shall move that also as an amendment when the House goes into committee.
There is one other slight amendment which is to strike out the words "or documents" that appear in section 18, line 42, of the act. The section as drafted makes it obligatory upon any person to give evidence before a registrar or commissioner and to produce documents. It goes on to state, however, that whoever gives testimony cannot be bound in a court of law by the oral testimony so given. The clause as it now reads goes beyond granting protection as respects oral testimony and includes documents. The effect, of the bill as drafted would be that where any incriminatory documents might be disclosed in the case of an investigation, subsequently, when court proceedings were held, a combine might find its means of escape from the just penalty of its illegal actions, by having these documents protected. It is, therefore my purpose to meet such a possible situation by providing that the words "or documents" shall be deleted.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I exp'ained, when introducing the measure in the House, the need for this particular legislation at this time. There is no legislation on the statutes of Canada to-day protecting the great body of consumers or producers against the possible ill-effects of combinations carrying their powers to too great an extreme in the way of monopolizing control of commodities, of unduly enhancing the prices of commodities or restricting their sale in a manner detrimental to the public. The legislation of 1910, the old Combines Investigation Act, was repealed by the legislation of 1919, the Combines and Fair Prices Act and the Board of Commerce Act. The Board of Commerce, as the House knows, did not function as it was expected to function. That legislation has ceased to be of any value, and it is proposed by this enactment to repeal what has become valueless. However, one of the effects of the legislation of 1919 was to make it impossible for section 498 of the Criminal Code to be operative except at the instance of the Board of Commerce. No prosecution could be commenced, under section 498 of the Criminal Code, against a combination in restraint of trade, except at the instance of the Boa'd of Commerce, but as the Board of Commerce is no longer in existence at the present time, even such protection as the law afforded under the Criminal Code is not granted to consumers against the possible ill-effects of these combinations.
Recently there has been a decision given in Ontario, in the case of the Attorney General of the province vs the Wholesale Grocers, which, in the minds of some, would seem to raise a question as to the intra vires of the legislation [DOT] which I have referred to as constituting a part of the Criminal Code. Anticipating that the matter might be referred to in discussion to-day, I asked the Department of Justice for an opinion and I may as well read at this moment the opinion I have received which will answer any questions on that particular point. Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, stales:
I have considered the judgments of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario in the case of Attorney Genaral vs Canadian Wholesale Grocers, herewith, with relation to its effect as to section 498 of the Criminal Code, and I find that it does not conclude any question as to the authority of parliament to enact that section.
The court was composed of the Chief Justice, Hod-gins. Ferguson and Magee, JJ. The Chief Justice reluctantly considered that he was bound by the observations of Lord Haldane in the Board of Commerce case to hold that section 498 was ultra vires, as not relating to criminal law within the meaning of that section of the British North America Act, 1867. Hodgins and Ferguson, JJ. however, expressly refrained from expressing any opinion against the validity of section 498, although they agreed with the Chief Justice for other reasons that the appeal should be dismissed. Magee, J. concurred in the result without any observations or reasons, and so it stands that the invalidity of section 498 rests only upon the opinion of the Chief Justice.
I do not think that it is at present necessary or advisable that our course of action should be in any wise modified by reason of the view which the Chief

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King
Justice expressed. I do not think that the question is governed by Lord Haldane's observations, and when it arises for decision we will have an opportunity to make good our claim for legislative authority. Meantime I would proceed upon the assumption that the enactment is intra vires.


Mr. CARROLL:: Has the question of the authority of parliament to pass this particular bill been placed before the Justice department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I may say to my hon. friend that this particular measure has been carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice and I am informed that in the opinion of the department it is intra vires.
In regard to this legislation-just by way of helping to make clear the main divisions of it-I may say that the measure falls broadly into two parts. The first part has to do with investigations and the necessary machinery for purposes of investigation. It is intended to provide that where there are grounds for believing that a combine is operating to the detriment of the public, or likely so to operate, any six persons who are British subjects-as it stands now, any individual- may apply to the registrar for an investigation. The registrar will be an officer appointed by the government whose duty it will be to see, in the first instance, whether the evidence that is submitted appears on the face of it to be sufficient to give reasonable grounds for believing that the combination that is alleged is of a character which in the public interest should be investigated. If the registrar comes to the conclusion that the combination is of that character, then he may continue an investigation or may recommend *-or the government of its own initiative may appoint-a commissioner, with the powers which are given to commissioners under the Inquiries Act, to make a full investigation, to satisfy himself, or the commissioners to satisfy themselves, as to whether or not the operation of the alleged combine is against the interest of the public. Judging from past experience it would appear that it is on the whole better that these preliminary investigations should be held in private rather than in public. The purpose of the legislation is not to subject industry and commerce to all kinds of inquisitorial proceedings which may have a baneful or harmful effect, but rather to do as little in the way of interfering with legitimate business and business methods as possible. The bill accordingly provides that so far as this investigation by the commissioners is concerned it shall be held in private,' leaving it, however, to the discretion of the minister-having refMr. Mackenzie King.)
gard to certain contingencies that might arise that theretofore are unforeseen-to say whether any part of the investigation should be public, or whether the report of the investigation should be made public. Up to that point there is nothing in the nature of any criminal proceedings against the combination. However, upon report of a commissioner authority is given to the government to remit or to reduce duties so as to permit of a wider measure of competition, should it appear that the effect of the combination is to take undue advantage of some clause in the tariff. If . it be an unfair advantage of some patent right that is taken, the government, through the Minister of Justice, may proceed for a revocation of the patent right.
Possibly I can best explain what is fundamental in the measure by saying, that in regard to combinations operating to the detriment of the public the belief of the government is that there are certain classes of evils which publicity will do more to remedy than even penalty. In regard to combinations that are actually operating to the detriment of the public, the great difficulty has always been to ascertain just the nature and full extent of their operations. Once that is ascertained, if they are operating to the detriment of the public, and the fact is known, it is natural to expect that the public will speedily find some means to protect itself. Another principle that I think will help to illustrate what is fundamental in this legislation is summed up in the words that private rights cease when they become public wrongs. In other words, the bill does not in any way seek to restrain private individuals in the making of any contracts or agreements, tacit or implied or open, which they may wish to make, so long as in the exercise of their private rights they do not carry matters to a point where their joint action becomes ar public wrong in the form of a combination operating to the detriment of the public.
I think these few preliminary remarks will serve sufficiently for an introduction of a consideration in committee of the provisions of the bill.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):: Before going into committee I would like to present a case to the minister and ask him if it would come under the combine's bill which we have now before us. The newspapers have recently informed us that there is a daily newspaper combine in Canada. We have been told that an effort was made to establish a new daily paper in the city of Ottawa. If our information is correct, it was a newspaper that was proposed to dis-

Combines-Mr. Hocken
seminate the doctrines of the Liberal party. But the executive of the daily newspapers association voted almost unanimously that the necessary service to carry on such a paper should be denied the man who wanted to establish a newspaper in Ottawa. To help the Prime Minister to a conclusion, if it is an improper thing for a man taking any manufactured article and fix the price, or to enter into a combine with others in the same line of manufacture in disposing of his goods to the public, is it not a much more serious matter when public opinion is stifled, and the opportunity to present to the public of this country, or this city or any city, a particular aspect of the affairs of the country, is refused, and that the men who have the money and are willing to put it up for this purpose shall be denied the privilege of doing it. I cannot conceive, Mr. Speaker, of any more dangerous form of combine than a newspaper combine. If you carry this out, the same organization of a dozen men, forming the executive of the daily newspaper association, can determine just where a newspaper shall be printed, and where one shall not be printed. If a company should be organized to establish a new evening paper, say in the city of Toronto, that company would have to go to the men who form the executive of the daily newspaper associations of Canada and ask their permission.


An Hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Not to ask their permission to put in a plant and print some kind ot newspaper, but to ask their permission to get the service absolutely essential to the production of a newspaper that will sell. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, this government subsidizes, to the extent of $50,000 a year a telegraphic service for the use of the daily newspapers; and the group of men who happen for the time to form this association have it in their hands to prevent a man here or there or anywhere from enlightening the public as he thinks the public ought to be enlightened. Will the Prime Minister tell us in view of what he has said, whether this bill will apply to such a case? Because he has said that this bill is designed to control these men and prevent an abuse of the great power that might come into their hands. A very great power rests in the hands of daily newspaper editors and proprietors; practically everybody in Canada reads the newspapers nowadays, and there is no class or group of men in Canada who exercise more power than the men
who are conducting the daily newspapers of the country.


Mr. PARENT:: And also the weekly papers?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Also the weekly papers, but the weekly comes out once a week, the daily six times a week. The one will have a circulation of 20,000 or 30,000 and the other 150,OOC. I do not renege on my statement that the men who exercise the greatest power in the public interest in Canada are the men who control the great newspapers. And unless there is opportunity given to those who think they have a message-it may be a political or it may be a social message-to publish that message for the benefit of the public, and if they are not allowed to give that message to the public on account of restrictions imposed by their competitors, I think it may be safely said that these competitors are prejudicing tne' public interest, to use the words of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister further said that there were many classes of offences, combines, perhaps, where publicity would do more to effect a remedy than would a penalty. I entirely agree with that statement. I think publicity is one of the greatest penalties that some men can suffer for their misdeeds. If you have all the newspapers in the hands of a few, so that all kinds of abuses might exist and not have any publicity, then the public interest is surely most seriously prejudiced. If the Prime Minister feels so disposed, will he answer the question as to whether he would not consider a daily newspaper combine as one that would come within this act.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the right hon. Prime Minister answers the question, I would remind the House that we are not yet at the committee stage, and therefore if the right hon. member speaks now it closes the debate, according to rule 21, unless by leave of the House the minister replies to the pertinent question put by the hon. member.


Mr. STEVENS:: I desire to speak on the second reading, but the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) desires to ask the Prime Minister this question before he takes his seat, if it may be put in that way.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the right hon. premier would prefer to answer all these questions when he exercises his right of reply, under rule 21 of the rules of debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite prepared to answer the question now, if it is the wish of the House.

Combines-Mr. Mackenzie King


Hewitt Bostock: If it is the wish of the House the Prime Minister may answer the question, but it is against rule 21.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the question asked by the hon. member illustrates perhaps as well as anything could, the merits of the proceedings we are proposing to establish by this legislation in dealing with the kind of case he has cited. My hon. friend says that if you have all the newspapers in the hands of a few, you have one of the worst combines conceivable. I agree absolutely with that. I think there could be no more fatal combination, so far as the public is concerned, than that all the news of the country should be controlled by a few men, in such a way as to make it impossible for any others to enter the field of news competition. However, in regard to the case just cited,- the application which has been made by the Liberal party for a paper in this city,-the contention on the part of those who refused to give the right to permit a new paper to acquire certain news is that they think the public interest is being best served by the papers that are here at the present time. They contend that there is not a monopoly. They contend that another newspaper can come in and start to-morrow on its own account, if the parties wish. However, they have among themselves, as I understand it, an agreement as respects the sale of a certain class of news that is acquired, by cable or telegram. It is that particular class of news which they refuse to give to any other paper. Whether that refusal amounts to a monopoly of a character which is injurious to the public, is something that, I think, can be determined only as a result of an investigation. This legislation provides that where there is prima facie ground for believing that a combine exists which is operating in a manner detrimental to the public, then any six persons may apply to a registrar for an investigation. Taking the case in point, I would assume that any registrar appointed under this legislation would feel, it if were possible to cite evidence of the character to which my hon. friend has made reference, that he should immediately investigate and see how far that monopoly, or alleged monopoly, extended in its operation, whether it went the length of shdtting out other papers from this city, or whether its effort was merely to deny to a paper coming into a field a certain class of news which it either could or could not acquire in some other way. If there were reasonable grounds for believing that the public was being injured as a consequence of this monopoly, an investigation would then be made by a com-
missioner. The commissioner would take all the evidence under oath; he would then give a statement to the public, and the public would be in a position to judge whether or not the combination was of that serious character which some might be inclined to believe it to be. I doubt if anyone could pronounce upon the merits of the particular case without having all the facts of the case before him. That is why this legislation proceeds in two stages: The first setting forth the means of getting the fullest information and giving publicity to that information; the second stage providing a remedy whereby, if need be by way of criminal prosecution, any action of the combination which is against the public interest may be effectively put a stop to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I quite realise that appearing as an apologist in any sense for anything that might be called a combine lays one open to attack and possible misinterpretation of one's position. During the past twenty years there has been a steady growth in the intense organization of business, in the formation of what is commonly known as combines, in the bringing of businesses of a similar character under the control of a smaller executive head, thus lowering costs of operation, increas-
4 p.m. ing efficiency and, in many cases, stabilizing both production and prices. This tendency has been met on the part of the public in different ways; but there has been, with certain sections of the public, a growing resentment-shall I say?-against what is commonly known as a combine, without, perhaps, any careful defining of what a combine is. I notice that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in introducing this legislation, both on a former occasion and today, stressed particularly that the object of the legislation and the objective, I might say, that he had in mind was to interfere, not with what might be termed legitimate combines, but only with such as were likely to operate detrimentally to the public interest. Further I noticed that he said that at the present time there was no legislation by which the government could properly deal with circumstances arising out of, perhaps, an abuse of privilege or power on the part of large combinations of business. It is from that angle that I desire to examine this legislation. I may say that I took advantage of the advice the Prime Minister gave, when he introduced this legislation, to give it careful study, and as a layman I rather hesitate to enter into what might appear to be somewhat of a legal argument, because I claim no right or no particular ability to do so. I have examined it as

Combines-Mr. Stevens
a layman, I might say as an accountant, because that is my profession. I have examined it with care and with, perhaps, some right to pass an opinion after careful study. I want to examine it before the House as it appeals to me, with reasonable brevity and at the same time with a desire to impress upon the House in particular one or two points which, in my estimation, characterise this legislation, and warrant me at least in opposing it.
The crux of the whole bill is to be found in the interpretation clause, clause 2-in the description or interpretation there set forth of what a combine is in the eyes of this legislation. I intend, by the way, to divide this into three or four heads and to deal with them very briefly as I proceed. I want first to make as clear a presentation of the facts as I can, and later on I purpose arguing the points. In the first place, clause 2 defines a combine as being one of such business organizations as
-have operated or are likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.
I ask the House to bear that word "others" in mind, and let us examine it briefly. Who are "others"? Let us assume that a group of businesses find it desirable to combine, think 'it is in their interest and in the interest of their business that they Should combine. They do so. Some of them may not enter the combine. It easily may, and very often does, result that the combined businesses operate at a lower cost, give better service, are more efficient and stabilized, and because of that they undersell the so-called independent firms or firms that stand out. These are "others" who are injured by the combination, although the public may be distinctly benefited. In this I am not drawing a bow at venture, but I am describing what has happened time and again during the past twenty-five years. Under this legislation as it now stands, such a combine, such a combination, is declared to be an offensive institution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but he has used words which indicate that the class of combination referred to' would not come under the legislation at all. If what he says is true, namely, that a certain combination would really operate to the benefit of the public, that would put it out of the class referred to in the definition.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to be impertinent to the Prime Minister; but if he will wait a moment. I purpose showing that
that is precisely what the legislation does	not say.	As	regards this	particular portion of the definition, I submit that	two words	in	it prevent the	veryobject to which the Prime Minister refers. For instance, the registrar must interpret this. If a combination operates to the detriment of consumers, producers or others-and "others" is not defined in any limited sense-then under this bill it is a combination that is detrimental to the public. And furthermore, the word "likely" introduced there gives a very wide scope for interpretation solely by the registrar; that is,	the	registrar is the	solejudge	whether or	not	this combination is
likely at some future time to be detrimental to the public interest.
But that is not all upon which I rest my argument. I take the next portion of the interpretation clause. It further describes "combine" to include:	.
[DOT]-the relation resulting from purchase, lease or acquisition by any person of any control over or interest in the whole or part of the business of any other person.
How is that clause likely to operate? Supposing we have a group of, say, A. B. C and D. If A acquires a portion or the whole of the business of B and as a result of that combination C and D suffer, then under this bill the registrar must find that this is a combination to the detriment of consumers, producers "or others," as is set forth earlier in this clause.
Then it also deals with any agreement, etc., "designed to fix a common price of re-sale." This is a very vital point. This covers any agreement or undertaking between a manufacturer and a sales agency whereby the price of resale is fixed. Under this proposed legislation such an institution would be declared by the registrar to be detrimental to the public interest. Let us look at this for a moment. We know, at least I am pretty fully persuaded of it myself, that many manufacturers of this and other countries, enjoying the highest possible standing with the public, fix the price of their goods. The price is printed on the label or stamped upon the article itself, and the article is sold from one end of the country to the other by all dealers at that fixed price. The result is to stabilize its distribution and to maintain a price at a reasonable figure to prevent the avaricious retailer or agency taking advantage of a shortage at any particular time and exacting a higher price for it. I was shown the other day a statement by the Ford Motor Company which very carefully and fully illustrates this. . They point out that they have all along fixed the price of their cars and parts to all their
Combines-Mr. Stevens

sales agencies, and these agencies not only sell the article at this fixed price but give certain services in addition. I think everybody here who drives a Ford car knows what splendid service the Ford agencies render. I do not drive a Ford car so I have not had the advantage of this thorough service. These agencies sell on a commission of 20 per cent. This may seem high, but it is pointed out that it includes service. The net result of it all has been that during the last few years the Ford car has actually dropped in price until to-day it is selling for about $100 less than in 1914. That is merely one illustration; there are scores one might give of how the fixing of the resale price by a manufacturer usually, and I might say generally, is in the interest of the public; and yet under this proposed legislation this practice would be demed a combine detrimental to the interests of the public.
Then-and this is of particular interest not only to manufacturers but tc others-this clause describes a combine as one which enters into an agreement for
-lessening competition in, or substantially controlling manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply.
I can bring forward several illustrations of what may happen under such a provision. I shall give these briefly because the moment I mention them the facts will be present in the minds of my hon. friends. Take, for instance, dairies. In Ottawa there is the Ottawa Dairy. I think they have some competition now, but for many years they were without any competition, and yet I recall that at the time the cost of living investigation was held by a parliamentary committee in 1919 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. My right hon. friend will answer all this I know by saying, "Then it does not come under this measure." But the registrar is forced to so interpret under this clause. The clause to which I am now referring is an undertaking or an agreement or a contract substantially controlling competition and the purchase, sale, etc., of an article. In the city of Vancouver there is another illustration of what might happen under this measure, for if it were in force the Producers' Dairy would be Challenged. This company, organized and owned by the producers of milk in the Fraser valley, in other words, by the dairy farmers, supplies milk [DOT] to the public at a moderate price; yet they were challenged by the independent dealers. Under this bill that daily company could be

effectively challenged, and in my estimation the registrar would be bound t.o declare it to be a combination detrimental to the interests of the public, or to the "producers, consumers or others." Then we have the formation of a wheat pool, which would be for the purpose of eliminating competition-in the wording here, for the purpose of "controlling the purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation." After listening, as we have, for several years to the disclosures of the difficulties and extra costs now imposed by the present system, no one will question that if another system could be worked out it would be in the interests of the public; and yet if it were done it would, as I have said, come under this clause, and the registrar, if he were appealed to, would have to declare it to be detrimental to the public interest. Then again take the Fruit Union of the Okanagan. There, perhaps, you have a more striking illustration than anywhere else of an organization deliberately formed for the purpose of controlling the price and distribution of their products; and yet, under this clause, it would be a combine. I merely give these illustrations to bring home to the House the significance of this interpretation clause.
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. 1 have already intimated that, during the past twenty-five years in particular, there has been a growing tendency for business to get together to eliminate useless competition. By that I mean vicious competition-not competition in service, but competition which simply seeks to slay a competitor. There has been an endeavour to eliminate useless competition and to build up associations of kindred businesses, thus reducing overhead and executive charges, improving the efficiency of distribution and stabilizing both prices and production. Without such combinations there is a tendency to over-production during periods of prosperity, with recurring periods of depression and under-production. This is one of the greatest problems facing economists to-day. It is cropping up everywhere. It has cropped up in the Agricultural Conditions committee in the Banking and Commerce committee. In the consideration of any of the great problems of the day this question is the most perplexing one that arises. Yet through the medium of many of the large combinations of business in this country that evil has been, I will not say elminated, but reduced, and the stabilization of both production and

Combines-Mr. Stevens
distribution has been secured. Now, why should we seek to erect that into a crime?- for that is what parliament, in effect, does, and it is the feature of the bill above all others that I object to. I believe, Sir, that this bill is raised upon false premises. Any given action is not a crime simply because parliament may choose so to describe it; it must in itself be a criminal act. The judgment to which the right hon. Prime Minister has referred is filled with extracts from decisions of the Privy Council and of eminent jurists throughout the Empire, not only in the case of the Board of Commerce, not only in the case of the Wholesale Grocers of Ontario, bnt in the case of Austrialia vs. the Adelaide Steamship Company and many others. It is set forth most clearly that merely to declare, through the Criminal Code, a thing to be a crime does not necessarily make it a crime- and that is what I particularly wish to emphasize to-day. The act of combination is not an offence. The act of combination and the most rigid advantage taken of it is not an offence. But if a group of business men or others-and this applies or ought to apply to all classes alike-deliberately conspire to injure competitors; if the object of the getting together is to effect injury to others, then you have an offence, then you have a crime. On the other hand, where the combination or the getting together is purely to promote the interests, if you like, of those combining, there is no crime and there should not be said to be a crime; because, as I have stated, and as I intend to insist, the country at large usually benefits from such combinations.
Reference has been made to section 49S of the Criminal Code, and I want to deal with that aspect of the question for a moment, because I regard it as very interesting and very important. It is true that Chief Justice Meredith does in his decision question section 498 of the Criminal Code is intra vires of parliament. I am not as able to discuss or elucidate the point as others here who have legal training, but I hope that what I say will lead them to a closer examination of the whole question. In that decision and in the decisions of the Privy Council it is emphasized that section 498 of the Criminal Code was inserted to give this parliament jurisdiction. Let me put it a little differently. Parliament has jurisdiction over criminal matters, but not over property and civil rights, the latter belonging to the provinces. Parliament declares, through the criminal code and in words very similar to the interpretation that I have read, that "it is an
indictable offence" and so on, against those who "conspire, combine, agree or arrange with other persons," and so on, "to unduly limit transportation facilities" and so forth-similar language to that contained in this bill. It is the erecting of the combination into a crime that the Privy Council and Chief Justice Meredith object to. They do not say that the conspiracy should not be legislated against in the criminal code. Let parliament make such provision in the criminal code that it can deal with deliberate conspiracies for the restraint of trade, and so forth; let them make it perfectly clear that it is the conspiracy they are after-then I think parliament will have rendered good service to the public. I submit to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as I would to the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) if he were in his seat, that careful examination of this bill will show that its adoption would place the government in virtually the same position that the Board of Commerce Act, that section 498 of the Criminal Code, is in to-day-without relieving, without changing or improving the condition throughout the country.
Then, the bill is inquisitorial in its character. It gives very wide powers to registrars. The Prime Minister has pointed out that under the provisions of the bill certain investigations will be held by one nominated as a registrar. This is a preliminary investigation to enable the registrar to declare whether or not the combination complained of is a combine under the terms of this act. He carries on his inquisition or his inquiry secretly; in other words, it is a star chamber proceeding. I appeal again to the good sense of this House; if there is one thing more than another that is necessary to subdue unreasonable combinations, it is publicity, not secrecy. In the second place, I submit that any bona fide business that has not been carried on with any intent to injure others should not be subjected to a secret or any other kind of inquiry. The only business that should be interfered with, harassed, inquired into, is a' business that has committed some offence, a combination that is wrong. My right hon. friend pointed out, laying some emphasis upon it-and he made the same statement before a very large body of citizens who waited upon him a few weeks ago-that unless a combination had done wrong they need fear nothing under this act. But he is asking parliament to give to the registrar powers beyond those of the courts of this land; he is enabling the registrar to inquire secretly into any business or any concern complained of. Why, there would be no difficulty at any time, anywhere, day or night, summer or winter, to

Combines-Mr. Stevens

get six citizens of Canada to complain against some institution. I do not say ignorant people, but uninformed people, are very prone to complain of businesses or institutions wherever they may be. Six uninformed, irresponsible individuals may ask for an investigation. The registrar proceeds to investigate. He calls for all documents, contracts, books and so forth of the company. He can step into the office, examine into prices, obtain any information he demands. All that he asks for must be produced; the concern which is the subject of inquiry has no recourse but to give up everything that is demanded pertaining to the secrets of its business. I submit that one rival desiring to get information regarding another rival's business, perhaps more successful than his own, perhaps underselling him on the market, would find it the simplest thing in the world to get that information through such an institution as this.


William F. Carroll: That is where private investigation comes in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not only is the registrar or prosecutor not sworn to secrecy, but the minister or the registrar or the commissioner -it is so set forth in the bill-may disclose any part or all of the findings. I want my hon. friend to note that. I object to this private investigation, I am absolutely opposed to it. The registrar or a commissioner has the absolute right to determine the portion or the whole of the investigation to be disclosed, and to whom it can be disclosed. If one person desires to obtain the sgcrets of his competitor and stands in well with the commissioner, if he has pull-shall we say?- with the registrar or the minister, he can get a copy of the results of the investigation and no one need be the wiser. I submit that no such power, no such privilege, should be given to any one, two or three persons.
Let me turn to another phase of the bill. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said, and I expected him to say it, that under this bill he is taking certain powers; in clause 23 and clause 24, I think it is. Those powers are as follows: If a combination or a concern seems to be taking advantage of the tariff to unduly enhance prices, under this bill the Prime Minister says, the Governor in Council may for the time being place such an article on the free list. He has all that power now, and I wish the House would follow me in this particular. Not only in regard to this, but as I have already pointed out in the Criminal Code we have almost the identical power set forth in this bill, with but slight amendments to make them conform to the 
judgment of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Ontario. Under the Inquiries Act we can make the inquiries where it is considered to be in the interests of Canada and of law and order to do so. But in the Customs Tariff, section 12, I find a clause that is almost identical with the one inserted in this bill. Let me read it so that parliament may be seized of the powers already invested in the government. Section 12 of the Customs Tariff reads as follows, beginning at subsection 2:
2.	Whenever the Governor in Council deems it to be in the public interest to inquire into any conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement alleged to exist among manufacturers or dealers in any article of commerce to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers in such article at the expense of the consumers, the Governor in Council may commission or empower any judge of the Supreme Court, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court or county court In Canada, to hold an inquiry in a summary way and report, to the Governor in Council whether such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists.
3.	The judge may compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath and require the production of books and papers, and shall have such other necessary powers as are conferred upon him by the Governor in Council for the purpose of such inquiry.
4.	If the judge reports that such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists in repect of such article, the Governor in Council may admit the article free of duty, or so reduce the duty thereon as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in the article, if it appears to the Governor in Council that such disadvantage to the consumer is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article.
There is absolute power to deal with this matter-no need whatever of this legislation. Furthermore, I will say this to the Prime Minister: If this legislation were to pass and it were found desirable to admit some article free, unquestionably his Minister of Justice would invoke section 12 of the Customs Tariff and not the clause in this bill.
I would point out another difference. In this bill before us it is proposed to entrust all this very, very wide power to whom? To a registrar or a commissioner. In the customs tariff it provides that the government may empower a judge of the various courts- an infinitely fairer, an infinitely better method of deciding an important point of that kind-and at the same time it preserves the rights of the person so inquired into.
The next point referred to by the Prime Minister was the revocation of a patent if it was found that by the use of that patent an abuse existed. I would again bring to his attention that during this session we have passed a Patent Act, and in that act at great length and in detail we provided against all of that. It is there. So parliament ought to.

Combines-Mr. Carroll
be seized of this: In the Criminal Code, in the Inquiries Act, in the Customs Tariff Act, and in the Patent Act all of the powers asked for in this bill are now fixed, and fixed in the proper place, fixed in a manner that protects and will protect the interests of the public.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to sum up very briefly what I have said, not to weary the House with further detail. I oppose the bill: First, because a combine is usually prompted by efforts for efficiency and economy, and generally results in better service, the stabilizing of prices and the uniformity of supply. Second, because for persons or corporations to combine for mutual benefit is not in itself a crime nor should it be so declared either by inference or specifically. Third, the crime of conspiring, to injure other persons or to interfere with trade should be dealt with under the criminal code, and if the code as it is now drafted is not exactly fitting to the case sections 496 and 498 should be amended so as to fit.
My further objection is that the bill is inquisitorial. It will, if enforced, harass business without serving any useful purpose, and if ever there was a time when business should be free from interference and from that type of inquiry that simply disturbs and harasses it, that time is now. I venture to say that business of all kinds throughout the length and breadth of this country is struggling under the burden of taxation, under the burden of laws that really are going back, as it were, to the Middle Ages, and this would only be an added burden to the carrying on of business.
All that is sought for in this bill is much better provided for in the Criminal Code, the Inquiries Act, the Patent Act and the Customs Act. These acts with slight amendments constitute the proper medium of treatment and provide all the needed machinery, so that this bill merely duplicates powers, confuses jurisdiction, and multiplies public cost without adding one whit to the public protection.
Lastly, assuming the object of the bill to be the exposure of criminal interference with trade, profiteering and the conservation of the public rights, I submit, Sir, that no such end will be attained under this bill. On the contrary it impedes and harasses legitimate business development, it will victimize the innocent, and at the same time it opens innumerable avenues of escape for the guilty. In that regard I again remind the House that similar legislation to this has been repeatedly declared ultra vires of this parliament by the Privy Council and is called in question by this important judgment of Chief
wn
Justice Meredith. Therefore, why should we invite further litigation to determine this point when we can escape all that by, as I have already mentioned, insisting upon the real offence, namely, the conspiracy feature, and dealing with it under the Criminal Code.
Mr. W. F. CARR,OLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond): I believe this legislation is intra vires of this parliament and that no better legislation has been introduced here for half a century. The present bill is primarily and mainly, I think, for the protection of the consumers of Canada and it is from that aspect that I am going to discuss the subject. Various efforts have been made in the past to bring within reach of the law, persons who combine to enhance the prices of the necessities of life, but I do not think any of that legislation has been effective. In the past, in enacting laws against combines and monopolies, parliament did not take power to see that the law was enforced, and that persons wTho violated its provisions were penalized. The buck was passed to the legislatures and to the attorney generals of the provinces, and the Dominion statute contained no provision for making the law effective. In 1919 there was an attempt to legislate on this matter, but it was not of a nature at all akin to the present measure, and I believe our courts have declared that certain parts of that statute are ultra vires of this parliament. The Prime Minister this afternoon, in answer to my question, gave us the assurance that in the opinion of the Department of Justice the present bill was intra vires of this parliament; I am going to take it for granted that such is the case until the highest tribunal in the land has declared to the contrary.
I am in perfect accord with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) when he states that all combines are not bad, and that combinations of business interests in this country have done a great deal to benefit not only the producers and the consumers but the nation as a whole. Combinations of capital have done much to lessen the cost of certain articles which are among the necessaries of life in Canada, and to that extent the combination of capital is a splendid thing. But when capital combines to enhance the price of the necessaries of life, when it combines to take the last cent out of the consumers of Canada, then I say that such a combination should be declared a crime by this parliament, and I want to congratulate the government on bringing down legislation with that object in view. My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) I think, is somewhat astray in con-
Combines-Mr. Carroll

eluding that all combines would be declared criminal under this bill. It has no such intention. The interpretation clause says-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that they would all be declared criminal. I said that in view of the interpretation clause the registrars would be forced to declare them combines, which is all that the bill does. The bill does not deal with the criminal feature of it at all.


William F. Carroll: But the registrar would not be forced to- declare these associations as combines.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William F. Carroll: At any rate, he would not be forced to investigate a concern which is not a combine within the meaning of the bili. As a preliminary the registrar will take means to assure himself that the concern is not such a combine as the bill has in view. For example, if six persons go to the registrar with a complaint, he may demand of the business firm or company concerned the right to look over its books in private. That is a proviso with which I am strictly in accord. The manager of the firm shows his books to the registrar, and I am presuming that neither .his government, nor any other government which may be in power in Canada, will appoint registrars who are not honest and honourable. Now, the registrar will go to the managers of this business firm and ask them, in a quiet manner, to produce their books. Then I feel assured that if it is not a combine, such as this bill intends chasing and hounding to death-and I hope that course will be pursued-the managers will be very -glad to produce their books when the registrar in the course of a few hours can inform himself whether the concern is such a combine as comes within the four corners of the proposed statute. This procedure ought to cover the objection taken by my hon. friend. But the hon. member can refer to the interpretation clause and what will he find? He will find this:
(a) The expression "combine" in this act shall be deemed to have reference to such combines immediately hereinafter defined as in the opinion of the registrar or any commissioner have operated or are likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public-
And so on. The whole of these provisions must be read together. It is not necessary to show, for example, that there is a merger or a monopoly in order to bring that concern within the provisions of the act; that merger or combine or monopoly must be operating to

the detriment of the public. My hon. friend has fallen down in his argument by ignoring that provision of the legislation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What public?


William F. Carroll: I need not tell my hon. friend for St. John and Albert that "public" is a very well-defined expression. Further down in the clause there is included in the definition the limiting of facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any commodity. But they must be doing this and operating against the public weal in doing it. In all these cases you must go back to section (a) of the act before coming to a conclusion that a trust, a monopoly, or a combine, or a transportation business, is a combine within the act, which this bill declares a combine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member should
in his argument, in all fairness, read the words "whether consumer, producer or others" which qualifies this provision.


William F. Carroll: The hon. member is getting away from the argument I am presenting. However I will come to the question the hon. member has asked. I do not know exactly what significance that word "others" has. I will be quite frank with the hon. member, because I think in this country we are either consumers or producers, and as a matter of fact we are all consumers.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is an insurance company
a consumer or producer?


William F. Carroll: The people making up
the company are consumers.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: But the company?


William F. Carroll: The company may be a
consumer.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Take a transportation company.


William F. Carroll: The members of a corporation may be both consumers and producers. The general manager of a company who could be prosecuted under this act is a consumer or producer. However, that may be exactly the class of institution which the word "others" covers.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is a banker a producer
or a consumer?


William F. Carroll: If the hon. member has
any questions to ask, I will sit down. I do not like to see him in his seat mumbling questions which I cannot understand. Usually when an hon. member has anything to say he rises.

Combines-Mr. Carroll


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I will apologize to my hon. friend for asking questions which he cannot understand.


William F. Carroll: That is very clever,
no doubt. That is one of the cleverest things I have heard from the hon. member in his whole career in this parliament, and I have heard him say a good many things. Now the word "others" may have reference to the class of trade to which my hon. friend for St. John referred. But suppose it means, what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) says, other concerns in the same business. My hon. friend for Vancouver Centre has seriously argued that, if there were a small concern in Hamiltion, engaged, say, in the manufacture of ploughs, it was right, just and equitable that another large concern in that city should combine, or should try by any underhand means or met! od, to put that small concern out of business? Does my hon. friend think that would be a fair measure of justice to give to the small manufacturer in this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member is stating my own argument. I argued that if, by conspiracy or underhand means, such a thing as that were done it should be punished under the Criminal Code, but if it were done by competition, as it might be done under this act, there would be no crime.


William F. Carroll: No crime?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No offence.


William F. Carroll: The hon. member must know that this parliament is absolutely supreme in making crime. They can make almost any action of man a crime if they so desire.
Now my hon. friend talks about the privacies of the investigation by the registrar, and says those privacies are wrong. In another instance he calls them star chamber methods of doing business. I want to say to my hon. friend that I believe after the registrar has gone to the institution and made a personal investigation of the documents and so on, any further investigation should be of a public character. That far I agree with the hon. member. I am in hopes that the registrars will be men of such calibre that, having made a personal investigation on the premises, as they are allowed to do by this bill, and finding no evidence which will make the concern investigated a criminal under the act, there will be no further inquiry. I believe that all further investigations should be of an absolutely public nature and that the public should have
access to them. My hon. friend for Vancouver Centre says that he has read the bill. He is a serious student when he takes up any question and his studies are serious, as everyone in the House knows, but I think he is mistaken or misled when he attempts to show the House that the registrar is all-powerful in so far as the whole situation is concerned. What are the facts? The registrar investigates. There may be counsel for the government and counsel for the combine which is being investigated. The evidence is taken, and the court has all the functions and powers of a court excepting that it does not pass sentence. My hon. friend and the House must not forget the fact that the registrar has no authority to come to a conclusion. He passes the matter on to the minister, and the minister decides if tnere is sumeient evidence to have the person, firm or corporation indicted under the Criminal Code. If the minister thinks there is sufficient evidence, he so advises the attorney general of the province, and the attorney general, while there can be no pressure brought to bear upon him to draw an indictment or lay information, may bring an indictment before the court, and the person, if person it be, or corporation, if corporation it be, accused of the crime, has the same rights before that criminal court as any other citizen of Canada. The accused may go before a jury or may elect to have a speedy trial be-for the county or district court judge. If the attorney general does not see fit to proceed with the investigation, charge or trial, the solicitor general, within six months, may, off his own bat, proceed to bring home to those people their crime.
I do not think my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre wished to mislead the House, but I want to show that this registrar has nothing in the world to do, except to make a fair investigation, to pass the papers, so to speak, to the minister who has charge of the matter, and if the minister is of opinion there is something to investigate he passes the case on to the attorney general. If the attorney general does not act, the solicitor general may proceed with the case and lay a charge. My hon. friend says that all the cures for the present situation in Canada are to be found within two or three statutes and he mentions them. He mentions section 12 of the Tariff Act, he mentioned the Patent Act and the Criminal Code. If my hon. friend will read section 497-


Henry Herbert Stevens: 496 and 493.


William F. Carroll: -he will find an allo-gether different state of affairs from that which
Combines-Mr. Carroll

appears in this particular section. For example, take first the procedure. There is nothing in the Criminal Code which makes it incumbent upon this parliament or this government or any future government to prosecute offences under that act. The whole thing is left in the hands of the attorney general of the province. Under this bill we have the machinery which will surely ensure at some time, even though it be late, an investigation into a combine or conspiracy in restraint of trade. When we talk about conspiracy in restraint of trade, do hon. members in this House believe it is restraint of trade for example, if several wholesale dealers get together with the retailers in the various places where they are selling their goods, and say "Here we have a corner on something. We have a corner, in this particular vicinity, in potatoes, any kind of vegetables, any necessity of life. We are, it is true, getting a big profit now, but we are going to extract 10 per cent more from the pockets of the consumers." Is that a restraint of trade? I say, it is not a restraint of trade, and those sections of the code do not touch dealers who may act in that way. That is one of the things that the consumers of this country are concerned with, namely, that there is a conspiracy, if you will, but not a conspiracy in restraint of trade-you cannot call it that- between the wholesalers and retailers of this country to maintain prices.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. membeer think such an act would be permitted under paragraph (c) of section 498 of the code?


William F. Carroll: I doubt if it could be
reached by that section.


Arthur Meighen: If it could not, it certainly could not under this legislation.


William F. Carroll: That is an opinion.


Arthur Meighen: There is no doubt about it.


William F. Carroll: I doubt very much if it could. It is, however, to the procedure that I am referring in the present instance. There is no doubt in the world to-day that there must be conspiracies to keep up prices of certain commodities in this country. There is no doubt that such conspiracies have existed in the past, and if this legislation is properly enforced, it will be a very great blessing to the great mass of the consumers of this country-and we are all consumers.
My hon. friend speaks about the remedies that are supplied in this legislation, having an existence already, for example, under the
{Mr. Carroll.)
Patent Act. I do not know that we can have in this country too many remedies against a man who, having secured a patent, misuses it to the detriment of the public. While I have not had time to go into the clause of the Patent Act dealing with this, I would say, notwithstanding that fact, that it is necessary to have this particular item incorporated also in this legislation, enforced as it will be by the government of Canada.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) speaks of the powers of the Tariff Act. I did not even have time to read section 12, I think it is, of the Tariff Act but if my hon. friend will look over it again, he will find that there is a good deal of distinction. While in the Tariff Act the bodies and persons who make an inquiry are mentioned, this is adding another body to inquire under that act it is adding a body which, I think, can make the inquiry much moie readily than can a judge of the Exchequer Court or the Supreme Court. My hon. friend is not a lawyer, but I am sure he knows something of the delays which surround courts of law in various actions which may be brought before them. In this case we have a simple method of investigating ; and if there are trusts and combines, which are doing things which are to the detriment of the people of this country, another method of bringing them to justice is not going to hurt any person, but it is certainly going to help the consuming masses, if the law reaches out to persons who are taking the last cent unduly, and, as the bill says, to the detriment of the public.
My hon. friend had also something to say regarding property and civil rights. It is true that the legislatures of our provinces have what we may call absolute jurisdiction over property and civil rights. That, however, has its limitations. If this parliament undertakes to deal with something within its
5 p.m. authority and, by chance, encroaches upon property and civil rights in a province, then this parliament has the right to pass that legislation. That is the consensus of opinion which one may gather from reading opinions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in connection with this matter. But we are not so much concerned in this case with property and civil rights as we are with trade and commerce, and the matter of trade and commerce comes foursquare within the authority of this parliament. It is trade and commerce specifically at which this legislation is aimed, and if it encroaches, to some extent, upon the matter of property and civil rights in a province, yet this par-

Combines-Mr. Evans
liament has absolute power to pass such a measure. While I do not put myself as a lawyer on the same plane as the Deputy Minister of Justice, I think he is absolutely right in his opinion expressed, to the government, that this government has power to pass the legislation in question.
I did not intend taking up so much of the time of the House in connection with this matter. I have some criticisms to make of this bill, and as I said, one of them is the criticism which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre made. That criticism is as to the public nature of the inquiry, the court inquiry held by the court registrar or commissioner, not the private inquiry which he may make into a man's business by going to his house, or shop, or store. Again, the minister should not have the last say on this question. The minister has the last say whether or not, in his opinion, sufficient information has come out of the registrar s investigation to entitle him to ask the attorney-general of a province to prosecute. From the minister's decision in that matter there is no appeal as the act is at present constituted. I would suggest that there might be an appeal to the Governor in Council, because two heads are better than one. For instance, the minister having control of this measure may or may not be a lawyer. He may not know what weight should be given to certain evidence. In his particular position in life, he may not be trained to know exactly what certain evidence means. If the Minister of Justice is not the minister referred to in the context of this bill, there should be an appeal to or a consideration, if one is asked, by either the Minister of Justice or members of the government as a whole. I have received various communications from people, not only from my part of the country, but as far west as the home of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and they are all of one opinion, that if this legislation is properly administered, it will be a great blessing to the people of Canada who do not have large bank accounts, in other words, the masses of the consuming public. Two or three investigations, and two or three indictments brought in against people who are active in a propaganda to extract every cent possible out of the consumers, will waken the big business people of this country to a sense of duty and responsibility, and they will not, in future, do things which will cost them in the vicinity of S20,000 or $25,000.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: This bill proposes to deal with one of the most important matters that has come before parliament this session, particularly in its relation to the everyday commodities that the people have to buy, and it is from this viewpoint that I wish to discuss the bill.
The history of combines in Canada, is the history of the tariff-one evil has been produced by the other. Oil refining was protected by the tariff and was controlled by a ring as early as 1879. Mr. John Charlton, then a member of this House, said that "tariffs were bound to breed combines," and no prophecy concerning the National Policy has ever proved more true. He cautioned the House then that the tariff would speedily bring monopolies, trusts and mergers into existence, and that they would not be easily broken up. He said it would take more than one verdict of the people, more than one general election, to loosen the deathlike grip which these monopolies, trusts and mergers would fasten on the people of this country.
Well, combines, trusts and mergers did develop. Since Mr. Charlton's warning, legislation has been repeatedly enacted by parliament, ostensibly to check the rapacity of these organizations. There was a measure of this kind passed in 1889, another in 1897, still another in 1907, and the last in 1910-all to no purpose. At the election of 1896 our free trade party got into power; the original National Policy party-or as I like to term it, the trade restriction party-of that time was overthrown and in its place came a professedly free trade party. For fifteen years this free trade party held power, but the trusts, combines and mergers gained daily in monopolistic control of every commodity, and to-day these predatory organizations are more securely in control in every particular than they ever were before. I say in every particular because there never was a time when the manufacturing and distributing of all the commodities the people use were so completely dominated by classes of men, many of whom should never be in possession of the power which they exercise to-day, keeping, according to their way of putting it, the trade of the country in the proper channels. The trusts to-day have more complete control in this country than in any other in the world, including the United States, where these combinations first originated. I assert there can be no dislodgement of these monopolistic organizations, nor any effective control over them, so long as our present protective tariff
Combines-Mr, Evans

with all its amendments stands on our statute books, or while there continues to be the same community of interest between the politicians of business and the politicians who sit in this House.
Now, this evil has gone on unchecked ever since Sir John A. Macdonald in 1878 in a speech at Hamilton told the manufacturers he would try to meet their wishes if they would tell him what they needed. He was leader of the opposition at that time and of course was not able to invite the manufacturers to council at Ottawa. But this he did on his return to office, and since that time the manufacturers and others who form combinations for their own benefit have had plain sailing at the expense of the consumers, notwithstanding all the anti-combine legislation that has been enacted and the successive changes of government,
In 1881 the cotton manufacturers, who for two years previously had received increased privileges from the government, met together and organized a complete union and at once agreed to advance their prices. Prior to this combination the industry had been paying "only" about 30 per cent in dividends; since then some of these cotton concerns have paid very much higher dividends. All kinds of industries, large and small, were soon organized with the same end in view-enhancement of prices. By 1889 they were so numerous and aggressive that there were complaints in parliament about the way consumers were being victimized. Indeed, one Liberal member who drew attention to this new development declared that the interests of these combines and the government supporters were so closely linked together that the government would be hampered in dealing with the evil. At that time one combine in Toronto actually put up for sale among its members the privilege of tendering, without competition, for the supply of coal to the Dominion and Ontario governments.
It was plain to both parties that these combines were brought into being by the protective tariff, so to offset the agitation against trade restriction an act was passed by the Macdonald government for the suppression of combinations in restraint of trade. Obviously the politicians responsible for that act in 18S9 never intended it to be anything more than a mere make-believe for there could be no conceivable reason for the manufao* turers dickering with the politicians for a high protective tariff when an effective measure on the statute books would have prevented them taking full advantage of such a tariff. Now I predict the government will

have hard work to persuade the people that this bill is ever intended to do anything more than were the bills of their predecessors. Nc combines were broken up by the act of 1889. In 1897 too the Liberal government, then newly elected, anxious to appear before the country as desiring to carry out some of its pre-election pledges according to the 1893 platform, enacted sitll another anti-combine law. There was performed in this House at that time perhaps the greatest farce that was ever staged in the Dominion. The Conservative party, then in opposition, feigned to be frightened by the bill, and well did they play their part. Sir Charles Tupper declared it to be legislation of the most vicious kind and that it was undemocratic in that it gave the minister or the council too much power. But both the government and the opposition knew that the bill was the greatest political joke ever played on the people. The Liberal government had no intention of seriously assailing any trust or combine, indeed they never had after the conference with the delegation of manufacturers on June 18th, 1890, shortly before the general election.
Now, they added this anti-combine legislation to the Tariff Act, but they made no provision for its enforcement by any officer of the Dominion government. After it had been in force for some thirteen years, there was, be it said to its credit, one case-just one solitary instance-of a reduction in the tariff because of proceedings against a combination in restraint of trade. But it cost the concern that laid the information 81,800 to prove its charge; and I never knew of a subsequent case. As evidence, too, of the hold that the protected combines were exercising over the Dominion legislators, I have only to point out that the screws were tightened on the consumers of this land at different'tariff revisions, 1884 and 1894, when heavier import penalities were imposed on the consumers while the free list began to swell for the manufacturers. This destroyed, I think, all argument in favour of the tariff as a means of creating employment or of creating a home market. After all, it is in the years from 1900 to 1914 that we must look for the greatest development of the trusts and combines as well as the ineffective attempts to obviate the evils that this development brought with it. The act assented to in 1910, known as the Combines Investigation Act, proved useless, as did its predecessors; the process was too unwieldy.
The legislation now proposed would seem to be effective in that it makes it a criminal offence for any person to assist knowingly or be privy to combines operating to the public

Combines-Mr. Evans
harm. I see there is also a registrar to be appointed who shall be the chief officer through whom proceedings may be instituted. But even this will not avail, as I will show. Whether combines or agreements in restraint of trade flourish in this country to the detriment of the public may admit of some argument. But I am wondering where the Prime Minister means to begin in connection with this bill, since all the business of the country, whether financial or industrial, or, particularly, relating to the distribution of all goods, is operated or controlled' by combines, mergers and trusts. These control the manufacture, distribution and prices of everything the public need to use, and there is no getting away from under their lash as long as the tariff, with its anti-dumping provisions and its latest amendments, stands on the statute book as it does to-day.
The Prime Minister would be well advised to withdraw this bill and at the same time abolish some of the existing legislation that hands power to the combines, trusts and mergers, For instance, the dumping clause as it stands to-day delivers the consumers over to the combines to do as they please with them. It is impossible now for an importer to know what duty he will have to pay. I know of one case where a retailer who last year bought goods in the United States and paid the duty on their entering this country was assessed under the anti-dumping clause for an additional amount because he was not a jobber or a wholesaler. A considerable quantity of his goods was retailed out before the antidumping law* was applied to him-it makes a difference who the importer is. As if this were not enough, an amendment was made to the Customs Tariff Act in the closing days of the last session giving the minister complete power to place any price he likes on any natural products that enter too keenly into competition with any Canadian concern. That amendment completely delivered the consumers of this land into the hands of the jobbers, the wholesalers, and the retailers; the provision was made entirely in their interests. The anti-dumping act has closed Up the trading activities, so far as agricultural implements are concerned, of one of the greatest co-operative companies that was ever formed in the Dominion. The anti-dumping act as it stands to-day with its amendments is a piece of galley slave legislation. It is impossible under it for a co-operative company to import anything for distribution in a cooperative way, because no co-operative company is recognized as a jobber and it is required to pay duty, not on the invoice price
of the manufacturer, but on the retailer's price. In fact, the minister can do as he likes, and I say as long as these provisions are on our statute books, any anti-combine legislation we can bring in of the nature of this bill will be futile.
The anti-dumping law is legislation that with one stroke forms into one great combine every distributing concern in the country- and the government asks us to believe that it can introduce legislation that will tend to lower the cost of living and to control combines. I, for one, cannot believe it. I do not think there is any sincerity in this matter, when the present tariff system is left entirely untouched-the very legislation that gives the combines all the power they need. If there is one thing more than another that this country needs to-day it is that people shall have freedom to purchase their commodities where they please. But there has sprung up between the producers and the consumers a combine whose rules are absolute, a combine which is recognized under the law of this land, which is recognized by the tariff system of this country, because in the Tariff Act the words "value for home consumption" are interpreted according to whom the importer happens to be. That is, only a jobber is allowed to import on the invoice price of the manufacturer. If a consumer or a co-operative company, distributing in a co-operative way, imports, the words "value for home consumption" are interpreted to mean the retail price in the country of origin, which is an injustice. Under such conditions, Sir, this proposed bill can give no relief; any investigation is bound to prove fruitless. The Customs Act is interpreted in favour of those who still hold the lives of the people in bondage through high prices.
Now, clause 7 of the bill enacts that the minister himself shall decide whether or not an investigation shall be proceeded with. The decision of the minister is final. There can be no appeal or review. So the same minister who is now interpreting the antidumping clause in the interest, as I have shown, of the trusts and combines is to decide whether or not an investigation shall be made at all, and his decision is not subject to appeal or review. If this government with the help of the opposition put through, as it did on June 22 last, an amendment to the Tariff Act that closed up the very last gap of liberty to the consumers of this land, I ask what credence will the electors give to the government in the enactment of this proposed bill? I say that this proposed bill can give no relief under such conditions. The Customs Act is
Combines-Mr. Evans

interpreted in favour of those who still have the power. Take that amendment of June 22 last. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr.Fielding) declared in his original budget speech that this anti-dumping amendment was to be left out as it was an unnecessary interference with trade. Just what pressure from the politicians of business was brought to bear on the present cabinet between that time and June 22 last when the Minister of Customs moved his amendment, I do not know; but there is a chance now for the whole Liberal party to free itself from all suspicion by doing something tangible, something that will give the people themselves the power to deal with these trusts and mergers in a way that will be effective.


Mr. HERBERT MARLER (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of urging violent opposition to the spirit of the bill as now brought down, because I am quite satisfied in my own mind, in fact I am certain, that the peopla of Canada are quite satisfied that the Prime Minister would bring down no legislation that was not imbued with a spirit of equity and right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I hear some hon. gentlemen jeer. However, that is my opinion, and it is the opinion of the rest of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: What is the evidence?


Ernest Lapointe: Everything.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It has increased very largely since the time my right hon. friend is alluding to. However, I did rise for the purpose of stating that I do not think that the manner in which this bill is worded does carry out the spirit in which it is brought down. The bill is intended to aim at trusts, combines and mergers which are unfair or injurious to trade. I read the bill in quite the contrary light as aimed at practically all combines, trusts and mergers, whether they be fair or whether they be unfair. That, I am perfectly sure, is not the spirit in which the bill has been brought down to the House at the present time.
The history of this bill has been explained briefly not only on its first reading but also again to-day, and what that history really comes down to is this: that the Combines and Fair Prices Act, which is more or less dependent on the Board of Commerce Act, not having functioned properly, and repealing, as it does, the Combines Investigation Act of 1910, the only actual legislation in force at the present time on the subject is Article 498

of the Criminal Code. In the explanation on the first reading of this bill it was stated that some effective machinery was necessary so that Article 498 of the Criminal Code could be put into effect for the purpose of the investigation of combines, mergers, and such like, and the punishment of those who may have been involved therein. That, I take it, is the necessity for the bill at the present time.
I am quite aware that on a motion for the second reading of the bill now before the House is not the proper time or place to urge amendments, but I do wish to urge on the government and on the Prime Minister in particular this fact, that the business world in parts of Canada is very much concerned over the bill as brought down, and I think that it will stand very careful scrutiny and very careful study, not with the object of not having it put on the statute book in the spirit in which it is intended t(5 be placed there, but rather with the object of eliminating certain objectionable features which at the present time business interests think are very deleterious to their interests. I want to make it perfectly clear to every hon. gentleman in the House that in speaking to this bill I do [DOT] not defend for a single moment any combine, any trust, any merger or any agreement of any kind or description which is injurious to trade, which is unfair or burdensome to the public. Let me make that perfectly clear in the most emphatic language that I can use with politeness in this assembly; let there be no mistake about it. But I also desire to state in equally emphatic language, in the most emphatic language I can use, that I do not think legislation should be placed on the statute book at the present time which will brand combines, business agreements, mergers, trusts and business arrangements of that description as combines in the unfair sense in which that word is used; in other words, I do not think that business agreements as they exist at the present time should be called unfair combines unless first of all they are proved to be unfair. If we immediately start out and state that every combine is unfair, every business interest, every trust unfair-I know that the bill does not intend to Bay that- but if we start out presupposing that, the business community will never know for a moment where they are.
Probably if there is any further debate on the bill at the present time the cost of living will be urged as being attributable to combines, trusts and mergers. I think I am right in saying that the public mind has for many

Combines-Mr. Marler
years associated the high cost of living with the existence of combines, trusts and mergers so-called. I do not think that that is quite right. Perhaps in a few isolated cases a trust or combine may increase the cost of an article of commerce, but on the whole I do not think that is the case.


Mr. HANSON:: You do not agree then with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) ?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I have not heard the Minister of Labour speak this afternoon.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have you read any of his speeches in the last campaign?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a free party.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not remember reading any of them but I am perfectly certain that what he intended to imply was right and proper, and if my hon. friend draws an improper conclusion that is his own fault.


Arthur Meighen: "I have not seen so great faith, no, not in Israel."


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend would be exceedingly fortunate if such great faith existed on his side as exists on this.
I was going on to state when I was interrupted that I do not think that combines, mergers and trusts so-called have increased materially the cost of living, because when one comes to think of it a combine, trust or merger of various interests more or less spells efficiency, more or less brings about the cheapening of production, and bringing about the cheapening of production brings about the fact that more labour can be employed. I read with a great deal of pleasure the speech which the Prime Minister made when Minister of Labour in 1910 when that act was brought into effect. I see my hon. friend the member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) smiling; my statement apparently gives him a great deal of pleasure. I think, perhaps, it would do my hon. friend much good if he read the speech over again and became imbued -with its spirit.
Sir HENRY" DRAYTON: I am afraid the hon. gentleman cannot give me the credit for the smile, it came from my left.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I apologize to my hon. friend. I see that he is not prejudiced against what I am advising him to read. However, at that time the Prime Minister spoke as follows:
Similarly while combines and trusts may have, had the effect in some cases of increasing prices, they have
not always had that effect but sometimes an effect entirely different, and I would like the House to understand that in introducing this legislation no attempt is being made to legislate against combines, mergers, and trusts as such.
Later on in the same address he stated:
Another point I would like to make clear is that trusts and combines may not be injurious, that in some respects they may be profitable. That is a point that has been raised. This legislation is in no way aimed against trusts, combines and mergers as such, but rather only at the possible wrongful use or abuse of their power, of which certain of these combinations may be guilty.
I have not the slightest doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the present bill, as brought down, fully intends to carry out and fully intends to emphasize what the Prime Minister said twelve years ago as regards combines and mergers. But the point I desire to bring before the House is this: I do not think that the bill as drafted and brought down does carry out that spirit in effect. Part of the legislation which has been spoken about to-day is section 498 of the Criminal Code. Anyone reading that section can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion will be this, namely, there must be wrong intent in the making and the prosecution of any combine. In other words the wrong animus must be pre-existent before a combine is inquired into and called an unfair combine. Now, I claim that section 2 of the present bill does not clearly show that a combine has to be unfair, that its animus has to be incorrect before it is investigated. The words of this section are certainly very broad, and I do think that qualification of the section should be made before a business, or a merger, or a trust can be called a combine. In other words it should be made clear beyond peradventure that the animus of the combine itself is wrongful before an investigation takes place. I do not think the wording of that section, as I have said, is very clear.
Now, we must all freely admit in this House that in business life there are combines, there are mergers, there are trusts, there is fixing of prices, there are trade agreements. All these things must exist in commerce. Commerce could not go ahead unless there were such agreements. The manufacturer would never know where he was, the producer would never know where he was, the consumer would never know where he was either. These trusts, mergers and combines- providing the animus behind them is correct -should be allowed to go on unheeded and not be inquired into. Because, as a matter of fact as business affairs now stand business is only on the up grade. Every investigation that is made impedes business, every return
Combines-Mr. Marler

that a business house has to make simply increases the cost of production. Business is already overtaxed and I claim, Mr. Speaker, that business at the present time-in so far as it is possible to do so, in so far as it is possible in fairness and equity to the public- should not be disturbed by further investigations unless those investigations are essential, unless those investigations are necessary, unless the animus is first of all determined to be wrong. In other words, I believe that before any investigation is made wrong doing or wrong intention should be proved on the part of that business.
Approaching nearer to the words of' the bill it does appear to me that it has been framed in such a way as to call for action on the part of someone who was absolutely fair-minded in every way, who understood industrial disputes, and who was imbued with a spirit of honesty and right. Under the provisions of the bill six people can come forward and demand an investigation. I will come to that question again later on but what I want to make clear at the present time is this: Six people can come and demand an investigation. Now, if everybody in this country of ours was imbued with a spirit of fairness there would be no question to be raised at all. But unfortunately, and I think I must say this, I do not think that the mentality generally-I am speaking of the mentality not in the way of a sense of mind but an attitude generally-of people towards business affairs, towards large business, is the same as it was many years ago. There is without doubt a spirit abroad of more or less jealousy of success, a desire more or less to pull down when it is seen that a business has been successful by reason of operating it for many years in a fair and equitable manner. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that that spirit is abroad. That spirit did not exist before the war in exactly the same manner as it exists to-day-I must say that. I find the attitude of many people in business affairs appears to be very much different. Although it is true, I might say in passing, that the war was supposed to purify us, that the war was fought for democracy and to make the world safe, I have not yet been able to find where that purification or that desire for democracy in order to make the world safe comes in, although it should have come in on account of the suffering that took place and the service that was rendered during the struggle. What I say is that there is an unnecessary carping criticism of successful business methods in Canada at the present time. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I admit where a trust is injurious and is shown' to be in- #
jurious a business merger is wrong. The point I desire to convey is that where a business has been successful by hard and honest work there is a distinct carping criticism of it. I will say this further: Almost from time immemorial in the ways of commercial and business * life there have been, agreements. These agreements have been recognized and have continued to be recognized. Nevertheless the spirit is abroad at the present time, I take it, that would think nothing whatever of tearing down a business that had been properly built up, of tearing down an agreement that had been in force for very many years.
No doubt this act was carefully prepared, and I believe that in bringing down this act the government has no intention whatsoever of trying to destroy any business of that description. It has one intention and one desire, a perfectly proper desire-to cause investigations of trusts, mergers and agreements which are injurious, unfair and burdensome to the public. It is the desire of the government that those agreements should be investigated and put a stop to and that those responsible for su,ch conditions should be punished. That 1 say is perfectly right, but at the same time I do not think that a business which has gone ahead in a fair, honest, equitable way in the face of the whole community should be touched or investigated or subjected to more inconvenience than business is subjected to at the present time-because the more business is disturbed, the greater is the cost of carrying it on and the slower will be the process of reconstruction which our country so much needs at the present time. The more business is disturbed the more does the lack of stability get abroad in this country, and if there is anything we want it is stability, m order that we may progress in our ordinary business lives.
Now, Mr. Speaker I would like to take up in a very brief form the bill itself, and to discuss, as I understand them, certain provisions as they appear in it, and the procedure which is involved. The first step is the complaint, and the second is the preliminary investigation to find out if an actual investigation should or should not take place. The third step is the actual investigation and the fourth step is the subsequent action by the Attorney General or the Solicitor General as the case may be. I wil take up each of those steps very briefly.
The first is the complaint as provided for under section 5 of the bill, subject to the amendments which the Prime Minister has suggested to-day. That is to say, instead of "any one person resident in Canada," the act

Combines-Mr. Marler
will be amended more or less along the lines of the 1910 act; so as to provide for investigation on the complaint of six or more persons, British subjects, resident in Canada, of full age, and so on. That I admit is a distinct improvement to the section in the bill as it stands now. But can we, in fairness, Mr. Speaker, place any business in the hands of any six people in this country? Can we not at any time get together six people who would make a complaint about any business, and who would cause an investigation to be then and there made? If the section, which is the crux of the whole bill in defining a combine distinctly stated that the only combines and the only trusts or mergers which were affected were trusts, combines or mergers which, either prima facie or by some reasonable means were shown to be injurious to trade or burdensome to the public, then the present objection that I am urging might be quite unfounded, but as the bill now stands it means-and it.can only mean one thing- that six people taken from any part of Canada can demand an investigation at any time of any business at all which they think is a combine or a restriction of trade. It does not make any difference what the business is, it does not make any difference what the registrar thinks, it does not make any difference *what a commissioner under the act thinks, or what the government or anybody else may think-those six people, can bring about an investigation by doing what, Mr. Speaker? All they have to do is to file an application under section 5 of the act, and the application states in general terms simply the name and address of the applicants, the nature of the alleged combine, and the manner in which and the possible extent to which the alleged combine is believed to operate against the public. Now it does not take anyone with a very high degree of skill to conjecture up in his own mind any difficulties at all, in order to have any six of these people lay a complaint of that description.
I say again, Sir, that I do think there should be sufficient qualification in this act, in some manner or of some description, and I repeat particularly to the government and Prime Minister that I do not criticize the spirit of the act at all, but I do criticize the machinery and the wording. I say that that clause should be amended in such a way as to provide that those six people whoever they may be, should show more reasonable or just cause of facts before they can, by a mere writing, by a mere declaration placed in the hands of the registrar, say that this business or that is a combine, and that this business or that should be investigated. It is all very well for
six people, under a solemn act of parliament, to stand Up and say that my business or anyone else's business is a combine. That is a stigma, it is not a name that any respectable business expects to be called, because the word "combine" is not used in the ordinary sense of the term, but as something which is unfair and unjust. Here we have likely to be placed on the statute book- I hope it will not be placed there-a section which will give six people the right to state that any business is a combine.
There is another point Mr. Speaker, which comes up under this section of the act, and no doubt the government has considered it to some extent. Does the government realize how many demands, or how may allegations, or how many so called applications they will have under an act of this description? I venture to say, Sir, in the conditions which are in existence at the present time in this country, and which I have alluded to, that there will be thousands of applications under this act. I believe that six people who are discontented and jealous of some other man's business will say "That man is making too much money, let us tear his business up, let us have it investigated and see if a combine exists or not." It is not an unnatural thing for six people who are not endowed with all the pleasures or the money that they would like in this world, perhaps finding themselves very pinched, to be more or less jealous of success, because they are are not as fortunate as others. I do not think I would blame them, and I do not think anyone would blame them. But here is the provision of the act and here is what it means, that six people can get together, and at any time ask for an investigation of this alleged combine. I believe the government will find, under this act which is being brought down in its present terms today, that they will have, not hundreds but thousands of investigations on their hands which they never expected for a moment.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Has the registrar not to declare that he is satisfied with the application?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I was coming to that point. It was my next point. Perhaps if it is not discourteous to my hon. friend I will answer that after recess.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was defining the
Combines-Mr. Mdrier

procedure to be effected under the bill relating to the investigation of combines. I had previously stated that in accordance with the procedure laid down in the bill, there were apparently four steps. The first was the complaint. The second was the preliminary inquiry in order to ascertain if a more detailed investigation was required. The third was the detailed investigation under which a finding or no finding was made as the case might be. The fourth step was the prosecution under the offence as so committed, at the instance or with the assistance of the Attorney General or Solicitor General, as the case might be. I had taken up the first of these steps, namely the complaint, as set out in clause 5 of the bill, and I had defined at some length the reasons why I thought clause 5 of the bill did not actually convey the intention the government had in bringing this bill down. It is not necessary at the present time to repeat or to recapitulate the remarks which I made before the House rose.
I will, therefore, pass on to the second step, namely, preliminary inquiry which the registrar is required to make after the laying of the information, or more properly speaking, the laying of the complaint under clause 5 of the bill itself. Clause 6 of the bill is imperative, it is not permissive. In other words, when a complaint is laid by the six persons as they are designated in the amendment suggested by the Prime Minister to the bill in question, the registrar shall then and there cause an inquiry to be made into the alleged combine or alleged restraint of trade, or any of the other causes set out in the definition of a combine under clause 2 of the bill. As I say, that action of the registrar is imperative on the complaint being laid. It is optional for the registrar to make a preliminary investigation, if he thinks fit, even without a complaint being laid. If he believes a combination exists, he may then and there go ahead and make the investigation himself. It is quite true under the succeeding clause-clause 7 of the bill-if the registrar finds that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, no actual, definite inquiry takes place. In other words, possibly no offence would be found under this legislation. The point I desire to make now is this, that an investigation or a preliminary investigation must, in any event, take place in order that the registrar may ascertain whether the allegations made by the applicants in their complaint are or are not well founded, because, without making that investigation into the business, merger, trust, call it what you will, it will be utterly impossible for the

registrar to say whether the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or not.


William F. Carroll: Would an investigation into the books of a company or combine at its office be sufficient?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think very likely it would be quite sufficient. I was coming to that just in a moment. As I say, the registrar would be required to make that investigation. The point I made in my remarks this afternoon, was that I thought if there was no title, or no evidence, or, in fact, nothing to show whether an actual combine existed in a particular business or trust, that business or trust, as the case might be, should be left severely alone. In other words, because six people complain and file documentary evidence-and this is only documentary evidence -under clause 5 of this particular bill, I do not think that business should be immediately stigmatized as a combine, in secret, it is quite true, perhaps not in public, nor that it should, as it would, be put to the expense and annoyance of an examination, it will therefore mean that any business is subjected to an inquiry of a more .or less searching character on the complaint being made.
Now, why should not something like the following procedure be adopted? Why should not these six selfsame camplainants be called before the registrar and asked to state their case as to the existence of the alleged combine? Then if the proofs which they propose to adduce are considered sufficient by the registrar to justify an investigation it could be proceeded with. I do not claim that no investigation should be made, but I do think that the condition precedent to making even a preliminary investigation should be the production of evidence in proper form by the complainants to show that wrong has been done, and thereupon such wrong can be righted in due course. As the bill stands at present the mere production of documentary evidence alone, without any questioning of the complainants at all, leaves no option to the registrar but to conduct an examination of the business complained of. I humbly suggest to the government that the acceptance of my suggestion would cure a good deal of what at present appears defective in this particular section.
As I have said, the registrar must make an investigation to determine even if the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. That provision, I think, so far as is practicable, should be absolutely removed from the bill. In other words, even at the risk of repetition, I do think just cause should be

Combines-Mr. Marler
shown against any known combine, merger or business, call it what you will, before the preliminary investigation takes place at all. Of course, if upon investigation the complaint is found to be frivolous or vexatious it is dismissed; there is nothing more to be said about it. But if the complaint is found not to be frivolous or vexatious, subject to the qualifications I have already referred to, there is no reason why a thorough inquiry should not be made. That brings me to the next step-the actual inquiry.
This brings me back to section 14 of the bill. There are various other sections relating to the same subject but it is not necessary for me to take them in detail at present because we are only speaking in general terms and I am sure that any suggestions made to the government in the interim will receive careful consideration. But the bill clearly stresses what I think is a consistent element of publicity. It is true that the registrar may or may not conduct the preliminary investigation in private; but he may make it in public, and I do think that publicity should be avoided until it is found there is just cause for investigation. If after the complaint is laid an examination of the six complainants discloses that there is reasonable grounds for a preliminary inquiry, then by all means proceed with that preliminary inquiry; but do not let any part of such inquiry be conducted in public until the registrar finds there is just cause of complaint against the alleged merger or combine in restraint of trade. 1 would respectfully suggest to the government that the bill be made imperative in that regard-that there be no publicity during the preliminary inquiry. I cannot state this point in too emphatic terms. What would happen if this was hot made definite in the bill? A complaint might be made against a business, and whether such complaint was good or bad the preliminary investigation would mean a tremendous amount of publicity which many a business could ill afford to be the subject of. Therefore I repeat, Sir, that this section should be amended so as to make it imperative that the preliminary inquiry be conducted in private until it is found that a searching investigation is justified.
Another section of the bill to which I wish to draw attention is No. 34, which reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
In any remarks I have to make with respect to this section I wish it to be abundantly clear to every hon. member that I see no possible objections to combinations of workmen and
employees for their reasonable protection. I for one believe that labour should be given its just rights precisely in the same way as capital is given its just rights. After all, there are practically three elements, I take it, in the relations between capital and labour: capital, labour and the community itself. All are interdependent one on the other, each must be given its reasonable and just rights. But why is it necessary in this bill to exclude the operation of its provisions against combinations of workmen or employees. I do not believe that any combination of workmen or employees would ask to be excluded from the operation of this bill. I cannot for a moment conceive that any labour body would be afraid of having its organization investigated. Therefore I do not see why labour organizations should not be included in this bill the same as any business organization, and I would ask the government to take this point under consideration also.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken at some length as regards this bill, and I have stressed several points, the principal being these, and I will not detain the House very long in recapitulating what I have said. I do think that section 2 is not sufficiently distinct; in other words, I think the section should be made so abundantly clear that no combine or merger which is not actually operating in restraint of trade or in any other way doing wrong should be subject to inquiry at all.
My second point is that the bill as a whole should recognize that there must be combines, trusts and mergers and agreements, and that it is not these combinations or these agreements that are wrong, it is the animus which is behind them. In other words, if there is wrong behind any of these agreements, let the wrong be investigated; but the animus should be proved to be wrong before the investigation is ordered. I stressed that, Mr. Speaker, to some considerable extent.
My third point was in regard to the way in which a complaint may be laid. I suggested there that six persons could possibly lay many complaints and that the government might have a great deal of difficulty in looking into all the complaints which might be made under this bill, and I do believe that many more complaints would be made than the government has any idea of.
The fourth point I raised was that the complaint should first be examined into, that the complainants should be called before the registrar and their evidence examined before any inquiry was instituted.
My fifth was that the preliminary inquiry should be invariably conducted in private,
Combines-Mr Manion

and that no publicity should be allowed until a finding adverse to the combine was made by the registrar.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say in reference to this matter, but if the Prime Minister will not think me impertinent for making another suggestion, it is this-and it has been in part covered by the remarks I have already made:	Business
is only now on the up-grade in this country, and I hope the government will not do anything which will not allow it to proceed or which will not allow it to become stable in every way. I do not like to make any remarks which would probably draw a discussion or even a criticism from some of my hon. friends opposite, but I have frequently heard it stated in this House, not out of it: "What has the government done? It has done nothing."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am glad to hear the "hear, hear" from the other side; I expected it. Let me tell my hon. friends this


Arthur Meighen: This is doing nothing twice.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Well, my right hon. friend has also endorsed what the hon. gentleman sitting behind him says. The opinion of my hon. friends, in that respect, is very much in the minority-I am waiting for them to laugh. I am urging that the government to go on the even tenor of its way is the most admirable policy that could possibly be followed at this time, because the country of all things wants stability, tranquillity; they do not want any sky-rocketing, any spectacular policies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly; I expected it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hoes he think the country wants this bill?


Herbert Meredith Marler: I have been arguing that to my hon. friend all the afternoon. I premised-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Damning it with faint praise.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I premised my remarks by saying that the spirit of the bill was admirable in every way. The bill as brought down is a basis for discussion, nothing more or less.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman means that the bill is all right, only for the sections.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend knows perfectly well that I made no such remark.

The remarks which I made earlier in the day my right hon. friend probably regarded as not worth following, but if he had followed them closely-and I had hoped he would have; I had hoped that hon. gentlemen opposite would possibly have derived a slight amount of knowledge from my remarks od this bill-he would have heard me say definitely that the spirit of the bill was admirable but that the operation of the proposed measure and the procedure under it could bear amending, and that the bill as it stands is brought down as a basis for discussion.
When interrupted I was gomg on to say that the people were satisfied to have the government continue along the even tenor of its way and to have it avoid spectacular policies. I would therefore urge that some of the clauses of the bill be redrafted in such a manner as to carry out the spirit and intention of the bill itself.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened this afternoon and this evening with a good deal of attention to the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Marler) who has just taken his seat. I always listen to his speeches with a good deal of attention, because he studies a case before he speaks on it and he usually delivers a very thoughtful address. However, as I listened to him to-day, damning with faint praise, as somebody to my left said a few moments ago, this bill, I found myself wondering which he was endeavouring to do, to praise it or to damn it. He removed from it so far as I could see, its heart and lungs and body, and left the rest for the government, with his approval. So far as I could find, there was only one part of it with which he agreed, and that was the title.
I take very much the same attitude, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend takes. I have listened to the other speeches; I have given some study to the bill, and I think I voice his opinion as well as my own when I say [DOT] that it is unnecessary, useless and interfering legislation. In saying this, Sir, I do not wish to be misunderstood. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in his able speech, pointed out that he did not wish to be taken as supporting trusts, combines and mergers, and I presume it is a good attitude for me to take at the beginning of the remarks that I propose to address to the House.
I may say frankly that I have not been the subject of any lobbying on this question, nor have I received even a communication of any kind in regard to it, with the exception of the ordinary circulars that I think every hon. member has received, some for and

Combines-Mr. Manion
some against the bill. I am opposing the bill in a general way, not from the legal point of view but from the general point of view that we have in this country to-day too many laws. We have laws made by this Dominion parliament, laws made by the provincial legislatures and municipal by-laws of various kinds. In fact, our statute books are cluttered up with laws of all descriptions, with most of which the people are not familiar. We are practically being legislated to death, and it is time we called a halt. Too much paternalism is being exercised, not only by this parliament, but by other legislative bodies throughout the country, and I submit that it is time to let the people do a little thinking on their own behalf. When you get on the statute books a great many laws of various kinds with which the people do not agree and of which they make, to a certain extent, a joke, you bring about a disrespect and a disregard for law which is not in the best interests of the country as a whole. I noticed some time ago in a United States paper the statement of an American senator that it was time that his country proceeded not to make more laws but to unmake many of the laws which they had already enacted. I believe' the same sentiment might well be expressed in Canada. The other day I was travelling on a train from the West, and I sat in the smoking room with a number of travellers, all strangers. An hour or two was spent by most of them-there were seven or eight-telling of the different methods by which they got around the liquor laws. It was a standing joke, and laws that are made a joke by the people are not in the best interests of any country. I repeat that such a law as that which is now proposed cannot be any more useful than other laws of past parliaments have been which had the same purpose in view, and that in adopting measures of this kind we are cluttering up our statute books with unnecessary and useless legislation.
An unfortunate feature of much legislation that is brought in is that the human element, the personal equation, is forgotten by the legislators; they have the impression that any law may be put on the statute books irrespective of how the people feel toward it. Moderation and sanity are just as necessary in lawmaking as they are in personal and public life. It is true that demagogic appeals, irrational and irresponsible in their character, are continually being made to the masses of the people, and that laws are very often enacted as the result of those appeals. But if we accede to all requests for laws of all kinds we will establish in Canada
the same type of bureaucracy which has been established in Russia and which is not doing that country any good.
I submit that this law will lead to inquisitorial investigation into private businesses, which in a great many cases would be unnecessary. It is time to leave business and industry alone, because, as has been stated by the hon. member who last spoke, we are in a time of depressed business conditions, a time which is not opportune for the bringing in of legislation which will interfere with industry generally and which can have no other effect than that of interference.
In regard to the question itself. In the first place, is this law needed? Anyone who reads section 498 of the Criminal Code will see that practically every branch of business covered by this proposed legislation is covered by that provision. It is true that some amendments might have to be made to that clause to make it more operative than it has been in the past, but at the same time I believe it has been just as operative in the past as this legislation will be in the future if it is put upon the statute books. At any rate it should not be necessary at the present time, and in the present financial condition of this country, to establish practically a new department of government with a whole staff of civil servants to look after the carrying out of such legislation as this. I believe we have in Canada to-day all the civil servants we need for the carrying on of the business of the people. I well remember the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in a speech made in this House last year giving figures showing how year after year as the business of the country went on the cost of civil government had increased over the year previous. This legislation if it is carried out, will create a whole staff of commissioners and registrars from one end of this country to the other, and will simply be another addition to the expense of civil government without, to my mind, accomplishing the intention of the act.
In addition to that, large corporations are needed in the business world of to-day. They are needed because of the competition which is present among the different countries of the world. After all, the wheat board proposed by my friends to my left is nothing but a large combination of the same sort. It is a proposed organization for the purpose of the handling by one body of the wheat produced in the West so that we shall be able to compete in the markets of the world in that commodity. It is really a proposition along exactly the same lines as any of these organizations which are proposed to be investigated

Combines-Mr. Manion

by this legislation. The same is true of the fruit co-operative societies of British Columbia, and of some of the co-operative selling organizations of other sections of the country. Therefore, if that type of organization is necessary for the handling of the grains, for the handling of the fruit and other farm produce of this country-and I do not dispute that perhaps it is-that type of organization is all the more necessary in connection with large manufacturing plants and large industries of various kinds. Not only that, but organizations of that kind exist in all nations, and therefore have to be combatted by organizations of the same kind in countries which are in competition with them. All large organizations, even the largest trusts, do not take advantage of the opportunities the}' might take advantage of. I remember reading a short time ago The Life and Letters of Walter Hines Page, and if I remember correctly he made this statement; that during the war the time came when the necessities for oil were so great that he took it upon himself to deal with the Standard Oil Company, the greatest oil corporation in the world, on behalf of the British government and also the American government to a certain extent, and he points out that he got the finest type of co-operation from that company. Not only that, but although that trust had the opportunity of taking a large amount of money out of the coffers of the different Allies through control of the oil and gasoline that was needed by them, they did just the reverse, they cut down the price saving millions of dollars to the Allies in that regard.
We have in free trade England, and I mention this because the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), who is not in the House at the moment so far as I can see, this afternoon blamed the whole injury to the life of this country to trusts, which he said were caused by the protective tariff-in free trade England we find trusts, mergers and combines of all kinds. I have here under my hand a report of a committee on trusts which was appointed by the British parliament in February, 1918, and reported in April, 1919. It was appointed for the purpose of looking into the advisability of bringing in just such legislation as this and in its report there is a list a page and a half long of different trusts and organizations in one line of business alone with which the Ministry of Munitions had to deal in Great Britain during the war. I will deal with that a little more fully in a moment.
Large organizations, large combines of that kind are necessary, not only because of com-

petition with other countries, as I mentioned a moment ago, but because, and it is mentioned in this report, they are able to prevent absolute bankruptcy of the smaller corporations when competition, not only internal but external, is becoming so severe that unless the smaller organizations unite and work together they will be forced into bankruptcy. Instances are given in this report of just such a condition of affairs.
Then there is the argument of the lower cost of production, cost of buying, and overhead costs. There is another important point, and in this line we have not progressed very far in Canada, and that is scientific industrial research. We have made but very little progress in this country so far as that very important branch of industry is concerned, because it is in a sense a branch of industry at the present time. It is pointed out in an appendix to this same report that it is a factor of the utmost importance that these large organizations can carry on a type of industrial research which cannot be carried on by the smaller organizations.
Then there is the question of export trade, which I mentioned a few moments ago, greater general efficiency, and finally the point made by the hon. member'for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) as to the standardization of parts. He mentioned the Ford Motor Company. Would anybody in this House contend for a moment, that if it were not for the size and strength and specialization which takes place in that organization it would be possible for it to turn out an automobile of the same quality and price as the Ford motor car at the present time? Certainly it would not be possible. So standardization of quality, standardization of parts, and specialization all add to that general efficiency and all cause a lowering in cost providing always, of course, that the organization is not permitted to take too much advantage of- possibilities which may offer because of the power of the organization. But I submit, Sir, that we have now on the statute books legislation to prevent them taking advantage of that power. I am going to quote just three or four passages from this report which I believe should be of interest to the House. The first paragraph which I quote from this report of the committee on trusts is from a statement made to them, and which the committee quote apparently approvingly, by some of the organizations with which they deal. This is the only quotation of that kind. The rest are quotations of the committee's own statements:
Where price associations exist, all members having to quote the same price, the competition among the manu-

Combines-Mr. Manion
facturers, parties to the association, becomes one of quality, and one direct and important result of these price associations is undoubtedly a tendency to rise to a general higher level in production in this respect.
Then comes a page and a half of different trusts with which the Ministry of Munitions had to deal, and regarding them the Ministry of Munitions make a statement synopsized as follows:
"VVe were furnished with detailed reports through the various departments of the ministry with regard to their experiences in dealing with these and other associations. To a very general extent these experiences appear to have been of a character satisfactory to the government. Considerable advantages were recognized in dealing with combinations and associations for war purposes. It was found that the influence of larger-minded and more moderate men had a beneficial effect upon the attitude of the trade as a whole, that the best technical advice was more easily available, and that on the whole the trade associations, and especially trade committees created for war purposes, were of the greatest assistance to the ministry.
A little further on there is another statement made by this committee,-and by the way on this committee was one of the men in England who looks upon the capitalistic system, as it is called, as a failure; I refer to Sidney Webb. I shall quote from him in a moment because he made a separate report although he signed the committee's report. This is from the full report.
It was alleged of one association that it had endeavoured to fix very exorbitant prices, and that arrangements for the control of prices had been discovered which had in fact led to a rise of prices to an excessive extent. These were, however, individual cases, and generally the officials of the ministry appeared to be of opinion that the associations had made for more economical production and for an improved quality and variety of output, and for a very beneficial interchange of technical knowledge, and that, although most associations regulated prices, the consumer in general had not suffered through such regulations.
No more favourable report upon trusts and mergers could be made, to my mind, than is contained in that statement. A little lower down there are two more statements which I wish to quote. This is one of them:
There was a general agreement among representatives of associations before us that one of the beneficial results of the formation of associations sufficiently powerful to control and maintain prices in the home market was that it enabled British manufacturers to extend then output by selling their products at a lower price, or even at a loss, in foreign markets.
I quote that because of its interest to my hon. friend for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) I am sure, and probably to others in the House, who blame the protective system for the fact that occasionally home producers sell more cheaply in the foreign market than in the home market. And yet they state here that this extensive production under free trade enables them to sell their goods more cheaply in the
foreign market than in the home market. Then they say a little lower down:
By securing remunerative prices in the home market they could make a successful bid against foreign competition in the export trade. They had a fund, a fighting fund, for the special purpose of subsidizing members who found it necessary to sell at less than an economic price in order to cut out foreign competitors. That might be called meeting dumping by dumping, but he would not agree that British firms dumped in the aggregate much more than foreign firms. They had dumped in Belgium as reprisal against Belgium dumping here.
These quotations show that the Ministry of Munitions in England, and the English government generally found large organizations, large combinations of industry, of advantage to them during the war.
Now, Sir, I have practically finished and I wish to point out in closing that in handling this matter in England this committee recommended that the whole question be handled by the Board of Trade, which is a department of the government in England just as the Department of Trade and Commerce is a department of the government in this country. They suggested bringing forward some form of legislation akin to what was in force in this country, or in New Zealand, or most of the other countries which form the British dominions, and they quoted the act of 1910 which was in force in Canada; but they leave the matter to the Board of Trade with the suggestion that a tribunal might have to be formed to handle it if the Board of Trade upon investigation found it necessary to do something to that effect; I am synopsizing the matter very briefly.
Now I wish to make one more quotation The supplementary report was made by Sidney Webb, whom I mentioned a moment ago, and three others. Mr. Sidney Webb is a gentleman who spoke of "decay of the capitalistic system" in a recent book which he wrote. While he agreed with the foregoing report and signed it-his name is attached to it-he considered that an addendum was necessary and I am going to quote one passage from it, signed by him and three others.
We do not suggest that any action should be taken to prevent or obstruct combination or association in capitalist enterprise. Apart from the experience that no such interference can be made effective,-
I should like to repeat this:
Apart from the experience that no such interference can be made effective, we have to recognize that association and combination in production and distribution are steps in the greater efficiency, the increased economy, and the better organization of industry. We regard this evolution as both inevitable and desirable. It is, however, plain that the change from competitive rivalry to combination calls for corresponding developments to secure for the community, both safeguards against the
Combines-Mr. Manion

evils of monopoly, and at least a large share of the economic benefits of the better organization of industry which it promotes.
That is praise of the whole system of large organizations. Therefore, I think it is well worth while reading because of the fact that Sidney Webb, and the other three members who agreed to the first report make the statement.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all I have to say on the question except to repeat that I consider this legislation at the present time is unnecessary and that if it is carried out, if it is put into force. I do not think it will be of any more use than the legislation which is now in force in the criminal code. I believe that industry and business in Canada is in such a shape at the present time that there should rather be a desire to leave it alone than to interfere with it unnecessarily.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, if there has been any doubt in the mind of any lion, member as to the effectiveness of the proposed legislation it is successfully answered by the quantity of literature which has been sent to the members of this House by those who have been profiting in the past and have now something to fear. I have been struck with the amount of eloquence poured out in order to whitewash these combines. I have no hesitation in saying that great combinations are necessary and that they can manufacture more efficiently and more cheaply. But that is not the trouble complained of. The point is that these combinations, or some of them, have been abusing their powers. I believe that this is an epochmaking day in the history of the present session. Now for the first time we have an opportunity, and the House is being put to the test, of passing legislation which will really have a kick in it. For many years past combinations of such a character have been growing up that at the present time we can buy no article the price of which has not been fixed arbitrarily. That is the reason we are suffering at the present time.
One hon. member opposite spoke in favour of standing pat and allowing things to remain as they are. I can assure you that I am not going to make an address of a "blue ruin" or "dry rot" character; but I have a great deal of sympathy with those who have tried to put the actual conditions of agriculture before the House. There is nothing gained by minimizing or exaggerating, when describing the conditions that prevail. To me the greatest optimist is the one who grasps and grapples with the actual problems before him and tries to solve them. There are such

problems to be solved and that is why something effective in the way of legislation ought to be enacted at this time. Combinations have been making progress in methods of getting around legislation, of devising ways and means of extracting a greater share of profit than they are entitled to, and legislation by this parliament has not kept pace with such devices. Notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary I believe the proposed legislation to be a sincere effort to apply effective measures to prevent these combinations continuing to operate in the future as they have done in the past. Some years ago I read, in connection with American history, where an effort was made in congress to bring about more sanitary conditions in factories, to prevent child labour, and other reforms. The same arguments that we have heard to-day were then offered. When the vote took place it stood 30 for the reforms to 190 against. Four years later that vote was reversed, and the 30 had become 190. The reforms which were sought at that time were then placed on the statute book. After they were placed there everybody realized their value, and to-day nobody in the States would think of doing away with those reforms. The reform contemplated here will meet with similar opposition.
In regard to the matter of competition, we looked to competition to regulate prices in the past. When competition prevails, such legislation as this, as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has said is not necessary. But when competition has been strangled, as has been the case for many years in the past, something to regulate price is necessary, and I assure hon. members that if something is not done to regulate price, even those who fear this legislation, even the manufacturers, and even those who have been forming these combinations and reaping the profits, will find that the hard times will be reflected on themselves, and that they will become the sufferers. In fact they have already begun to feel the pinch and if they turn a deaf ear, and talk about standing pat when those conditions of unrest surround us, when there is need of some effective action, they will find that conditions will get worse. However, I hope I am wrong. Some people prophesy that we are now on the eve of better times. I am afraid not.
In regard to resale prices, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) seems to uphold these organizations that have been selling at resale prices. I think the special committee on Agriculture had a little to say about that, Some witnesses gave evidence before the com-

Com bines-Mr. M illar
mittee and one witness stated that he was selling an article at SI.75 and making a very good profit, but his competitor in the same town objected because he was selling it 25 cents less than his own sale price, and the result was that the manufacturer absolutely refused to provide him with any more of those goods. That is the way the resale price works out. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre stated that they have been able to stabilize prices. They certainly have. Look at the Imperial Oil Company; they have stabilized the price of gasoline at about 55 cents a gallon in Canada when the same commodity is selling on the other side of the international boundary line at 25 cents. True there is a very slight difference in the size of their gallon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no duty on gaso line. Why would a man pay 55 cents a gallon in Canada, if he could buy it on the othei side for 25 cents?


John Millar: He would not make much if he had to drive 125 miles to save the 25 cents.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the hon. member think the combination of the Imperial Oil Company is stronger than that of the Standard?


John Millar: Perhaps when the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) is speaking, as I hope he will a little later on, he may be able to explain why gasoline is selling for 25 cents on the American side and 55 cents on the Canadian side.


Arthur Meighen: I never encountered that myself.


John Millar: Well I have. I have known it to be selling for 25 cents in the United States and 52 cents and 55 cents in Canada at one and the same time.
There is one section in the bill which puzzles me. It would appear to me to be difficult to find out whether a combination is guilty or not until investigation is held, and from the wording of the bill, as far as I can understand it, those combinations that are not operating against the interests of the people of Canada do not come within the jurisdiction of the registrar or inspector. I may be wrong in that, but it would seem to me there might be some difficulty there. The hon member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has stated that we have at present too much legislation. I can understand that statement coming from those who fear legislation. Even if we have too much legislation on the statute books, that is no reason why
a bill that is really going to be effective should not be passed. I fancy that is an objection that is put forward among others in the circulars and newspaper clippings that have been circulated. I received some of them myself. It is a part of the howl of those who fear they are going to be injured by the legislation.
Referring to the statement that we have too much legislation, and that we should proceed along the even tenor of our way, let me point out that some time ago the United States went a good deal further in curbing combines and mergers than it is proposed to do by this bill, and certainly very much further than Canada has ever gone. During the time Roosevelt was President of the United States the legislation that was placed on the statute books and enforced very vigorously, was most effective and far-reaching. He took some of those large combines by the throat. He did not treat them as though those organizations were working for the welfare of the people and that they were all good. I remember reading a conversation between President Roosevelt and a representative of one of these combines who argued with him and said "Well now, you should not be hard on us; did we not provide S60.000 for your campaign fund?" "Yes," replied Roosevelt "but I understand you also provided $70,000 for the campaign fund of my opponent". "Well" said the former "that may be the case". During Roosevelt's regime he enforced a law such as is proposed at this time with such vigour that these organizations were curbed, and the good effect of that legislation has been felt, I believe, up to the present time.


Arthur Meighen: For the sake of the hon. member's seatmate (Mr. Evans), perhaps he will admit that Roosevelt was a very strong protectionist.


John Millar: The mind of the right hon. leader of the Oposition usually runs true to form, but in this particular case I think he is running off at a tangent. I do not think that has any effect whatever. Perhaps when the right hon. gentleman speaks he might explain, if the combines operating at the present time are not to the detriment of the country, why it is that gasoline is selling at 30 cents a gallon in Ottawa and selling at about 50 cents out in the West. Having been away from home some little time, I am not just prepared to say to a cent what the price of gasoline in the West is, but I think about 50 cents. Why is that so? There is a great deal the right hon. leader of the Opposition will have to explain.
Combines-Mr. Millar


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon. member ask me to explain it? I am not in office.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Everybody knows that.


John Millar: I think the right hon.
leader of the Opposition among others was asking questions and seemed to disagree with me; that is the reason I asked him to make the explanation.


Arthur Meighen: Not on that point.


John Millar: Reference has been made to the wheat board as being something that might be classed as a combination that would come under this act. Well, I cannot conceive, from the spirit of the act as explained in the address of the Prime Minister, and from the wording of the act, that any harm would coine to the wheat board. An investigation would show that it was not intended to operate to the detriment of anybody. It was intended merely to prevent combinations from extracting from the producer a great deal of what he has a right to. But I assure the House that whether the wheat board becomes operative or not, the investigation into the lake shippers' combine and the investigation into the ocean shippers' combine will give plenty of opportunity for the operation of this bill if it is placed upon the statute books. Reports have not been issued; but the evidence has been brought out before the commission, and without the slightest doubt there is a combine that could be dealt with by this bill if it becomes law.
Let me say just a word or two in regard to unrest. It would be well at this time if hon. members would make an effort to find out the real cause of the unrest. We have been approaching this matter too much in an argumentative spirit, one trying to show that a certain industry was not getting a square deal, was getting the raw- end of the deal, and others Showing very little sympathy for it, saving: "Do not whine about it; we do not whine; why do you whine?" That is rather a dangerous course for those who are well-fed, who have been profiting from the producer and who have no reason to complain, because they have been getting the best of the deal. It is dangerous for them to take that cold-blooded, and I think I might even say, insolent attitude of "quit your whining and go to work." Much that has been said in this House might well have been left unsaid, because, as has been pointed out, this might injure the country in the matter of immigration; but unfortunate'}', it has been necessary to say what has been said, because it seemed to be impossible to enlist the sympathy of this He,use and ha.ve hon. members rea'ize the gravity of the situa-'Mr. Millar.]	'
ticn, so that they might, come to the point, where they would get together and endeavour to find a solution. That is the reason why some of our members have assumed that pessimistic attitude.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not all true.


John Millar: An hon. member says: "it
is not all true." I assure the House that what has been said is only too true, I am sorry to say, and I regret that we have been forced into this position where we have had to speak very plainly about those adverse conditions.
In the measure that is now before the House,' an opportunity is afforded of giving effective redress; it is a measure that, if put into operation, will cause confidence to spread over the country. I am quite convinced that if those who have been suffering realize that the government mean business, that they are going to enforce this measure, and that combines that have been charging too much, that have been taking a greater share of the profits or, to put this in another way, a greater return for the services they are rendering than they should, are going to be dealt with effectively, the consuming public will be filled with confidence. This will give them, as it were, new life. Let me point to one measure that has already, I might say, given new life to the stock industry, just to show the House how effective this measure can be made. The removal of the embargo on cattle going to the Old Country, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said a few days ago-and I agree with him-has given new life to the stock industry of the West. I assure hon. members that if this measure passes, if it is properly enforced, it will find a great deal to do; in fact, there seems to be work for it everywhere. But the moral effect will be very great. Hon. members may not believe this; some hon. members are inclined to laugh and say: "Oh, the agriculturists are always whining," but if hon. members keep on saying that, I assure them that they are taking a dangerous course. We may not always whine. We have in this country a strong foreign element, and sometimes it is necessary to keep them in curb. If the House and the country continue to take that attitude, an attitude of, as I said before, cold-blooded insolence, we may come to a time when there will be more unrest and more real trouble than we have had in the past. I would just give hon. members fair warning. Hon. members may laugh at this if they like; but that will be the effect. I am very glad to see that the

Combines-Mr. Casgrain
government has brought forward a measure that gives promise of redressing many of these evils. I know it will not be easy of enforcement; as a matter of fact, I foresee this difficulty. When the commissioner or registrar undertakes to decide whether a combination is selling for a greater price than it should, the matter of price is relative. If he takes the income of many of our people, amongst them the agriculturists, he may well decide that the combine is getting too much; but if he will take comparison with others who are drawing good salaries, he may well decide that the combine is getting enough.
I do not know how that will be decided; but, because there are difficulties in the way, I do not think is any reason why the effort should not be made. People and parliaments stand at their best, they are in their greatest glory when they are accomplishing that which seems almost impossible. This seems a difficult task; but I do not think it is impossible, and I certainly will give it my hearty support.
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency):	Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
(Mr. Millar) in connection with this bill, used the impression, "if it was an effective measure." We seem to have had before a few effective measures like the one that has been presented to the House. In 1919, under the Union government, there were introduced the bill for the establishment of the famous Board of Commerce and the Combines and Fair Prices bill to prevent abuses and to reduce the cost of living. We know what thr result of that legislation was. The act was in existence for just a few months when one after another of the gentlemen who were on the board resigned, contending that, under the bill as it was drafted and even with the powers that were given to them, they were not able to enforce the legislation. Under the old Laurier regime, there was introduced the act of 1907, and the bill which is at present before the House seems to be very much like a repetition of- that act which fell into disuse and apparently was enforced against only one big organization of the United States which was doing business in this country, with the result at that time that there was a slight modification introduced into their way of doing business. Apparentlv, however, there were in this country other combines or other similar institutions; but the act was not directed at them, and the people did not resort to the means put into their hands to have an investigation into those organizations. The motive underlying the bill is undoubtedly a good one. The Prime Minister and the government want to do what is
fair and right by the people, and undoubtedly this measure is introduced in redemption of the pledge contained in the Speech from the Throne, to wit:
A bill will be submitted to you to safeguard the interests of consumers and producers from undue enhancement of prices or unfair restriction of trade by combines, monopolies, trusts or mergers.
I would draw the particular attention of the House to the phrase, "undue enhancement of prices." But although this bill is drafted with the intention of safeguarding the interests of consumers and producers from undue enhancement of prices or unfair restriction of trade, I am afraid that it will fail of its purpose unless it is amended in several particulars. Far be it from me to criticize the bill in a spirit out of sympathy with the policy of the government. I endorse the action taken by the government and congratulate the Prime Minister on the introduction of this bill, which is but another evidence of his desire to better the condition of the working classes and those engaged in a small way of business and to protect them against the big interests. However, it is apparent from the constructive criticism which we have heard from the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) that the bill if allowed to remain in its present form will not accomplish what is intended.
I find several objections to the bill as drafted. In the first place, I am afraid that the provision against the fixing of a common or a resale price by merchants, traders, or manufacturers would unduly hamper our domestic trade without curing the abuses which the bill is directed against. To carry out this provision would mean intermeddling and interference with the conduct of business and would bring about exactly the opposite result to that which the government has in view. I believe our industries should be given every encouragement and should not be dealt with unjustly -in fact they should be treated just as fairly as the public whom we wish to protect.
Another defect in the bill is that any person of the age of 21 is empowered to lay a complaint, but nothing is said as to whether he must be a British subject. No doubt this is an oversight on the part of the draftsmen, and will be corrected when the bill is in committee.
The definition of the word "combine" in the second section in my opinion is objectionable. The definition is neither precise nor scientific in its terms and it is impossible to ascertain from it what really is a combine within the meaning of the section. This definition should be recast in order that we may have no trouble when the bill becomes law.
Combines-Mr. Casgrain

It will be remembered that in the case of the Board of Commerce the law was tested in the Supreme Court and found to be unconstitutional. I am afraid we may have similar trouble here unless we go through this bill very carefully and all our time and trouble will have been wasted.
Another defect to my mind is that the bill does not appear to contain any provision that the person laying a complaint shall give a guarantee of his good faith. All he has to do is to simply write a letter to the registrar and the machinery of the law is set in motion. In all proceedings in our criminal courts when a complaint is laid regarding a matter of minor importance the complainant must appear before the magistrate and give his reasons for believing that he is entitled to the redress that he is seeking, and, moreover, he must deposit five dollars. Under this bill any person who may have a grudge against his employer can either personally or by letter set the law in motion. I think there should be an amendment requiring the complainant to make a sworn statement before the registrar, rendering the procedure similar to that required in ordinary criminal matters. Furthermore, I think where the word "opinion" occurs in this bill it is objectionable. As I said before, there ought to be some reasons given by the complainant as in ordinary criminal proceedings. When a person lays a complaint in our criminal courts we always take the trouble of asking him if he has good reason to believe that his complaint is justified. In this particular instance I think the bill should be amended accordingly in order to protect the public at large, and I do not think it would be going too far to require a security from the person who invokes the law, such security to depend on the nature and gravity of the complaint that is laid. As was suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, I think it would be well to follow the wording in the old law, which provided, if I recollect correctly, that only upon at least five persons alleging a series of breaches of the law could the machinery be set in motion. One single case of too high a price should not be ground to justify an investigation. Where there is a series of repeated infractions of the law they become injurious to the whole community, and thereupon the law should be put into force.
Sections 5, 6 and 9 do not appear to me to be very plain; indeed, reading them in conjunction with section 10 I see no reason why a third investigation may not be ordered.
I Mr. Casgrain.]
I think it should be made very clear that a preliminary investigation before a registrar or commissioner must be made of every complaint, unless this discloses reasonable and proper grounds for believing that the complaint is well founded, no further steps should be taken; if reasonable and proper grounds are disclosed, then a commissioner should be appointed to thoroughly investigate the complaint. But as the bill now stands there appears to be nothing to prevent the registrar or commissioner from holding two or three investigations on the very same matter.
The question of secrecy has been touched upon by the .hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I do not think the bill is sufficiently clear on this point. It is all very well to investigate the affairs of any industrial or business concern. * But I do not believe that the law sufficiently protects these people; I am not sure that persons or firms appearing before the commissioner would not suffer considerably through the exposure to the public of their business affairs, their business methods, and so on.
I notice also that although this law follows in certain respects our criminal procedure it does not give to the accused or to the person who appears before the registrar or commissioner the rights given to one who appears before our courts. I do not see anything in the bill which gives to the person brought before the commissioner or registrar the light to be represented by counsel. It would, in my opinion, be a denial of justice to have the law passed in that form; I submit that there should be provision under which any person who is charged with having violated the law should have the right from tha outset to bring in his own lawyer and have his interests properly protected. There is also a clause in the bill which states that evidence may be brought in in the form of affidavits. That is altogether against the practice in the province of Quebec-I do not know how it is in the other provinces-because one who is a party to an action in our province has always the right to hear the witnesses on either side, to cross-examine them and test their veracity. As the bill is drafted, anyone charged with violating the provisions of this law would not have that right if an affidavit only was produced.
I do not see in the law any provision for appeal. I regard it as very necessary that the accused or the person brought before the commissioner should have the right of appeal if the decision is adverse to him. In section 498 of the Criminal Code, which at present protects the public in regard to these

Combines-Mr. Woodsworth
matters, there is provision for appeal, and I think that in this law we ought to have a similar provision to what is contained in Article 1012 of the Criminal Code of Quebec, which enables appeal to be oaken from conviction.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, 1 may say that I have not so much objection to the bill as it is drawn as I have to what is not contained in the bill. The principle of the proposed law is a good one, but it would seem as if it had been conceived and put before us with, perhaps, too great haste, and if we discuss it a little longer we shall probably be able to bring out its defects and devise the necessary amendments for its improvement. The first thing that ought to be done is, in my opinion, to remodel the definition and to provide that only persons who are British subjects shall have the right to avail themselves of the provisions of the proposed law. It should be provided also that the complainant shall state under oath that he has just leason for believing that the law has been violated. There should also be a provision to ensure that the evidence adduced shall not be made public and thus injure or prejudice ihe interests of the person who is charged with violation. And, as I said a moment ago, the l.ght of appeal should be provided, thus conforming to the provision contained in Article 1012 of the Criminal Code of the province of Quebec.
Lastly, I find no mention made in the bill as to who the commissioner is going to be - whether it is to be an official of some department, or otherwise. The law does not state whether or not the commissioner shall be a lawyer. I do not want to speak on behalf of my own profession, but i>
is the experience that when a person other than a lawyer is appointed to such a position the law has not always been carried out as it should be. I believe that the registrar or the commissioner ought to be a competent lawjer of at least ten years' standing and experience at the provincial bar, in order that justice may be done to all and that the interests of none may be prejudiced.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that it would be specially interesting to those who were engaged in the process of production, and to the consumers. Yet I fancy that a great many of the labour people, who constitute the great bulk of producers of the country and who are decidedly consumers, will not consider that in this bill we have anything that really is vital or that will adequately meet present needs. I was delighted
a little while ago to hear the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) quoting Sidney Webb in favour of combinations. Undoubtedly we must recognize that the greater number of the labour people and the socialists, both in this country and Great Britain, are in favour of combinations. They do not fail to realize the evils existing in connection with combinations as they are at present, but they do recognize the inevitability of combines. In tracing the development of our present industrial system, we believe that this is one step forward and that we are now in a position where we shall have to take, in the near future, another step forward. The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River did not elaborate the position taken by Mr. Webb and the other Fabian socialists. He did not quote from Mr. Webb's latest book, "The Decay of Capitalist Civilization," in which Mr. Webb points out that we have been travelling for a considerable time along the line of the concentration of capital in the hands of a comparatively small group; that this system is failing to fulfil the primary function of meeting the needs of the people, and hence is on its trial. Mr. Webb is far from taking the attitude of the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River that we should let well enough alone; with other Fabian socialists, and I think with the workers generally, he says it is inevitable that we should take another step and that in the immediate future.	,
We recognize that the combinations we have in industry and commerce to-day, as well as in finance-the latter a later development-are largely the outgrowth of the industrial revolution that took place in Great Britain one hundred and fifty years ago. When the factory system came into existence and the individual workman gave up his little home workshop and went into the factory, we entered upon a new period in the development of industry, the period of combinations-and we cannot avoid the consequences. In those early days of the new age when the machine threatened to take the very bread out of the mouths of their children the workers in desperation threatened to break the machine. They thought that this was the only way of attaining their end. They learned in later days that what they should have done was to have gained possession of the machine. Now there are those who fearful of the combinations, of the elaborate organization which has been set up on the basis of the physical machine, would try to break up the combinations, break up the elaborate organization. We take the ground that such a policy would be as fatal as the machine-smashing policy of

Combines-Mr. Woodsworth
one hundred and fifty years ago. It is impossible for us effectively to break up these combines. The only possible thing for us to do if we want really effective action is to take hold of them and carry them one step further until we have such a complete combine that the public through its various organizations co-operative, municipal, provincial and federal, will be able to use it for its own purposes.
The Prime Minister said that in this age of competition combinations are necessary. I submit that if this can be called the age of competition it must be pointed out that it is competition of different groups and that constantly these competing groups tend to combine into larger units, so that after all the earlier age of individual competition has passed by. This is essentially the age of combination, and in so far as we still have competition it is indicative of incomplete development. It may be true that to-day we need combinations of the different warring groups; it is only because we are in the process of development, and We must inevitably face the formation of larger and yet larger combinations.
The Prime Minister says that he does not seek to prevent just combinations, but what does he mean by just combinations? Who is to decide what is just? I am not using the term just; that is the Prime Minister's term; I am not using the term unjust. The fact is that we have to deal with an existing institution, a combination, and we do not get very far by saying that it is just or that it is unjust. It is in its very nature a form of industrial organization which gives power to a limited group, and as the process goes on, the power becomes so great that the public welfare is threatened.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) said that he was desirous of eliminating useless competition. Again the whole question is raised as to what is useless competition or when competition may be useful. Are we not here again face to face with the fact that competition represents a transitory stage, and that we look forward more and more to combination, co-operation taking the place of competition. I take it that our stand on this question must be that competition is inevitable, and the Prime Minister and the government, however sincere in introducing a bill of this character, are attempting to do what is in reality impossible. I do not think there is any state in any part of the world that has attempted to curb the natural development of combinations that has found it was able to do so effectively. Probably the hon. member for Vancouver Centre showed sufficiently how difficult it is to administer legis-
lation of this character. Inevitably as you try to curb combination you come into contact with others who are perhaps less advanced in their combination, and so conflict is sure to result. Our position is that combination is not only inevitable, but that the thoroughgoing regulation of it is futile. I should like to quote what is probably as good a statement of a popular criticism of the principle of the bill as could be found. The writer of this editorial, which was circulated throughout the West, is trying to show that arbitrary power would be given into the hands of the government through the registrar. He says:
If the registrar is to have power to decide what is an unfair price it follows that he must have the authority to say what is fair price. This is the logical working out of the proposed act. Are the men and women who produce or sell potatoes, milk, bread, magazines and the thousand commodities that are in daily use prepared to have a government official set their prices for them?
Is there a man to whom the public would be willing to hand over this power? Is it fair to any man to ask him to make decisions of this nature? What kind of a job would the registrar have? Are there such supermen in the country? If there are, might they not be employed in other and more consequential departments of the government service?
That sounds reasonable, but when we come to consider the situation as it is about us at the present time we shall have to confess that very small groups and, in some cases, single individuals do as a matter of fact decide what these prices shall be. I have known a good many towns where the price of milk is decided by one company. I have known a great many towns throughout the West where the price of meat is decided by one corporation. I think that nearly all of us can point to article after article where the price is decided by one individual, and the trouble is that to-day that individual is responsible to no one but himself or his company. He is not in any sense responsible to the public at large. If we are to have combinations, let us have combinations that we can control. Let us have combinations and let us appoint officials to administer them who will decide their policies with a view to the public interest.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) was very much afraid of having six people placed in a position where they could bring any charge or set in motion the machinery for having an investigation. Now it does seem to me that we need not worry about that. I take it that in other matters one individual can bring against another man a charge of the most serious nature. He can say that a man is suspected of being guilty of murder. If he has information that leads him to believe that, it

Combines-Mr. Woodsworth
becomes his duty to give that information to the state. I do not know that most of us are in danger of being accused of murder because that course is open to any citizen. The fact is that if there are no abuses these charges are not likely to be laid. I do not object to the suggestion that was thrown out recently that we have these matters brought seriously before the public by way of an affidavit or something of that kind. But in any case the humblest individual in the state ought to be able to invoke the protection of the state against any of these big interests. I think I am voicing the opinion of a great many people when I say that to-day we are more afraid of the big combinations with all the prestige which they possess and all the money that is behind them than we are of the irresponsibility of a few individuals who perhaps for some private grudge might bring forward some charge that was baseless. After all, if the charge is baseless, provision is made in the bill whereby it can be investigated in a preliminary way by the registrar, before it goes on to a more thorough investigation. If the charge is baseless why should any firm or corporation fear the fullest and freest investigation? The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) would like also I believe, to take away the safeguards to labour which are contained in section 34. This section reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
That section is much along the line of existing legislation and simply seeks to protect the workmen from action which unfortunately has been taken sometimes in the past to prevent them from organizing. In the old days professional workers had a right to combine. No one ever questioned that right, and we have combinations of lawyers, doctors, newspaper men, authors, and so on. But when the workers some one hundred years ago, began to combine it was a different story. It was said they had no right to combine, no right whatever, and so later on certain special legislation had to be introduced to safeguard their interests. I should like to ask why the workers should not be allowed the fullest right to organize? That right is in fact guaranteed under the Peace treaty of Versailles. Why should they not have that right as much as business and professional men? We have the Canadian Manufacturers' Association-a great combination which is exercising a tremendous influence and very largely, I maintain, influencing the fiscal policy of this country. We
have railway associations which, according to the reports of the recent commission, appeal to have exercised their combination in such a way that there has been a very real restraint of trade. We have shipping combinations at the present time. We have a banking association which is distinctly a close corporation We had even mentioned here on the floor of the House a newspaper combination. I cannot see why there should be any objection whatever to allow the fullest right to labour employees, of any class whatever, to combine and, in my opinion, if it is necessary to do so their interests ought to be effectively safeguarded.
There are one or two points in the bill which I should like to criticize, points which some have criticized from the opposite angle. The Prime Minister says that information, in connection with proceedings under the bill, will not be made public. I should like to ask why not? Why should there be any secrecy connected with these investigations? It seems to me that in such a provision we are, perhaps, going back to the ideals of an earlier state of industry when industry was essentially private and almost personal in its character. None of us want men to come into our homes and pry into our private affairs; but a great modern business is by no means a private enterprise. When there are a large number of people associated with it, it thereby becomes public, and the public have definite rights in regard to what is going on in connection with it. The Prime Minister said that publicity would do more than penalties to remove evils. I believe that is true. Why then should we not have the very fullest publicity in connection with this matter? In connection with this feature I was reminded of a treatment of this question which was given nearly ten years ago by ex-President Woodrow Wilson. May I be permitted to quote several paragraphs from his work "The New Freedom" which seem very pertinent to the point under discussion.
We used to say that the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible. That was the idea that obtained in Jefferson's time. But we are coming now to realize that life is so complicated that we are not dealing with the old conditions, and that the law has to step in and create new conditions under which we may live, the conditions which will make it tolerable for us to live.
Let me illustrate what I mean: It used to be true in our cities that every family occupied a separate house of its own, that every family had its own little premises, that every family was separated in its life from every other family. That is no longer the case in our great cities. Families live in tenements, they live in flats, they live on floors; they are piled layer upon
2554.

Combines-Mr. Woodsworth
layer in the great tenement houses of our crowded districts, and not only are they piled layer upon layer, but they are associated room by room, so that there is in every room, sometimes, in our congested districts, a separate family. In some foreign countries they have made much more progress than we in handling these things. In the city of Glasgow, for example (Glasgow is one of the model cities of the world), they have made up their minds that the entries and the hallways of great tenements are public streets. Therefore, the policeman goes up the stairway, and patrols the corridors; the lighting department of the city sees to it that the halls are abundantly lighted. The city does not deceive itself into supposing that that great building is a unit from which the police are to keep out and the civic authority to be excluded, but it says: "These are public highways, and light is needed in them, and control by the authority of the city."
I liken that to our great modern industrial enterprises. A corporation is very like a large tenement house; it isn't the premises of a single commercial family; it is just as much a public affair as a tenement house is a network of public highways.
When you offer the securities of a great corporation to anybody who wishes to purchase them, you must open that corporation to the inspection of everybody who wants to purchase. There must, to follow out the figure of the tenement house, be lights along the corridors, there must be police patrolling the openings, there must be inspection wherever it is known that men may be deceived with regard to the contents of the premises. If we believe that- fraud lies in wait for us4 we must have the means of determining whether our suspicions are well founded or not.
I do not think there is anywhere a better statement of the character of modern industry and the necessity of having these big corporations wide open to public inspection. I do not see why we should talk any longer about business secrets; developments have carried us beyond that stage. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in criticizing the bill said that combination ought to be considered a crime only when there is a combination to deliberately injure competitors. It strikes me, although I am not a lawyer, that that is rather a novel position. It would seem that in many departments of law injury does not have to be deliberate in order that it should be made a crime. Why, we have even such a phrase as "criminal neglect" to condemn people who under certain circumstances do not do anything at all; but it is recognized that they should do something. Now, if we have a combination that has the effect of injuring the community surely that is a good reason why that particular combination should be made a criminal one. I do not know a better statement of the case than was given by the Prime Minister himself when he said that private rights cease when they involve public wrongs. So then in each case we come back to the question as to whether any particular form or association is in the interests of the public or is contrary to their interests. We find that through the course of years,
IMr. Woodsworth.]
with no particular guilt on the part of any one, we have arrived at these great industrial, commercial, financial institutions which we call combines, mergers and trusts. I take it that we are not here to-night blaming the individuals who, perhaps, have had a larger share of initiative and have organized these big combinations. We are not saying that the combines should not have been organized. They probably represent a distinct step in advance of the old unorganized' stage of society, the old free competition that used to exist fifty or a hundred years ago, but on the other hand no one .can consider their social effects without realizing that they have placed in the hands of a very small group of individuals an immense power, not only in this country, but in all countries. There is to-day a life and death struggle as to whether the industrial, commercial and financial organizations that have grown up in the last hundred years will be supreme and control even our political organizations, or whether the political organizations which grew up under an earlier system of production, are going to adapt themselves with sufficient rapidity, and are capable of asserting their control over the newer industrial organizations which now rival them in power. I take it that to-night we are helping to decide that struggle. If this House is true to the people that it represents, it will definitely set itself to attack our great problems. I welcome this bill because it gives a certain measure of publicity, because it calls public attention to the evils which exist and to the necessity for further action. I cannot become tremendously enthusiastic about it, because it is negative in its character, it simply seeks to stem the inevitable incoming tide of greater combinations. I could hope that in some way we could recognize the good that lies in combinations, in the formation of larger industrial and social units, and that as a House we could begin in a democratic way, to operate these larger units.


Mr. ALBERT FREDERICK HEALY (North Essex):: The constituency I represent, containing as it does somewhere in the neighbourhood of a hundred thousand people, has within its borders special manufacturers who, through the course of building up their business have fixed prices and claim that, in order to carry on their business in the way they have built it up, they must continue to fix prices. This bill, as I read it, does not say that the manufacturers must not fix a retail price, but it does say, in the words of the Prime Minister, that when they do fix that retail price, it must not be to the detriment of the general public. Now what is the present law on the

Combines-Mr. Healy
subject? In reference to the Board of Commerce Act of 1919 and the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1922 the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held thac both 'these acts were ultra vires. In reference to the bill before the House to-night, I hope the Prime Minister will ask the Deputy Minister of Justice to be sure that the proposed bill is not ultra vires of this parliament. It would be in my opinion a very grave injustice to the people of this country if after this bill was passed, and after many attempts to enforce it, the discovery should finally be made that this parliament had no right to pass such an act.
I agree absolutely with the general principles of this bill, but I do not agree altogether with the way that it may be enforced. In the district I represent we have large manufacturers who have built up their plants. I refer, for instance, to the Ford Company which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). I wish to thank them for advertising the constituency from which I come. Both of these hon. members paid a visit to that constituency during the last campaign. I am glad to say we will welcome them at any time. I hope that they will come and definitely settle in my constituency, but of course, I will not guarantee that they can come back here, representing that constituency. I wish to thank them for advertising the great Ford Company of Canada. This company, after twenty years' experience in business building up, that wonderful organization, and building up on a fixed policy of a resale price from the dealer to the public, have produced a manufacturing concern that today, using the highest-priced labour in the world, is turning out the lowest priced motor car in the British dominions, and they are further attempting to increase their production to such an extent that these two factors shall be brought closer together, and surely, Mr. Speaker, that is something worth working for, when the money made can be turned to the benefit both of the consumer and of the man who produces the article and supplies the labour.
So I think that concerns such as this,-and I have taken it as an example-are rather worried over the proposed legislation, which contemplates the appointment of so many registrars. The bill does not say that these registrars shall be experienced in law. As this bill stands at present, a registrar may be any amateur who is appointed by the minister. If we were to have the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the present Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) in power forever, I do not think this country would have much to fear from this provision. If the registrars are to do any work under this bill, if this bill is to be of any benefit to the country, they will have a large quantity of work to do, and we shall have to have registrars in all sections of Canada. There may be one in the Yukon, there may be one in Prince Edward Island; there may be one in British Columbia, and any six individuals in any one of these provinces, or, for that matter, in any city, can ask that, for instance, the company about which I am talking shall be investigated. I see in this bill nothing to prevent six individuals in each of a number of towns throughout the country, asking for an investigation of the same company at the same time. From the way in wihch this measure is drawn, I cannot see that a registrar would be justified in preventing such an investigation from going on in different parts of the country at the same time and of the same corporation. I can see that such registrars might arrive at different conclusions, and I can see that when the question came before the minister for final decision, he might be in a very serious frame of mind how he should decide. Therefore, if at a*U possible, these registrars and also the commissioners should be men trained in the law. I believe the people of this country and, in particular, of the province of Ontario are sick and tired of having regulatory laws put into force by amateurs. We in our constituency suffered terribly from amateurs attempting to put into force a certain law. The thing was a nightmare. This country is, perhaps, tired of anything that smacks of uplift legislation, anything that has a tendency to appear as muck-raking legislation.
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) mentioned this afternoon a certain combination in this country, and I hope when this bill is put into force, one of the first combinations to be investigated will be the newspaper combination. I say that not with the idea at all of criticising newspaper men. I noticed that a partcular combination was spoken of, and I know it is a combination of about twenty-nine men who absolutely control the telegraphic news of this country. This combination was known as the Canadian Press, but I believe the name was changed. Not all the members of this newspaper association agree with its practice, because in a case that I was interested in a member of the association from Quebec, Mr. Gagnon-I have not the pleasure of knowing this gentleman [DOT]-'another member from Toronto, Mr. Irving
Combines-Mr. Healy

Robertson, and another member from London, Mr. Ford, stood out and said that they did not believe this association should take the stand they had taken in certain cases. This association, as I say, is a combination of about twenty-nine of the daily newspapers; the weekly newspapers are not in the combination, and they do not get the telegraphic news. This combination is and has been subsidized from year to year by the people of Canada to the extent of $50,000 per year, and this has been done under several governments. I am not quite satisfied that if we are going to pass legislation in restraint of combinations, the people of Canada should continue to subsidize any organisation which absolutely takes it upon itself to keep a newspaper out of any particular city or town. I take this occasion to bring to the attention of the House this combination, because I think it is an outstanding combination in this country that needs investigation. I am quite aware, of course, when I make these remarks about this association, that there is no doubt at all of what they will think of me; but when a man is appointed by the people to represent them in parliament, when he sees something that he thinks should be remedied, he should have no hesitation whatever in getting upon his feet and saying what he thinks about the matter.
I agree with the general principles of this bill. I believe manufacturers and business men are just as honest as any other class of citizdns in this country. I suppose there are amongst manufacturers and business men the same proportion of crooks-perhaps no more and no less-as there are amongst professional men, newspaper men and farmers. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to have legislation to catch crooks wherever they are, and to punish crooks when they are caught.
If in the opinion of this government, it is necessary to have legislation in this form, I am willing to subscribe to it and to vote in favour of it. But I hope the Prime Minister may see his way clear, so that business concerns such as the one I have described, comprising those who are trying to specialize on certain articles, to increase production and to lower prices to the consumers, may, if possible, be left out of the investigations that may be necessary under this legislation. Unless investigation is absolutely necessary for the general welfare of this country, these concerns should not be bothered by any such inquiries as are provided for in this measure.
As regards the penalty clause, a corporation is only fined, and there is no opportunity of imprisoning the master mind of such an organization. If they are powerful and wealthy enough, a fine of $25,000 is

not sufficient punishment, and in each of these organizations some officer should be made responsible who will take the gaol sentence, in case they are found guilty, just the same as any other porch-climber or burglar would go to gaol in case of an ordinary theft. This bill does not provide for any such punishment; it provides simply for a fine in the case of a corporation, and we all know how simple it is for a person to change into a corporation. That change can be effected under both provincial and federal law in a very simple manner, and then of course there is no one left to take the gaol sentence, and a little fine will settle all the trouble. I say "a little fine," because it is considered little to the interests concerned.
The point I want to make is this: If the law is necessary it should be made drastic enough to really punish the guilty; if it is not necessary it should not be placed Upon the statute books. I agree that some such law is necessary, but I do not think it should be just in the form of this bill. I believe that the form of the bill can be changed in such a manner that legitimate business will not be worried, while combinations detrimental to the public interest will be punished. Another danger that may arise under this bill, as I said before, is the multiplication of officials. If it were possible to confine the administration of this proposed law to our courts, many of the objections as I see them would disappear.
In conclusion of these brief remarks, Sir, I wish to say that I do not think it is wrong for a man to attempt to criticize the form of proposed legislation the principle of which he is willing to support. When I entered public life one of the determining factors for my action was my absolute confidence in the Prime Minister and his cabinet and since I have been a member of this House I have seen and heard nothing to lead me to abate my confidence in the slightest degree. I still have the most absolute confidence that the Prime Minister is trying to do the very best he can for the people of this country, I also fully believe that the members of his cabinet are actuated by the same motives, and while I object to the form of this measure, if after due consideration by the Prime Minister and his cabinet they cannot see their way clear to amend its form, then, although I shall regret their inability to do so, I shall still subscribe to the general principle embodied in the bill and give it my support.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to offer

Combines-Mr. Meighen
a few remarks on this measure. I do not intend to administer anything in the way of criticism of its provisions one by one. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, if I find myself unable to agree with the printed bill I will not be able to glorify its authors with the same meek humility and partisan credulity of some hon. members. I was indeed amused at the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). He reviewed the measure, took one feature and then another, showed to his own satisfaction that they were wholly wrong, told us that the bill aimed at repressing evil and unjust combinations, but that its actual provisions had the effect instead, of repressing good combinations; but notwithstanding all that was wrong about the bill, he was quite certain that it proceeded out of a pure and holy source.
When the resolution was before the House I reviewed very briefly the history of our anti-combine legislation so called. I am going to ask the House to bear with me while I do so again, because although we may take this section and that section and say it does not read as if it would be effective, or that it does, yet we cannot, get a comprehensive view of the real question we are discussing except in the light of the history of this legislation from the earliest times.
Hon. gentlemen talk of agreeing with the principle of this bill, and then end their speeches without the slightest indication of what they conceive the principle of the bill to be. I was indeed anxious to learn from the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Healy) what is this principle as to which he expresses such profound approval, in the presence of which he is going to vote for the bill, no matter what its form-in other words-what its provisions may be. What is this sacred, sanctimonious principle?


Albert Frederick Healy: A square deal to everyone in this country.


Arthur Meighen: Well, if such is the principle of the bill how is it that it does not do this for the hon. gentleman's constituents, the Ford Company?


Albert Frederick Healy: I believe it does in principle and in final result, but it is the form of putting it in operation that I criticize.


Arthur Meighen: What is the difference
about the form if the result is all right? Where does this kind of talk get us? I think it was Mr. Balfour who stated that the most foul smelling of platitudes was this continual talk about "a square deal and justice" with [DOT] no reference to specific enactments.
This bill, to my mind, instead of being a measure seeking to get concrete results is a measure distinctly seeking to avoid them. I believe a recital of our legislation will show that wherever in the past we have had provisions that really stretched forth and caught somebody they are left out of this bill, but everything is here which is going to pile harassments, vexation and expense on legitimate business; that is all in the measure- investigation after investigation, circle after circle, but never any goal.
In 1888 parliament sought first to enact anti-combine legislation and a committee sat to work out some effective measure. It was passed in 1889, with amendments in 1892 and, I am inclined to think, a further amendment later, all of them as to the wording varying the original act in very slight form. The act of 1889 constitutes what is now clause 498 of our Criminal Code. In 1910 parliament enacted the Combines Investigations Act supplementary to that provision of the Criminal Code,, which provision has been in our law ever since it was enacted in 1889.
The Combines Investigations Act had for its object the investigating of such institutions as six persons alleged to constitute a combine. "Combine" was defined, but not in the terms of this bill. The definition of the word in this bill I will deal with later. It is taken almost verbatim from the definition in a subsequent act. The Combines Investigations Act, however, proved to be aimless legislation, it proved to reach out to no real result.
Hon. gentlemen have spoken-the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), I remember particularly-about the law's delay, the procrastination of our courts, and he pleaded for a measure like this that gets at investigation in a simple way and, according to his idea, more expeditiously. Well, under the Combines Investigation Act, ,the provisions for investigation imder which were much the same as this, there was only one investigation. Instead of being expeditious the investigation lived out the whole length of the dying days of one government and well through the young virility of the next and ended in nothing but mist. I refer to the investigation into the United Shoe Machinery Company. It provided for investigation, provided for the summoning of witnesses-all sorts of inquisition-and finally provided for a verdict. Then, if there was to be any punishment, if there was to be any injunction, if there was to be any variation of practice on the part of the "combinester," the whole process had to be gone over again
Combines-Mr. Meighen

before the criminal courts. I have briefly defined the Combines Investigation Act. This act is not in every respect the Combines Investigation Act. I have at least given the whole result of that act; there was no other prosecution under it.
Before I proceed to the next piece of legislation let me remark this:	There
have been numerous prosecutions under our Criminal Code. Under what is now section 498 there have been numerous prosecutions in our criminal courts, successful prosecutions too; and what is more, there have been civil proceedings which have been determined upon the provisions of that section of the Criminal Code. I believe that section has been a comparatively effective and useful section, though I do not contend for a moment that it could not now be amended with advantage. I will refer to this sentence again later.
Now I have dealt with the initial legislation-section 498 as it is to-day; then the Combines Investigation Act in 1910. The next legislation was in the form of two bills passed in 1919, assented to on the 7th of July of that year, one of them the Combines and Fair Prices Act and the other the Board of Commerce Act. The Combines and Fair Prices Act defined a combine I think in every particular the same as it is defined here; if there is any change it is a very trifling change. The Combines and Fair Prices Act then proceeded on the assumption that combines were not nece-mrily against the public interest, were not necessarily wrong, might even be beneficial; and it proceeded to define the powers of a board in the way of curtailing the activities of wrong combines, altering their methods, preventing malpractice, and so forth. It proceeded to establish it as a crime for any company or any person to d i vhat it was, after investigation, forbidden to do !y that beard. It stated as well that the being privy or party to a combine as defined by the act, was in itself a crime. The Board of Commerce Act covered another sphere, namely, the fixing of profits. What I want to emphasize as the outstanding provision of the Combines and Fair Prices Act is that it established a board with power to prevent and power to compel. It vested in that board the right to prevent any company or combination of companies, which had been established before it as carrying on practice detrimental to the public interest, from continuing those practices. Within that board rested the power to order them to do this, the power to order them not to do that. I do not think legislation in any

country ever went further. Whether it went too far or not there is a difference of opinion. Those times, however, were different from these: then profits were being made; then business was ex-tremel3r active-we are living in different times to-day. I am emphasizing this: that the Board of Commerce under the Combines and Fair Prices Act had effective and final power to deny certain practices existing or to compel certain things to be done necessary to compliance with the law and make the combination no longer against the interests of the public. Of course the Board of Commerce as well had power to exhibit its findings, its evidence, its returns, and its documents before the attorney general of any province, thereby inviting the attorney general, if he thought fit, to conduct prosecution within that province before the criminal courts.
We now come to this legislation. This legislation establishes a board, but the name is changed; there has been a rechristening. A man is to be appointed called a registrar, and then around him at different times and different places there may be appointed commissioners. For all practical purposes I think it is fair to say that the registrar corresponds with the chairman of the old Board of Commerce and that the commissioners correspond with the puisne commissioners of the Board of Commerce. They have certain powers; and what are those powers? Now, I want to address myself to those who, without, I think, very thorough inquiry into the measure, have assumed that there are some teeth in its provisions. What are the powers of these men?	They have power to
investigate, yes; they can investigate, in private, or in	public if ordered by
the minister.	They can lay the result
before the minister, and if the minister is not satisfied he can order them to make further inquiry, and presumably they go on and inquire again. If he is not satisfied with the next report he can order another inquiry and they can proceed around the circle once more. But after they have done all their inquiry, in public or in private; after all are completed, they cannot order anybody to do anything or to stop doing anything; they have no executive power. Those attributes which the Board of Commerce possessed, the functionaries erected by this legislation are stripped of altogether. Well, what can they do? They report to the minister and the minister can lay the facts before the attorney general of the province. The old Board of Commerce could dc that, but the old Board of

Combines-Mr. Meighen
Commerce could as well say what in the future should be right as respects a certain practice, what should be done and what should not be done. The functionaries erected here have no such power at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend, when be is speaking of the Board of Commerce, if he would tell the House what particular functions of the board were declared to be ultra vires of the federal parliament?


Arthur Meighen: I am coming to that- and I will guarantee to come to it, too; I will not avoid it. They can expose the facts before the Attorney General as the old board could. There is this in addition-from memory I do not think it was in the Board of Commerce Act-that if the Attorney General of any province declines within three months to act, the Solicitor General himself may lay an indictment, on the relation, it says, of anybody over twenty-one years of age. I pause only to remark that the addition of that clause is pure surplusage, if indeed, I should not describe it as pure sham, for the reason that without any clause at all the federal Attorney General can lay an indictment, the Solicitor General can lay an indictment, can enter a prosecution.	He does not need any clause
of a new act to do that. May I remark once more before going further that all this power of inquiry that is supposed to be such a tremendous step in advance leads nowhere, that after it is through it does not end in anything, your registrar having no power to order anything done or to stop anything being done. But the whole of it could be done without any new statute whatever. It could be done under our Inquiries Act to-day. I repeat, there is not a single thing that may be done under this legislation that the government is not already competent to do under legislation that this House passed years ago.
Nov, my hon. friend says-and perhaps this is as good a time as any to refer to the interjection-has it not been shown that in certain respects the Board of Commerce had power beyond the jurisdiction of this House to give? I admit that, and ask hon. gentlemen to reflect that the late government accused, for campaign purposes, of course, of being the ally of the interests and big business, in its legislation did not content itself with mere power of repetitive inquiry; it gave the board power to act, and gave it power even beyond the power of this parliament to give. That was our offence, if offence



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
there was. But let us see just what was the effect of the Privy Council judgment. The Privy Council judgment, and I do not know that I am particularly competent to define its limits before this House-I will give it in my own words as I understand it-the Privy Council judgment really does not assail or impugn Part One of the Combines and Fair Prices Act. The Privy Council judgment in so far as it impugned the legislation aside from its criminal provisions stated that this parliament had not power to erect a board which would make regulations affecting trade and commerce merely locally, thereby invading the sphere of civil rights. In a word, when we are making regulations as to trade and commerce they must be general regulations, and any board we erect can only enact general regulations affecting the trade and commerce of the whole federal country. We cannot go into the milk business of a town. We cannot go into this special trade and apply regulations there which are really an invasion of civil rights. The Privy Council said more. It said: While you are doing that, getting into civil rights under the guise of trade and commerce law, while you are doing that you cannot validate your legislation by merely declaring that to violate your legislation is a crime. When you are in a sphere in which you should not be, you cannot make yourself right by declaring an offence against your legislation to be a crime. You canot use your criminal jurisdiction as a mere ancillary of what otherwise would be ultra vires legislation. So far the Privy Council went and no further.
Now I venture to suggest this: Within the limits of the Privy Council decision there is nothing at all to prevent the enactment of general regulations by this House or by any board created by this House affecting trade and commerce, and there is nothing to prevent the declaring anything to be a crime under our Criminal Code so long as we do not do it merely to establish the validity of some other legislation which really affects civil rights or invades some other sphere which we have no right to enter. Very well. I only observe this in conclusion on the constitutional phase, lu so far as this legislation makes something a crime which is defined here-I lefer now to section 26-it is at least very doubtful to my mind, and I say it with all deference to the Deputy Minister of Justice, whose opinion I .would like to have read, it is very doubtful to my mind if that clause is within our constitutional powers; but I do not purpose to argue the point.
I want to argue this for the moment. We must have criminal legislation. We must

[Stage Direction]
Combines

Mr. Meighen
[Stage Direction]
protect our rights to enact effective criminal legislation. I am glad to know that that right has not been in any way overthrown by the judgment of the court of appeal in Ontario in the Wholesale Grocers' case. I find on reading the judgment that it has not been. We must preserve our right to enact effective criminal legislation. Our section 498 is good legislation. Perhaps it can be improved. I venture to give this as my opinion: There is no use going any further unless after you have got your board you are going to give that board power to enforce its findings. If you attempt to go further than criminal legislation, by erecting boards to inquire into this, that and the other thing, you are only placing a sham before the people of this country unless you are prepared to go on and give that board power to enforce by general regulation of trade and commerce its own findings as a result of its investigations. This is exactly what this bill does not do. It pretends to go farther, but it only gets into investigation and inquiry, and when it is through with that it is nowhere. The board has no power to make good its findings, no power to enforce its rulings, to deny practices or to compel practices. In a word, it has no executive power at all. When the investigation is through the whole thing is through, and all that it can do is to expose the facts to the attorney general. All this might have been done under the Inquiries Act if such were worth while. But I 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 there as Criminal Code provisions. Do not provide for an array of official and for mere investigation. The code will be more useful as it is than supplemented by an investigation. Why do I say that? Because I believe an investigation that has no punishment attached to it, no orders that can be enforced, instead of being a deterrent is really a buffer between the offender and punishment. It really gives a man a second chance. It gives him all the case of the prosecution, and thereby enables him to prepare his defence against the time when he gets into a court before which he may be punished. If I were the worst criminal in the country I would not want anything better than to have an investigation first, with all the cards of the prosecution on the table, and then to be given my chance before an effective tribunal after. I would think the criminal far more likely to be punished if the prosecution had the same rights as he and all went to the criminal courts together. That would
!Mr. Meighen.]
be more likely to lead to effective punishment. It is more likely at least, that there would be a verdict of guilty.
In the United Shoe Machinery case I venture to say that if an indictment had been laid under the code in the first place there would have been infinitely greater chance of success than there was after all this circuitous investigation followed by an indictment later on. The United Shoe Machinery Company were made aware of all that was complained about, of all the arguments of the prosecution. They were made aware of everything they had not to do if they wanted to avoid prosecution, and all they had to do was to make this little [DOT] change or that and all would be right. It will be the same under this bili. We will have investigations; we will have all sorts of vexatious inquiries. We will have burdens and expense put on business, but we will not have any real restraint. Wc will not have any effective curtailment of what are declared to be practices to the detriment of the public interest.
I want to try to make a little clear something that I was arguing a moment ago. I put it this way: I do not believe that this definition of a combine, as contained in section 2, is of any value whatever to the purposes of a real prosecution afterwards. It is of value if you have a board which has power to declare what is right and what is wrong and to prevent what is wrong being done. If you have that it is all right. Now let us see. This definition of a combine admits that combines may be good and they may be bad.
A bad combine, it says, is one which operates against the public interest. Very well. A ' board investigates and finds that such and such a practice is against the public interest and therefore it is a bad combine. All well and good. If that board then has power to say "You cannot do that any longer" well and good. The old act said that; the Combines and Fair Prices Act said that; and the board said to the company "You cannot do it any longer" and if the company did it again then it was a crime per se; it was a crime to disobey the orders of the board.
Now, I come to apply this definition to this legislation. The definition, let me repeat, says: "A combine is a combine by business interests that works to the detriment of the public" and it adds "to consumers, to producers and others." It is a combine that works to the detriment of the public and it is undertaken to find out whether such is the case or not. Wherever a registrar finds out that it is he so reports to the

Combines-Mr. Meighen
minister. The minister agrees and then what happens? The matter then goes, or may go, to the criminal court; it canot go anywhere else, the registrar not having the power to stop it or make an issue of the case at all. If it is his opinion that this is a combine which works to the detriment of the public the case goes before the court. The court does not follow the opinion of the minister or the registrar, not at all. You must then convince the court that this is a combine which works to the detriment of the public. The fact that the minister and the registrar have been convinced does not get you anywhere at all. It may be their opinion; it may not be the opinion of the judge, and if it is not, not only has the prior investigation resulted in nothing but even if all the facts disclosed were correct the whole thing is a futility.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend say that if the commissioner has reported that the combination, for example, has been taking advantage of the tariff that the Governor in Council may not then proceed either to reduce the tariff or eliminate it altogether?


Mr MEIGHEN:: I am very glad the Prime Minister mentions that. I intend to refer to it but I do not want to get away from the point I am at until it is clear. The bill as brought down said that a combination was something that was detrimental to the public in the opinion of the registrar. Those words are now omitted. I do not see that it makes much difference because what is left in the bill really amounts to the same effect anyway. The registrar if convinced that there is a combine which is detrimental to the public will report to the minister. Presumably the minister will be convinced of the fact as well, and they expose the facts, we will say, to the attorney general. The very same facts come before the court and the judge does not need to be affected in the least by the opinion of the minister or the opinion of the registrar. He may feel that that combination is not detrimental to the public, and consequently, even though all the facts are correct and even though the company goes there and admits the whole thing, there will not necessarily be any conviction at all. There is just as likely to be a conviction if there had been no investigation whatever. I think there was a greater likelihood of a conviction because the accused person would not have the advantage of knowing the whole case of the prosecution in advance. Consequently an analysis of the proposed legislation convinces me that it is futile and a sham, as such legislation necess-1631
arily is, unless it empowers the registrar, the board, or whatever authority you may provide, to determine what is right and what is wrong, and to prevent what is wrong and to order what is right.
Now the Prime Minister says "Yes, but here is a clause that gives the Governor in Council power to wipe away the protective tariff, to wipe away the duty that protects the industry." He might have added "Here is another clause that gives it power to cancel a patent." But these are all in the statutes now, perhaps not worded exactly the same but the wording can be changed. One is in the Tariff Act. The other is in the Patent Act or in the Tariff Act. The government could have acted upon those. For that matter it is in the< Combines and Fair Prices xlct which is the law of the land to-day; we do not need a new statute to put that clause through. Competent legislation already exists in the Combines and Fair Prices Act which is the law of the land to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is declared ultra vires.


Arthur Meighen: Not that section-and in the Tariff Act. You do not need all this preliminary investigation travelling over territory again and again. 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. It is nothing more and nothing less.
The Prime Minister argued, both in introducing the resolution and in his speech on the second reading to-day, that now the criminal code provisions cannot be put into effect because the Board of Commerce Act-I think it was the Combines and Fair Prices Act though -says there shall be no prosecution under the code save with the consent of the Board of Commerce. He says there is no Board of Commerce, consequently there can be no prosecution. In that he is right. But you do not need all this machinery to get over that difficulty. If he does not like the Board of Commerce Act let him repeal it. Repeal the Board of Commerce Act, then the code is there clear and in full effect. Also the Prime Minister has his tariff clause, his patent clause; he has everything except this cumbersome machinery expensive to business, provocative to business, burdensome to business, harassing and vexatious. He has everything except some worthless machinery and the power to appoint a whole army of officers the exercise of which can only have one result, namely, to reward the faithful of his party.

Combines-Mr. Murdock
Now, I suggest that the Prime Minister may strengthen his criminal code provisions if he desires. It is quite possible-indeed I think it is likely-that the experience of the years would enable us now to make wider and better the provisions in the criminal code. I think in the criminal code we ought to say what is wrong and what is right. Let us make a clear definition so that men will know what is wrong and what is right, because unless we do we really do not get the effective results. Having done that take ample power to throw off the duties, take ample power to cancel patents; and when the Prime Minister has that, he has everything that is required. If he feels that he ought to go further there is only one way of doing so, there is only one way that is of any value, and that is to give to the board that makes inquiry power to give effect to the findings. If the Prime Minister does that he will really be giving teeth to his legislation. I am not urging him to do it. I do not want to be misunderstood at all-I am disposed to believe that in the present state of business in this country there is no immediate need of	a drastic provision	of that
kind-but unless he does that his legislation is a sham, it is simply circuitous circumlocution, and is a positive burden and expense to business. Consequently, I do not feel that I need bow before the principle of this legislation. Its principle is simply to erect offices and to appoint officers to fill them, but to end up with the supposed culprit given a second chance, a better chance than he would have had if there had not been this legislation.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: I am under some obligation to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) who appeared anxious this afternoon to ascertain where the Minister of Labour stood in regard to this particular legislation. I think therefore it would be entirely improper if I did not allow my position to be known. I think also that my position in regard to this particular legislation should be known, from the fact that my hon. friend for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) seemed to refer Bomewhat disparagingly to the intent underlying this particular bill which is now before the House, and he seemed, as I understood, to imply that if the House could not, in accordance with his views, deal directly and entirely with the cause that they should not undertake in any way to deal with or regulate the effect. That was the understanding which I gathered from my hon. friend's remarks. For the information of my hon. friend for York-

Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) may I say that eome three years ago I intimated where I stood in regard to combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers detrimental to the interest of the public in Canada. I said:
Business men living under the protection of the tariff have got to know each other so well that price fixing agreements, and all sorts of agreements and arrangements, are the rule rather than the exception.
Not all of these are reasonable or proper
The public, unorganized as the sands by the sea, requires a protector against the super-organization of modem business.
I stand here to-night to gladly re-affirm my continued belief in that declaration, and to indicate to my hon. friend for York-Sunbury and others who are inquiring that I stand exactly in the same position to-day as to what should be done in regard to unfair combines, monopolies, trusts or mergers. I would not, however, Mr. Speaker, have one hon. member in this House draw the conclusion from anything I might say that all combines, all so-called monopolies, all price fixing arrangements, and all re-sale price arrangements are detrimental to the interests of the public. I do not believe any such thing. I have not believed that was the case, and. believing as I do, I regard this legislation as drafted generally, with some slight amendments that were suggested by the Prime Minister to-day, as legislation that will not and should not in any way embarrass any business, any combination or any resale price arrangement that is in the interest of the public. But I think, on the other hand, that any combinations, or price fixing arrangements or monopolies that are not working in the public interests know it full well to start with. My experience, if it has been worth anything to me in matters of this kind, is that they know full well that they are exacting the pound of flesh and that they are going beyond reasonable limits in certain cases in exacting unfair prices, or in imposing unfair arrangements on the people of this country. My hon. friend for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), in his opening remarks, referred to the fact that he was not a lawyer, and that therefore he could not deal with this legislation or with combines legislation as a lawyer. He indicated to the House that he was an accountant, and as such would deal with this legislation. Well, I will crave the same privilege by dealing with this legislation as a brake-man, with some knowledge of what the people of Canada desire and demand in respect to a discontinuance of some of the combines that have throttled the prosperity and advance-

Combines-Mr. Murdock
ment of Canada generally in the years gone by, and that may be in evidence at this present moment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What are they?


James Murdock: That would appear to be a consistent thing for some one properly authorized under the law to investigate and determine, without either my hon iriend who
inquires "what are they," or myself passing a snap judgment.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I ask the minister if it is the case that he does not know a single instance of a combine in Canada today that ought to be repressed by law? Will he take that position?


James Murdock: My firm and positive conviction is that there are several combines
in Canada to-day that should be regulated.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will he name them?


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: The sugar combine.


James Murdock: I am not at present .sufficiently familiar with the sugar question to advise.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about Dominion Textile?


James Murdock: My hon. friend for
Vancouver Centre started in on section 2, of the proposed bill No. 54, and expressed great surprise and interest, as to what the words "or others" meant. He appeared to argue-* and I think other hon. members have also argued since-that surely the words "consumers and producers" were sufficient, and that the words "or others" were not necessary. It may be of interest to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to know that those words are copied identically from the act of 1919 which was passed and placed upon the statute book of Canada by him and his associates when they were in power, and it appeared at that time to be necessary that this language should be used-
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
operated, or are likely to operate, to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, consumers, producers or others.
Now, the Combines Act of 1910 did not contain that provision, but in 1919 the government in power, when they were placing on the statute book a law that was heralded broadcast from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast as the last word in protection for the consuming
public of Canada, proceeded to place in that section the words "or others," and let me, as one lay gentleman to another, give my hon. friend for Vancouver Centre my version of why those words "or others" are there. It came to my attention some two or three years ago that these words "or others" were very necessary on account of the business in which such "combinesters" were engaged, that if those words "or others" were not there, they would be able, with legal advice, to prove conclusively that they were neither a producer of the thing they were combined to deal in, nor a consumer of that particular thing, and that therefore, the words "or others" were necessary there to include them and every citizen of this Dominion. That is the view of one layman to another in answer to the question of my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I never asked any such question, and I never argued along the line my hon. friend is arguing. He apparently did not listen to my argument at all.


James Murdock: 
Arthur Meighen: In order to make a firm punishable, or the members of a combine punishable, who is to decide that their conduct is detrimental to the interest of the public?


James Murdock: The court, and I am coming to that if my right hon. friend can

Combines-Mr. Murdock
possess his soul in patience for only a few minutes.


Arthur Meighen: What does this bill do to hasten the prosecution?


James Murdock: I am coming to that if-


Arthur Meighen: The minister is right at it.


James Murdock: If my right hon. friend can give me only a little time, I will try to get to that in fair order.


Arthur Meighen: The minister is at it now.


James Murdock: I am not in great disagreement with the underlying cause, as defined or suggested by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans), of the things to deal with which we are now here to determine ways and means. I am not in any particular disagreement with him as to what is causing, or what has in a large measure caused some of the things that we are endeavouring, if we can, to provide ways and means to remedy but I must entirely disagree with the thought that it is not proper, because we cannot go right to the root and at the moment do away with the underlying cause, that we should take any steps whatsoever to minimize the effect that is ever present with us to some extent throughout the length and breadth of Canada. There are in effect in Canada to-day conditions that we must for the time being deal with and make provision to deal with, and I now come to what some of my hon. friends have referred to as the "wooden gun" legislation that has been on the statute books of Canada in this respect for some time past. Hon. gentlemen opposite, not only one, but I think, several especially commencing with the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) laid stress upon the fact that the Criminal Code was amply sufficient to protect consumers and producers from all the ills that might come from the formation of an improper combine. My hon. friend must surely know that the Criminal Code is not ready for use to the hand of any consumer or producer in Canada, and it has not been so during the past two or three years.


Robert James Manion: Will my hon. friend permit me to correct him? I did say that; but I added with the addition of necessary amendments. I pointed that out very distinctly and I think my hon. friend will admit that.


James Murdock: I accept my hon. friend's statement, although I took down right, as I thought, from his lips, the words "legisla-
TMr. Murdock.]
tion unnecessary as Criminal Code sufficient". I now understand that he meant that the Criminal Code would be sufficient when it was fixed up and put into shape, and when the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919 were, to all intents and purposes, repealed. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) shakes his head. The word "repeal" from a layman is wrong. They did not repeal section 498 of the Criminal Code, but they made it impossible for any citizen of Canada to utilize section 498 of the Criminal Code against any combine, monopoly, trust or merger in Canada. My right hon. friend will, of course, say that there is still the Inquiries Act.


Arthur Meighen: I say that all the government has to do, if it does not like the Combines and Fair Prices Act, is to repeal it, and then the Criminal Code is restored in all its^ original force.


James Murdock: I realize, if we can only clear away the driftwood that has been obstructing the vision of the consuming public for the last two or three yean, we shall be able to get something that will put fear into the minds of these combines and monopolies.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member has said many a time that the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act constituted a "wooden gun " against monopolies. Will he cite a single new power that the registrars or commissioners are to have under this bill that the old Board of Commerce did not have? He knows that the old board had powers that the registrars and commissioners do not have. Will he mention one power that the Board of Commerce did not have, that the registrars are going to have.


James Murdock: The laughable farce or misfortune of the old Board of Commerce Act was the fact that the Board of Commerce had ostensibly entirely too much power. That was the trouble, a power that citizens of Canada high and low could not see the consistency of giving to any board. What power? Power to make an inquiry, power to order an investigation, power to determine guilt, and power up until the time that the criminal was sent along branded to the judge to be sentenced. Entirely improper. The people of Canada very naturally, I think, rebelled at it. Surely it would have been amply sufficient, as contemplated by the measure now under discussion, if that Board of Commerce or another board had had authority to investigate, to look into thj

Combines-Mr. Murdock
allegations that were made against some combine or price-fixing or resale agreement and to determine whether in its opinion such alleged monopoly or agreement was of substantial and material benefit to the consuming and the producing public; or if it was against their interests; and if found to be the latter to refer the case to a court of competent jurisdiction, such as we have throughout the length and breadth of Canada, to adjudicate and assess the guilt and penalty. That as I see it, and, speaking only as a layman, was the great mistake of the Board of Commerce legislation.


Arthur Meighen: Does that not mean that instead of the Board of Commerce being a wooden gun it was a machine gun that shot too often.


George Perry Graham: It kicked oftener than it shot.


James Murdock: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is correct in that statement -that is just what would have happened had it not been arranged otherwise.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman tell me what the arrangement was and who it was with? I am asking him to establish it.


Ernest Lapointe: You are asking too many questions altogether.


James Murdock: I have been intimating to my right hon. friend for the last three years that I would be only too happy to get into the business of establishing some of that.


Arthur Meighen: Now is your chance. Start right at it.


James Murdock: Bravado at this late date, though, does not change the circumstances of what happened in 1920.


Arthur Meighen: What I understand by bravado is the saying of something of which the hon. gentleman has no proof. I ask him now to establish his proof. I ask him especially to appoint a Board of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act. He is a member of the government now.


Ernest Lapointe: Another commission.


Arthur Meighen: Appoint a commissioner' to go into the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: They laugh. Their colleague alleged-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: He alleged that the members of the then government were holding his hand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: He is in office to-day-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: You do not like it. He is in office to-day and I ask him to establish his allegation.


James Murdock: I did not allege; I stated.


Arthur Meighen: Now make it good.


James Murdock: I intimated then that I would be glad indeed to undertake to show what was and what was not done.


Arthur Meighen: Now is the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Murdock: Now, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: You are not getting on very fast.


James Murdock: Now, Mr. Speaker,while my right hon. friend dealt with the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919 to some extent, I think it should be dealt with more specifically in order to show just-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Just what?


James Murdock: -in order to show that we have not had in Canada, as alleged repeatedly in the late campaign and at various other times, any legislation on the statute books since the Board of Commerce was annulled to deal with a combine, a monopoly or anything of the kind, nothing that a common man could take advantage of, that the plain people-shall I say to use a term favoured by some of my hon. friends?- that the plain people could take advantage of, and now at this particular time when we ask for the enactment of bill No. 54, which provides for the appointment of a registrar whose duty it will be 1;o receive any complaints that are made by the plain people or by the other people of Canada against so-called combines, monopolies, trusts or mergers, we are told by my right hon. friend and his colleagues to go ahead and put some shims under the Criminal Code and fix it up so as to make it fill all necessary purposes. In effect, to you, Mr. Little Retail Grocer, or you Mr. Section Man, or you Mr. Brakeman, or you Mr. Logger in some part of Canada, what does that mean? It means making an
Combines-Mr. Murdock

expensive and cumbersome arrangement hidden in the criminal code that will prevent you in a hundred years, unless you are more financially successful than you have been, from getting into court to prosecute a combine, monopoly, trust or merger, from getting anywhere or receiving any consideration in regard to the things that you allege against some concern that is working detriment to you and the other people of Canada. That is what my hon. friend and some of his associates want to perpetuate, an arrangement in the criminal code that cannot be taken advantage of by the ordinary man, that is available for the big interests, for the wealthy at least as they desire, but that will mean nothing, because too expensive, to the ordinary citizens of Canada, whether producers or consumers.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon.
gentleman really mean by that anyway? The criminal code is invocable-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Will hon. gentlemen not permit a correction? The criminal code is invocable by merely laying information, and it is the duty of the attorney general to prosecute. That does not cost the informant anything. This is very expensive to him; the other costs him nothing if the attorney general does his duty.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, I quite realize that what my right hon. friend states is what should be; but unfortunately I declare that it is not what is in effect, and I think my right hon. friend knows, and outside of this House would agree, how impossible it would be for some individual- yes, or for six individuals, to get consideration of any suit that they might undertake to institute against some alleged combine, monopoly, trust or merger.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman know an instance-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman know an instance of anyone laying a charge under the section of the code where the Attorney General refused to prosecute at the public expense?


James Murdock: To-night I am not criticizing any Attorney General in regard to any particular case. I have not in mind, I may say frankly, any particular case where that developed. I do know, though, as I am sure my right hon. friend knows, that under all too many conditions, the provisions of the Criminal fMr. Murdock.)
Code are not available for the purposes of the representations of the poor man, especially where, banked against the aims and endeavours thus contemplated, are, possibly, great sums of money protecting the concern that it is proposed to prosecute.
Another point that was very much stressed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the hon. member for Fort William and others was with regard to the one-man representation, which was referred to as unfair and inconsistent. On the opening of this debate to-day the Prime Minister indicated that the one-man arrangement was going to be changed and that an amendment was to be proposed to make it necessary, as in the 1910 act, for six persons to indicate their belief that a combine exists. The act of 1910, which was repealed by the government of my right hon. friend, provided that where six or more persons, British subjects resident in Canada and of full age, were of the opinion that a combine existed, that prices had been enhanced or competition restricted, they might make the necessary representation, But when it came to 1919 and the present leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were fixing up legislation that was to be heralded and broadcasted as the real thing in combine hunting, it was provided in section 6 that any British subject resident in Canada and of full age who was of the opinion that a combine existed or was being formed might apply in writing to any member of the board except the Chief Commissioner for an order, and so on. I want to remind my hon. friends opposite that the safeguard contained in the 1910 statute against the possibility of some individual, for spite or any other reason, making a charge against some concern, was regarded by them as unnecessary; one man was thought sufficient. And now, because in the first text of the bill as brought down one man is specified, my hon. friends lay emphasis on the fact that is in their opinion, improper. I agree that six would be very much better.
One hon. gentleman suggested that the act contemplated the appointment of registrars here and there and everywhere throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Surely the bill must have been hurriedly read if that opinion was gained from it; nothing of the kind is contemplated. The act provides for the appointment of a registrar-one registrar-whose duty will be to receive representations that may be made from time to time indicating the belief of certain individuals that a combine, a monopoly, a resale price fixing arrangement is in effect or about to be put into effect. And when the registrar re-

Combines-Mr. Murdock
ceives a complaint of that kind, it is his duty so to proceed as to demoralize and disorganize business? Not by any means. He will read what is conveyed to him as the view of those making the representations, and then, in a quiet and orderly way, he will make inquiries to ascertain what are the actual facts. We have had in Canada since 1906 a registrar of boards of conciliation and investigation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. That registrar does not authorize the formation of a board in the case of every application made therefor. It has been found in something more than one hundred cases since the passing of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act that the application for a board was based on an improper understanding or ill-founded claim on the part of the applicants, and they have been so advised. The public very seldom know anything about these decisions of the registrar; the correspondence is usually conducted between the parties making the application and the registrar. The registrar, at least at times, consults with the minister to ascertain his view or the view of the government in the matter. In Bill No. 54 exactly the same function is proposed in the appointment of one registrar located in or close to the office of the minister, where he will receive complaints that are made, analyze them and determine whether there is anything in them. He can go to the extent of asking for documents, requesting information, quietly investigating without any thought or intention or desire to disrupt or disorganize business, but only with the view of ascertaining the actual conditions in connection with the business in question, to secure such information for the purpose of conveying it to those who have complained that an improper condition exists. What is fairer than that? What can be more regular or orderly in the matter of stabilizing any legitimate business that is liable to have the charge hurled against it that it is a combine or monopoly and that its operations in that respect are detrimental to the public? Then, if the registrar believes after quiet inquiry that some things in the complaint are not satisfactorily answered, the act provides that a commissioner can be appointed-presumably someone amply qualified to analyze and investigate thoroughly, in fact, to understand, the particular business or concern that is to be investigated-a commissioner presumably amply qualified to deal with the subject that is to be brought under investigation. The commissioner proceeds to that investigation. He takes such means as the act provides to bring out all the facts which the producers and consumers of Canada are
entitled to ascertain if there is as alleged a combine or any other business arrangement that is detrimental to the consumer and the producer. He brings out all that information and then makes his report.	,
My right hon. friend objects right at that point. After the commissioner has ascertained all that it is possible for the lay mind to ascertain-because the act does not provide that a lawyer must have the job every time a commissioner is to be appointed, or say that there are not business men throughout the length and breadth of Canada experienced in all lines of industry who may be just as capable of determining business conditions in effect as a lawyer-after the commissioner has analysed from every standpoint the conditions alleged and has decided that there is in his judgment some arrangement in effect that is not in the interest of producers and consumers and has made his report, what more logical arrangement, what more consistent with British justice could be suggested than that the culprit believed to have instituted a combine, monopoly, trust or merger should be brought before a court of competent jurisdiction anywhere throughout the length and breadth of Canada to plead his case, as he would have a right to do, before a jury of his peers? They decide on the facts presented, and then the judge on the bench determines in accordance with the provisions of this act the penalty to be applied if the verdict is guilty. That is where the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act fell down. In the first place it undertook, the way it worked out, to make a judge out of a brakeman without any legal experience, to assess penalties, to define crime and say what should be done. This act proceeds in a more orderly way. It recognizes the courts of competent jurisdiction in Canada to-day, and as quietly and as unobtrusively as possible-I repeat	that-as
quietly and as unobtrusively as possible provides for a preliminary inquiry by the registrar and the commissioner. Why not? Why does some hon. gentleman talk of secret diplomacy and suggest that a secret inquiry should not be made? Is it not reasonable to act on the assumption that the registrar, yea, and the commissioner, when appointed may find that there was nothing sufficiently tangible upon which to base a claim of improper conduct against some particular combine? Why should that particular concern, if things are being done on the level and in the interest of consumer and producer, if fixing resale prices, for instance, in the interest of the consumer, if we want to deal fairly, why should
Combines-Mr. Murdock

it be necessary to herald this preliminary investigation from the housetops until the case finally comes to a court of competent jurisdiction for determination? I do not mean, Mr. Speaker, to imply that there will be no notoriety whatsoever before the case gets into court, but I do mean to suggest that to be fair to all concerned there should be as little notoriety as possible given to the preliminary investigation by either registrar or commissioner, for the simple reason that their investigation as contemplated is only preliminary and the concern itself is to have its day in court in the final analysis to show whether it is guilty or innocent of the charge alleged, and which either the registrar or the commissioner may believe. There is no question at all about the final investigation before a court of competent jurisdiction being given sufficient notoriety.
I have, Mr. Speaker, three more pages of references to the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, and as I do not wish to take up any more time tonight I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and the debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, May 8, 1923