1923-05-09

REPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Agreement between the Imperial government and the government of Canada with respect to the prepaid passage scheme.-Hon. Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil).
Report on the discovery of placer gold in Labrador.-Hon. Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil).
*


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), to incorporate National Surety Company of Canada. -Mr. Mitchell.
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Austin Trow.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Jean Buchan.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 158 (from the Senate), for the relief of Louisa Wemp.-Mr. Simpson.

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

Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Has the government any information, and if so, what, with regard to the extent of business in lumber, canned salmon, pulp and paper, iron and steel and other products, as between Eastern Canada and the Pacific Coast, that is lost in favour of the United States owing to the fact that there is not a Canadian Customs Officer at New York and duty is imposed by the United States on goods passing through the Panama Canal from Eastern Canada to British Columbia?
2.	Has the government any information, and if so, what, in regard to grinding balls to an Owen Sound firm from the Premier mine of British Columbia which was cancelled and placed in the United States because of the absence of a Canadian Customs Officer at New York?
3.	Has the government any information, and if so, what, with regard to the advantages of a Canadian Customs Officer at New York, in facilitating trade between Eastern Canada and the province of British Columbia?
4.	Has the government any information, and if so, what, with regard to the iron and steel used in British Columbia which might be purchased from Nova Scotia if a Canadian Customs Officer were established at New York?
5.	Has the government any information, and if so, what with regard to the effect of the absence of a Canadian Customs Officer at New York on the amount of freight which might otherwise be sent over Canadian railways by the Canadian manufacturers and traders but which actually goes to the United States?
6.	What would be the annual cost of maintaining a Canadian Customs Officer at the port of New York?
7.	Does the government refuse to place a Canadian Customs Officer at the port of New York?
8.	If so, what are the grounds of such refusal?
9.	What are the advantages, if any, which accrue to the government of Canada or the people of Canada bv refusing to put the said Customs Officer at New York?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1,	2, 3, 4 and 5. The government has no information.
6.	This information is being ascertained.
7.	No, the government does not refuse.
8 and 9. Answered by previous questions.


GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE SHIPPING TOLLS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will legislation be introduced this session to place shipping and marine rates and tolls on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence under some public control such as the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada ?
2.	If not, what will be done to afford the public some relief from excessive rates, both for freight and passenger rates?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The matter of marine rates and tolls is the subject of investigation by Royal Commission at the present time and it would not be possible to answer this question in any positive way until the report of that commission has been received.
Questions



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	When will the report of the Royal Commission re Great Lake rates be received, and will an opportunity be granted parliament of considering their report?
2.	When will the Ranking, Agriculture, and Redistribution Select Committees reports be received by the House?
3.	Owing to the lateness of the Session, will these reports be received in proper time to have them dealt with at this session of parliament, or will they be left over for next session?
4.	What legislation, if any, is yet to be brought down this session by the government, not referred to in the Address at the opening of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This question, I think, the hon. member is in about as good a position to answer as the government.
1.	The government is unable to say when the report will be received, and it is impossible to say what opportunity will be given for consideration until it is received.
2.	I suppose they will be received when they are ready, I cannot think of any other answer.
3.	Obviously it is impossible to say what will be done with the reports until they are received, or what time may be available.
4.	I answered this question yesterday in reply to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen).



DAYLIGHT SAVING IN OTTAWA

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Has the government been officially advised by the Mayor of Ottawa that daylight saving becomes effective in the city on Sunday, May 13th?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to recommend to parliament to conform to daylight saving time, and to make the same applicable to the public departments ?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government has assumed that parliament would wish to do this year as in previous years, adapt its proceedings to the local time. So far as the public departments are concerned, where daylight saving is being observed the public departments will be expected to conform to the usage of the locality.



' PORT ARTHUR ELEVATOR

Mr. SHEARD:: Does the Canadian government elevator buy or purchase screening shutouts, or, in other wo'ds, the dockage of 3 per cent or over on grain that is unloaded, in their Port Arthur plant, or does the Canadian government elevator only handle for its own account the dockage on grain that is allowed the terminal elevator, according to its tariff?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE (For the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The procedure followed is that when cars of grain are unloaded 
into the Canadian Government elevator at Port Arthur, warehouse receipts, both for grain and screenings, outturns showing charges, and official weight, certificates are sent to the Winnipeg office of the Canadian Government elevator system, where they are delivered to the party surrendering the bills of lading, usually the commission merchant acting as agent for the shipper. If these parties desire to dispose of the warehouse receipts for screenings to the Canadian Government elevator, the manager of the Winnipeg office is always prepared to purchase same at the current market price, and is provided with a fund, designated "Special Account," from which to make payment for such purchases. The holder of warehouse receipts for screenings is under absolutely no obligation to dispose of same to the Canadian Government elevator, but is always at liberty to take delivery of the documents and dispose of same to the best possible advantage or in any manner he may see fit.



TORONTO AND SUBURBAN RAILWAY

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the portion within the city of Toronto of the Toronto and Suburban Railway been offered for sale to the city, and on what terms, either by the government or National Railways?
2.	Have the bondholders objected to the sale of a part instead of the whole road, and can the sale of a part be legally consummated?
3.	Have the bondholders notified the government to this effect, and how does the sale now stand?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The Toronto Suburban Company's lines within the city of Toronto are governed by a franchise granted by the former town of Toronto Junction (now Ward 7 of the city of Toronto), which expired in 1921. Under their franchise, the former town of Toronto Junction, or its successors, had the right, upon notice, to take over the whole of the lines within the limits of the town at a valuation to be agreed upon, and fixed by arbitration. The city of Toronto duly gave notice in 1921 of its intention to take over th^ franchise lines, and a tentative valuation was made between the two parties, which has not yet been acted upon.
2.	An objection was made on behalf of the bondholders that the whole of the lines of the Suburban Company, both inside and outside of the franchise limits, had to be taken by the city on the expiry of the franchise, but tills objection was not concurred in by the Toronto Suburban Railway Company, and is not maintainable. The bondholders are subject to the franchise terms to the same extent as

Questions
the railway company, and while objection may be made, at discretion, by the bondholders to the sale of lines, or parts of lines outside the franchise limits, within the franchise limits the consummation of the sale or taking over by the city depends only upon the fixing of the consideration to be paid.
3.	The representatives of the bondholders claim that they must be consulted and must agree to any value fixed or to any disposal of lines outside the franchise limits. In the correctness of this position the railway company concurs. The terms and the extent of the taking over are now under active consideration by the parties concerned, subject to the rights of the bondholders as stated.



MR. EDWARD E. BOUDROT

Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has Edward E. Boudrot been dismissed from the position of light keeper at Green Island near Arichat, Cape Breton?
2.	If so, when was he dismissed and what were the reasons for his dismissal?
3.	Were any charges made against Mr. Boudrot and if so were said charges investigated, and by whom?
4.	What report was made as a result of such investigation, if any were held?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Order in Council of the 15th January, 1923, has issued dispensing with his services and he will be relieved when arrangements are made by the Civil Service Commission for his successor.
2.	See answer to No. 1. He assaulted a, fisherman and his son when they landed on the island for shelter.
3.	Yes. The charges woi'e investigated by Daniel D. Boyd, a Commissioner under Part II of the Inquiries Act.
4.	The lightkeeper's conduct on the occasion in question cannot be justified.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are now being sold, what are the terms and conditions of sale, and will tenders be called?
2.	Why are they being sold at all, and are these ships suitable in draught for service on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes?
[DOT] 3. While in operation were the Merchant Marine (Limited) a part of an Atlantic combine in any way for an increase in freight rates?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. As proposed by the late board and recommended by the present management authority has been taken to sell twenty-seven of the smaller vessels by public tender, if satisfactory offers can be obtained, but otherwise by private sale.
2.	These vessels are too deep in draught and of wrong type for service through the St. Lawrence canals, but would be serviceable for, and some are already being made use of on the upper lakes.
3.	The management of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, maintain that they were never parties to any combine though their representative has sat in at the weekly sessions of what is known as the "North Atlantic Conference" for the stabilizing of freight rates and the ensuring of equality to all shippers.



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. COOTE:: For copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other communications passing during the summer or fall of 1922 between the Dominion government oi 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.



SANITARY CONDITIONS ON CATTLE BOATS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he noticed the statement in to-day's newspapei press that the unsanitary conditions on boat? carrying Canadian cattle to Great Britain had been the subject of discussion in the British parliament. The despatch in question said that an inspection had been made necessary by the Canadian Department of Agriculture owing to these conditions. Has the minister any knowledge of the matter? It is very necessary that this service should be carried out under the very best auspices and, if unsanitary conditions prevail on these boats, that steps should be taken to remedy them


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I saw the despatch in this morning's paper to which my hon. friend refers. I do not know that we should attach too much importance to all these despatches because of the confusion that exists between tlie authorities over there and ourselves with respect to the proper conception of the arrangement that was made last fall as to the class of animals* that were eligible to be shipped. As I understand the situation, nothing but stockers, that is non-breeding cattle and fat cattle, are eligible to go over; breeders are
Cattle Embargo

not eligible. W ith respect to the sanitary conditions on the boats engaged in carrying cattle, I understand that when the embargo first came off some vessels were put into commission rather hastily and were not up to the requirements. I expect, however, that will be remedied when these vessels take on board their second load. I did not hear exactly all that my hon. friend said. If there is any part of the question I have not answered I should like my hon. friend to repeat it.



GOVERNMENT PRINTING-INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that so long ago as April 18, a return was ordered showing the names of newspaper companies and printing companies who have received federal moneys for printing, since January 1, 1922. This return is not yet forthcoming although its preparation would not take very long. On the occasion of a former inquiry I was told that some other members had asked for some other information, but that should not in any way affect this return for which I have asked. The return is a long time overdue and it should be brought down without further delay.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: I am very sorry for this delay. The information was prepared and was all ready to present to the House last week when it was found to be somewhat inaccurate in that it did not give exactly what the hon. gentleman and others had requested. It was therefore necessary to have the return re-checked in order that the information might be accurate. I had hoped the return would be here to-day, but I feel sure that it will be forthcoming at the next, sitting of the House.



ICE IN CABOT STRAIT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HERBERT  MARKER@St. Lawrence-St. George: I should like to ask if the government is aware of the serious ice conditions which prevail in Cabot strait at the present time, greatly impeding shipping bound for the port of Montreal. I am informed on reliable authority that yesterday there were forty ships held up in that vicinity owing to ice conditions. I would like to ask the government what action, if any, it intends to take in the direction of sending the new government ice breaker to that vicinity to help shipping.
IMr. Motherwell.]


Ernest Lapointe: The ice breaker Montcalm has been dcing ice patrol duty in Cabot strait and the lower part of the gulf of St. Lawrence for the last two weeks, and the reports are that the conditions there are much more serious this year than ever before. It is true that yesterday there were approximately forty ships trying to get through the ice into the gulf of St. Lawrence, their progress being attended with great difficulty. In addition to the Montcalm the ice breaker Stanley is also in service there. The Mikula is undergoing temporary repairs in the Champlain drydock but is expected to leave for Cabot strait next Saturday. The department has been communicating with all the principal shipping companies and they agree that everything possible is being done and that the delay is due to the unusually difficult conditions of the ice this season.



CATTLE EMBARGO-MR. DUNCAN MARSHALL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: I should Ike to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a cable despatch which appeared in the daily press yesterday to the effect that Mr. Duncan Marshall our Commissioner of Agriculture, in a public speech at Dundee, Scotland, said that it is the intention of the British government to put an end to the bargain made with the Dominion of Canada with respect to the entry of cattle into Great Britain.


William Richard Motherwell: That was not my understanding of the despatch which my hon. friend refers to. May I read it Mr. Speaker?
Duncan Marshall, in a speech at Dundee, is credited with the statement that the British government is preparing to break its bargain with Canada regarding the admission of cattle. Marshall is reported as saying: "The embargo is only partly removed. The Royal Commission reports recognized cows and heifers as stores, but the government differs. The Canadian representatives came to a definite arrangement allowing and speeding the entry of cattle. My information is that the British government does not purpose to carry out the bargain. The matter will be threshed out on May 15."
I may say that I have a cable from Mr. Marshall quite to the contrary. His position is this: He is taking the ground that the arrangement entered into by my colleagues the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is the one which should be carried out. That is all that Mr. Marshall is contending for.

Combines


Mr. HANSON:: Would the minister say whether Mr. Marshall has been appointed to the position of Commissioner of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: He continues to hold the appointment which he has had from the beginning.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Has the minister ever considered the wisdom of suggesting to Mr. Marshall that he might ease up a little on his speeches in other countries affecting questions between us and those countries?


William Richard Motherwell: Whatever may be said with regard to Mr. Marshall's speeches, at all events they are absolutely accurate.



CANNED SALMON VIA PANAMA CANAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Perhaps we can now get an answer from the Minister of Customs in regard to a question I put last Monday dealing with a telegram sent by him on 16th April to the Gosse-Mil-lerd 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.


Jacques Bureau: No that is not right.


Edward Joseph Garland: Calling at
New York.


Jacques Bureau: That makes all the difference in the world.


Edward Joseph Garland: I asked for an explanation of the telegram. I wish to know by whom and on what authority that regulation was brought down.


Jacques Bureau: The regulation has existed
for years. I could not say who passed it, or under what authority it was passed. I took it as it stood and enforced it.



ICE BREAKER ON THE BAY OF FUNDY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants):: I wish to
call the attention of the government and particularly the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, (Mr. Lapointe), to the question of having an ice breaker to clear the ice from the Bay of Fundy, especially for the vessels endeavouring to come through Minas channel and basin and proceeding to the port of Windsor. For some time there have been vessels loaded with nitrate of silver at New York and other places, consigned to Windsor,
Nova Scotia. This nitrate of silver is sometimes called by the railway company a dangerous explosive; consequently it takes a higher rate of freight, and therefore, we have to ship it by water. The vessels so loaded are not accustomed to enter fields of ice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I brought the matter
to the attention of the department and asked to have the question dealt with-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Lewis Herbert Martell: My hon. friends may call "order," but they cannot put me off in that way.


Ernest Lapointe: I would be pleased to get the information for my hon. friend and give him an answer to-morrow.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Will you have an ice
breaker sent there?


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly. We are short
of ice breakers just now.



COMBINES, MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND MERGERS

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 54, to provide for an investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 2-Definition "combine:"
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
my intention to strike out the words "in the opinion of the registrar or any commissioner" after the word "as" in line 9. I offer that
amendment before we discuss the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MARLER:: Before the amendment is
carried-*


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendment is
carried.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The amendment is all right, but I suggest to the Prime Minister to alter the words "or are likely to operate," and insert in place thereof the words"or are about to operate."
A combine likely to operate is something intangible, whereas a combine about to opera: means one that has been formed, in which case there might be something tangible for the registrar to get at as being improper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The words
"or are likely to operate" are taken from section 2, subsection 1. of the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919, and I imagine that they were chosen with care at the time. I
Combines

fail to see very much distinction between the words "likely to" and "about to." I think the words "likely to" indicate the probability, and that is what should be aimed at for the purpose of investigation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Suppose that two concerns were about to get together and make their financial arrangements, and six persons, under the following section of the act, came along and said, "Oh, this concern is likely to operate as a combine, we will put a stop to it and put an end to the financial arrangement," whereas, if those two concerns had got together in such a way that there was a tangible evidence that a combine would occur, it would mean that the registrar would have some facts to go on, so that he could actually prosecute under the act. 1 am quite aware that these words are taken from the Combines and Fair Prices Act, but under that act I think the complaint had to be made in such a case to a judge. I am speaking from memory in that regard. I suggest to the minister that the words "are about to operate" indicate something tangible, something fixed, and the words "likely to operate" indicate something intangible or something not fixed, but something which might likely take place in the future.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not see very much force in what my non. friend has said. I cannot see that the use of the word "about" will alter materially what is aimed at. If it will help to reconcile my hon. friend to the section as a whole, I have no objection, if he likes to move the amendment, to have it adopted.


James Murdock: I think it would be a misfortune to change the word "likely" to the word "about." An ounce of prevention is surely worth a pound of cure, and if, as the hon. member indicates, two concerns are likely to be brought into a combination or a merger to the extent that they might, as a result, by being brought into combination, be likely to operate to the detriment of the public, the ounce of prevention is what should be used if anything is to be used, and prevention of that particular combine, if that were brought about, could be made effective. We should not wait until they have been brought together and consolidated and had a free field to see if they could evade the intention of the law. Personally, I do not think my hon. friend has anything whatever to fear. It would certainly suggest discredit on the entire intent of the act to make any such change as that, for the reason which has been given.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I can hardly follow the reasoning of the Minister of Labour. I quite realize the intent of the act. I said that I realized the intent of the act, and I voted for it. But I certainly think, as the bill now stands, to have something tangible is a great deal better than to have something intangible, and I cannot see how the amendment which I suggested to the Prime Minister does any harm, to the bill itself. I do not think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) caught the drift of my remarks.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I should like to say a word in connection with a statement made in this House by two hon. members on this side regarding an alleged fruit combine in British Columbia. I want to state definitely that no such thing as a fruit combine exists in British Columbia. There is in British Columbia an organization that is trying to get what it produces to the consumer with the least possible expense. In days gone by, certain profiteers were making as high as a dollar or a dollar and a quarter a box on fruit, whereas the people producing this fruit in British Columbia were getting only from 7 cents to SI .25 per box for raising, packing and shipping, and they did not think that was right. They have formed an organization so that they will be able to give the consumer on the prairies and in other places the best possible prices on fruit.
In connection with the bill before the committee, I should like to make one or two suggestions, and the first one is in regard to the six persons who will lay a complaint against any combine. The registrar should see that those six persons are not from any one company or concern. It would be very easy for a concern that was running in opposition to another to have six of its members lay a complaint; in fact, this would be a sort of blackmail. The law should be such that those six persons should be from six separate concerns, and when they lay a complaint, the first thing the registrar should do would be to call upon them to prove the allegation laid before him, and if need be, he should put them under oath and make them prove it. This is only reasonable. In the next place, those who do the investigating should be sworn to secrecy. They should not be at liberty to make public in any way what they may find until such time as the matter comes before the court.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under this clause, would there be a possibility of prejudicing or embarrassing the operation of a wheat board?

Combines


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If any parliament or legislature undertakes to enact a piece of legislation, I should imagine that would be a sufficient answer to any inquiry that might be made respecting its propriety.
Sestion 2 as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Registrar:


Mr. CASGRAIN:: As regards subclause (1), which relates to the appointment of a registrar, when speaking on the merits of the bill, I said that I thought a lawyer of a certain number of years' experience at the bar should be the registrar. ' I would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister if he would have any objection to considering my proposition now, that such registrar shall be a lawyer of at least ten years' standing at the bar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 1 think the government will have to take the responsibility for the appointment it makes, and I imagine that it will be wise to leave with the government the discretion that may be necessary in the matter of the appointment itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Application for investigation of alleged combine.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: l intimated
also another amendment that I would ask to have inserted with respect to this clause. The amendment is to the effect of lequiring the application for an investigation to be made by six persons, British subjects, resident in Canada. I beg to move:
That clause 5 be amended by striking out lines 8 and 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"Any six persons, British subjects, resident in Canada of the full age of twentv-one years who are of the opinion that a combine exists, or is being" and also by striking out lines 14, 15 and 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"showing: (a) the names and addresses of the applicants, and at their election the name and address of any of their number or any attorney, solicitor or counsel whom he may, for the purpose of' '
Then in line 18, by striking out the word "him", and substituting for the word "him", the word "them".


Mr. McMASTER:: I should be glad to have an explanation why the benefits of this law should be restricted to British subjects. I think it is the sentiment and tradition amongst our people that any person domiciled in Canada should be protected in the exercise of his legal rights and should have free recourse to the courts. There are some jurisdictions, for instance, where aliens are not allowed to hold real estate. I think that is the case in
the state of New York; but that has not been the case, so far as I am aware, in any province qf Canada, and I do not see that the bill is in any way improved by restricting the class of persons who may make a complaint. Take, for instance, the case of a citizen of the United States, whose business has brought him to Canada, who has lived here for many years, whose interests are here, but who, through sentimental or other reasons, has hopes in his old age to return to the United States and who has never ceased to be a citizen of that country. Why should such a man as that be precluded from laying a complaint under this law? I see no reason for the change, though, perhaps, the Prime Minister, who is in charge of the bill, may have some weighty reasons which may show me that I am wrong in my view. The principle I would lay down is this, that this is in the nature of a judicial inquiry, and the courts are and should be open to all dwellers in this land who are behaving themselves in a seemly fashion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The clause as originally drafted stated that any person resident in Canada might make an application for an investigation. That was thought to be too broad, and for that reason the words "six persons" were substituted. The addition of the words "British subjects" was simply to ensure a little more care as to putting this legislation into operation. As my hon. friend knows, there are large numbers of foreigners who are domiciled in Canada, who are not wholly familiar with our laws, institutions, and methods of proceeding, and it is conceivable that, for reasons more of agitation than otherwise, some of them might be persuaded to endeavour to set this particular law in motion simply because it is so easy for the individual to do so. I should think, if any six persons in the country who are not British subjects, really had ground for believing that a combine existed which was operating in restraint of trade or to the detriment of the public, they would find very little difficulty in securing six other citizens who were British subjects to make the application on their behalf. I do not believe it will really affect the freedom, the liberty or the right of anyone in any material significance, and if it tends to give a sense of greater security to some of those who fear that there is too much latitude in the law as it stands, I think it is advisable to retain the words "British subject."


Herbert Meredith Marler: If the Prime Minister has no objection, I would suggest that in line 11
261S
Combines

the word "shall" be substituted for the word "may" and that in line 13 there be inserted before the word "statement" the word "sworn."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to the first suggested amendment, of substituting the word "shall" in line 11 of section 5 for the word "may."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herbert Meredith Marler: I suggest further that the section be amended to read:
The application shall be accompanied by a sworn statement showing, etc.
As the section stands, a mere statement, without any qualification, is required.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to be governed by the wishes of the committee in this particular, but I do not think we should make it difficult for an application to be submitted. The purpose of the legislation is to give to the citizens of the country a feeling of assurance that there is an avenue of approach against any possible injustice, and to make that approach as easy as possible. The registrar would have to be satisfied himself that the application put before him was one deserving of that careful consideration which the law would expect, and one that merited an investigation, before anything further could be done. The fact that the application must be sworn to might make it more difficult for some persons to apply. If however the committee thinks that the suggested change is advisable I shall be prepared to consider it, but I rather hesitate to compel people who are not accustomed to taking oaths to submit to such an obligation in a matter of this kind. I should be glad to have an expression of opinion from the committee.


Robert Forke: A statement over the signature of six persons is definite enough without being sworn to.


Mr. PUTNAM:: The amendment my hon. friend proposes might, I think, be out of joint with subsection (a) of section 17 which gives the registrar or any commissioner power to exact an affidavit or a written affirmation at any stage of the proceedings.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Registrar shall cause inquiry to be made:


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It might be well, if the Prime Minister sees no objection to the proposal, to have this section amended in accordance with a provision in the Immigration Act which I shall read to the committee.

The hearing of all cases brought before such board of inquiry shall be separate and apart from the public, but in the presence of the immigrant, passenger or other person concerned whenever practicable, and such immigrant, passenger or other person shall have the right to be represented by counsel whenever any evidence or testimony touching the case is received by the board.
I think that the accused should have the right to be represented by counsel whenever any evidence or testimony touching the case is received by the registrar, and that he should have the right to adduce evidence on his own behalf. A similar privilege is accorded immigrants who come into the country and in regard to whom the question of deportation is under consideration. If we do this much for persons who are not citizens, surely we can give a citizen accused under this legislation the right to be present and to be represented by counsel. If the accused were represented by counsel and gave certain explanations to the registrar, or if certain officials of his company were given an opportunity to explain matters fully, it might well be that the registrar would consider such explanation satisfactory and that further investigation might be avoided. This happens frequently in connection with inquiries under the Immigration Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point of view which my hon. friend presents suggests that the persons complained against as belonging to a combine that is operating to the dertiment of the public are in the position of defendants or accused. I think that is a wholly erroneous assumption. The fact that a representation is made by six persons that some particular concern is a combine operating to the detriment of the public does not place the persons involved in that alleged combine in the position of defendants or accused until, after an investigation by the registrar and after an investigation by the commissioner, and at the instance of the attorney general of the province or the Solicitor General of the Dominion, they are brought into court as having violated a section of the act which we shall discuss later. At that stage it would be quite proper that the persons about to be placed on trial should have the right to be represented by counsel and have all the protection that the law can give them. But for the purpose of a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there are prima facie reasons for believing that a combine exists and is operating to the detriment of the public, I think that the more freedom that is left to the registrar to make that preliminary investigation, the better. It goes without saying that the first act of the registrar would be to bring

Combines
before him the persons against whom the particular complaint is directed. It is conceivable that some of the applications might on the face of them be of such a character that he would dismiss them without going thus far, that is to say, if they were frivolous or vexatious. On the other hand, I cannot conceive of an investigation proceeding a single stage without the registrar getting immediately into touch with the persons against whom the complaint is made. I do not think it would be wise to introduce the lawyers at that early stage of the proceedings.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was not speaking on behalf of the lawyers.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Is the Prime Minister of opinion that the registrar has to be satisfied with the prima facie proof adduced, or does he think that it is imperative that he make an inquiry whether or not he is satisfied with that preliminary proof? It does seem to me, from a reading of the action, that the registrar is bound to make an inquiry into the matter, or have the commissioner make the inquiry, whether he is satisfied or not with the preliminary proof adduced. That is the point I raised a day or so ago. I said that if the registrar had any shadow of proof before him-I, did not care what the proof of the six persons was-then there was no objection to his proceeding to investigate any business. But I did think it was a mistake to make it incumbent on the registrar to examine into a business before he was satisfied in the initial stages that there was something wrong. If the Prime Minister would consider that point I should be glad to have his opinion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the registrar must proceed up to the point where he is satisfied that either the complaint is frivolous or vexatious and without sufficient foundation or that there is substantial ground for believing that the representations are accurate. It should be left to the discretion of the registrar to proceed in the matter so far as satisfying himself one way or the other. That is all that the section requires. It does not propose that the registrar shall start a full-fledged investigation involving wide and extensive examinations if on the face of things there appears no ground for anything of the kind. On the other hand, if the application does contain representations which make it advisable for the registrar to go pretty carefully into the case before reporting to the minister, he will doubtless proceed as far as the circumstances seem to warrant.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Is it not the case in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman that the
registrar under this section would have to investigate the books of the concern or make such reasonable inquiry to establish whether or not the complaint was vexatious or not? How could he determine otherwise? The point I am drawing to the attention of the right hon. gentleman is this, that after the word "registrar" in the second line a few words should be inserted to show that after sufficient proof had been adduced to the satisfaction of the registrar he would proceed to make an investigation. As the section now stands I think the registrar has no option but to make an investigation to determine whether the complaint is frivolous or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will look at the words in line 31:
-as he shall consider necessary to inquire into with the view of determining whether a combine exists-
Those words ought to meet what my hon. friend has in mind. If the registrar thinks it necessary to carry the investigation to a certain point to satisfy his own mind, he is at liberty to do so. If by a brief examination he feels quite satisfied that the combine does not exist, then he need not pursue the inquiry any further. But the responsibility is his to say that he has looked into the matter and found that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the combine is operating to the detriment of the public. Having that responsibility, he ought to be permitted to judge how far he should carry his investigation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In that case the registrar would be bound to make an investigation, which might be of considerable extent, to determine whether the allegations made were frivolous or not. I do not think there is any doubt about that. In other words, the registrar would have to go into the company's books and make an examination of its affairs no matter whether the allegations were wholly frivolous or not. Under this section
4 p.m. the registrar would be bound to take that course in order first of all to satisfy himself whether the complaint was well grounded. That is the objection I urged a couple of days ago, and I think it is still in the bill as it stands now. I am not asking that the discretion of the registrar shall be circumscribed by any rules, but that he should have produced what in his opinion is reasonable proof before he makes any investigation and puts a business to all the disturbance that this would involve.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course, my hon. friend must assume that the person who is appointed as registrar will be a man of character and judgment and will act accord-
Combines

ingly. By way of illustration, I might be allowed to assume for a moment that my hon. friend was appointed a registrar under this section, and a complaint was brought before him. The responsibility would be his to decide whether there were grounds for believing that a certain combination was acting to the detriment of the public. In that regard he would use his judgment as to the class of people who appeared before him and as to the representations they made in deciding how far it was necessary to go in verifying their representations. He would not necessarily at once institute an inquiry into all the ramifications of the business before satisfying his mind that such inquiry was essential. I think a great deal is unnecessarily made of the effects of inquiries of this kind. It does not follow that concerns are going to be prosecuted because they are given an opportunity of explaining a certain situation, and that is practically what all the preliminary investigations of this character amount to. I should think a combination that is conducting its business in a fair and honest way would welcome a chance of coming before the registrar.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Providing the registrar is
myself.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Providing the
registrar is my hon. friend. Perhaps while the government may not be able to secure any one for the position so much to its liking as my hon. friend, it will endeavour to get a registrar who will commend himself to the hon. member.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) might be made registrar.


Edward Joseph Garland: You might do worse-probably will.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The Prime Minister suggested if I was appointed registrar under this act what I would do. There is only one thing I could do-I would have to make an investigation of the company's books to determine in my opinion whether the complaint was frivolous or not. Under the section as it now reads I would have no alternative.


James Murdock: Mr. Chairman I
certainly never understood the section in the sense stated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler). The words in line 26, "shall have reason to believe," seem to me simply to place in the hands of the registrar the responsibility of determining what he shall do.


Herbert Meredith Marler: May I interrupt the hon.
minister? Will he please read a few lines further down?


James Murdock: (Reading):
-that a combine exists or is being formed, or whenever so directed by the minister,-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Will the minister please
read the next few words?


James Murdock: (Reading):
-the registrar shall cause an inquiry to be made-


Herbert Meredith Marler: Precisely.


James Murdock: Precisely. He
shall cause an inquiry to be madeif in accordance with line 26, he-
-shall have reason to believe that a combine exists-
And do not let us dodge the real facts now or try to misquote something that is not in the section.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not misquoting.


James Murdock: He
shall cause an inquiry to be madeif heshall have reason to believe that a combine exists detrimental to the public.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. minister is reading the section backwards. If he reads it forward he can come to no other conclusion than that which I have stated.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the clause carry?


James Murdock: I think, Mr. Chairman, this is an important clause and should be cleared up, because I have been entirely in error so far if this section contains anything such as is suggested by the hon. member. My understanding all along has been that it was contemplated that an honest-to-goodness-business-square-dealing man would be appointed as registrar with some authority under this bill to utilize ordinary business common sense in deciding that there was real substantial ground to institute an inquiry, and that in no other case would he start in to make an investigation that might be inconvenient or embarrassing to some business concern. If the registrar is going to do even one tithe of what the hon. gentleman suggests, he certainly will be a busy man.
Mr. MARLER' He will be.


James Murdock: He would be if he attempted to investigate all business concerns in Canada. I do not think anything such as is suggested can be injected into the bill.

Combines


Mr. HEALY:: I read this section in exactly the same way as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George:
Whenever such application shall be made to the registrarthen you can skip the next three lines and continue
the registrar shall cause an inquiry to be made.
It seems to me that it is compulsory there for the registrar to make an inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friends will look at the next section they will see pretty clearly by the very first words what is intended:
If after such inquiry as he deems the circumstances warrant, the registrar is of the opinion that the
application is frivolous or vexatious,-
That is the extent to which the registrar is expected to go. He must satisfy his own mind having regard to the circumstances, and the inquiry that he is to make is clearly such inquiry as he deems the circumstances warrant. That is the whole purpose of the section.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think the Prime Minister is thinking of the second inquiry. I am speaking of the preliminary inquiry. That [DOT]is the only one I have ever taken exception to. I have not taken exception to the second inquiry at all. If the registrar is satisfied by the preliminary inquiry that there is a combine, an injury being done, I have never said that he should not go on. I think he should. I am entirely in accord with the Prime Minister's viewpoint there. But the one point I have made, as has been stressed a few moments ago is, notwithstanding what my hon. friend the Minister of Labour says, that section 6 makes it absolutely imperative for the registrar to make an inquiry. The Prime Minister, a few moments ago asked, if you were a registrar what would you do? I would have absolutely no alternative but to go into the combines themselves and make an investigation of these facts to find out whether the allegations and the complaints made were frivolous or not. However, I have spoken long enough on this subject.


Mr. BOYS:: I agree entirely with my hon friend (Mr. Marler). I think reference to section 6 will show that there are three things contemplated by that section. The first is the inquiry to be made by the registrar upon receipt of application. Secondly, the registrar himself if he has reason to believe a combine exists can start an inquiry of his own accord, and thirdly, the minister if he sees fit, can set the. machinery in motion. I do
not think the lines referred to by the Minister of Labour "or whenever the registrar shall have reason to believe" are coupled at all with the first line. He seems to think that when the application is received the registrar pauses to consider, and after doing some considering, if he thinks there is reason to believe a combine exists, he proceeds. I think the minister is reading it entirely wrong. It is perfectly obvious that there are three distinct provisions. If I am wrong in that I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should consider an amendment to the section, for certainly it is open to that construction without any doubt. Let us read it again:
Whenever such application shall be made to the registrar-
That is one thing. Then he must proceed to make the inquiry referred to, and furthermore he may require returns to be made under oath and so on. That is one thing. Next comes this:
-whenever the registrar shall have reason to believe that a combine exists or is being formed-
He may set the law in motion. Or third, the minister may set the law in motion. If that is not the intention I would respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister had better reframc the section for I feel certain that the language is not capable of any other interpretation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It has been suggested to me-it is not my own suggestion-that after the word "registrar" instead of the word "or" the word "and" be used. The section would then read:
Whenever such application shall be made to the registrar, and whenever the registrar shall have reason to believe that a combine exists or is being formed, etc.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Does not that go further than the hon. member intends? That would shut off any initiative on the part of the registrar, and I do not think that he means to go as far as that. Of course, the real trouble about this bill is that those who are chiefly in favour of it have not taken the time to find out what it does mean. The hon. Minister of Labour is just as right in his contentions on this clause as he has been in the whole of his main argument. He is keeping up his batting average. He is one hundred ' per cent wrong exactly, no more and no less. I do not know that it makes very much difference. After all, this is only a start. The government are satisfied with the bill; let them have it. They think it is all right; let them have it. We have tried to point out how absurd these things are, but they do not want
Combines

any assistance, none at all, so why should we delay the proceedings one way or the other. Of course, if English means what English is supposed to mean, if these written words are to be taken not as a joke from the Department of Labour but as meaning just exactly what they are supposed to mean, the hon. gentleman who has raised this point is absolutely right.
I want to ask a further question. Can my right hon. friend give us any light as to what the words "or others" mean in this same section? I admit we have had one explanation from the Minister of Labour, and 1 must congratulate him upon that. In that explanation he again kept up his batting average. I think his explanation was again one hundred per cent error, because he tells us that the reason that the words "or others" are put in there is this, that these eombinesters sometimes are so clever that they can take the position that they are neither producers nor consumers, and they therefore are "others," so that the word "others" according to the minister means them.


James Murdock: The hon. gentleman is misquoting me, as he will find if he refers to the record.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We will see just what he says. Here it is:
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 "eombinesters" were engaged, that if these 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.
Now my hon. friend will say that the word "others," is put in because these people that are eombinesters can say: We are neither producers nor consumers. Perhaps I had better pause here to ask the minister if I did not read his statement right.


James Murdock: That part of it which you read I think was read right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the only thing I am referring to, that and nothing else. My hon. friend will say that the word "others" there is put in for the purpose of protecting these wicked people from themselves. They may say they are not producers, or they may say that they are not consumers. They are in a combine and that combine may be hurting themselves, and that is the reason the word "others" is in there. That is the explanation given. I am quite sure that my right hon. friend will say that that is not his reason,

but that is the only reason we have been given up to date. I think we should be given some sane, logical reason as to why the word "others" is there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can give my hon. friend a reason that he will accept. He himself is partly responsible for the insertion of those words, and I think that reason was given and given by the Minister of Labour yesterday. My hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) has only to ask his own leader and to consider what he did when he was a member of the government to discover where those words came from. I have in front of me the Combines and Fair Prices Act of 1919, which was passed when my hon. friend was a member of the government, and the language of that act is as follows:
The expression "combine" is used in this act with intended relation to articles of commerce, and it shall be deemed to have reference only to such combines, immediately hereinafter defined, as, with relation as aforesaid, have, in the opinion of the Board of Commerce of Canada (or of a single member thereof acting under authority of and for the purposes of section eight of this act) operated, or are likely to operate, to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, consumers, producers or others-
That is the language that my hon. friend was responsible for putting in the statute which was passed relating to combines. The present administration is seeking to take from previous legislation what was best and most effective in it and omit what seemed to be superfluous and unnecessary, and therefore retains those words. I confess I did not see that they had any great significance until 1 heard the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) yesterday draw the attention of the House to the fact-or rather ask the question -*was an insurance company a consumer or producer, was a transportation company a consumer or producer. He said he could not tell. Well, the purpose of this bill is to protect any section of the public, whether transportation companies, insurance companies, or anyone else. That is the reason why the words "or others" are inserted there and should be kept there. I hope my hon. friend will feel that, inasmuch as he has been partly responsible for the insertion of these words in a similar enactment perhaps there is great wisdom in their being included there.
As to the other point which has just been mentioned, let me say to my hon. friend that when he intimates the government is not anxious to receive any assistance that can be given he is quite in error, the government will welcome any assistance. What the government hopes will be avoided is unnecessary criticism, obstruction simply for the purpose

C ombines
of obstruction. Nothing of the kind has been shown. But I would certainly like my hon friend and every member of the House to feel, that the government will welcome any suggestion, any assistance in making this bill as perfect as it can be made. It is a very difficult question and will require all the expert advice it is possible to offer.
Just before I leave the section we are referring to let me read the provisions one by one. First of all there is this provision:
Whenever such application shall be made to the registrar-
That is the first condition if one wishes to put it so. Then:
-or whenever the registrar shall have reason to believe that a combine exists or is being formed-
That is the second.
-or whenever so directed by the minister-
That is the third. Now continuing-
-the registrar shall cause an inquiry to be made-
I think that is, perhaps, where the fear of hon. members arises. They have a fear of the word "inquiry," they attach to it a significance which the rest of the language of the section does not justify. "Cause an inquiry to be made" does not mean that the registrar shall institute a large and extensive inquiry, going into all the business transactions of a company in a formal manner. If one reads the rest of the section one will see what is meant. Let me continue:
-cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters whether of fact or of law with respect to the said alleged combine as he shall consider necessary-
The whole of it is limited by what the registrar himself shall consider necessary to inquire into with a view of determining whether a combine exists. He is not expected to go and find out how far the combine could operate; and by the word "combine" there, reference, of course, is to a combine as defined by the act which is a combine operating to the detriment of the public. He proceeds to inquire with a view to determining whether a combine operating to the detriment of the public exists or not. Now the very next section, which still refers to the registrar says:
It, after suoli inquiry as he deems the circumstances warrant, the registrar is of the opinion that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or does not justify further inquiry he shall make a report in writing to the minister setting out the application, the statement or statements, the inquiry made and the information obtained, and his conclusions.
It is perfectly clear that the whole purpose of the section is simply to appoint some person who will receive applications and whose duty it will be to act in much the same manner
as a grand jury acts in regard to matters that are drawn to its attention to discover whether there are grounds sufficient to merit an inquiry of a more elaborate character being gone into. I think if my hon. friend will read the two sections just as they are in plain English he will find it difficult to come to any other conclusion.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is quite true that the words in question can be found somewhere else, but I apprehend the draftsman had some reason for what he was doing, There is a good deal of difference between two acts. Words and definitions, and the like, change as acts or as objects change. That I think the right hon. gentleman must know. It is perfectly idle to say to me that I should know all about it, for frankly I do not. I thought this was really the hobby of my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King). I thought he would know the use of every single word in this bill. I am very much surprised to learn that instead of knowing anything about it he simply says "We have gone through your ^legislation and we have taken all the good we can find in it, dropping the unnecessary clauses." That is discarding the most ingenious although highly fallacious explanation given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock). The Prime Minister is driven to this point, that knowing nothing about it and having no other reason to offer, he is forced to accept a suggestion made by this side of the House. Well, I think, perhaps, we shall have to let it go at that.


James Murdock: I would draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the Minister of Labour on 27th January, 1920, knew entirely too much to suit my hon. friend about these things.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have had so many funny things-and they generally come from the same funny source-they are coming along from time to time. I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to. He is a creator of jokes as well as a great investigator.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not of jokes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Sometimes the investigation was a joke. There was one supreme joker investigated.


James Murdock: You are a splendid judge of jokers, you are the king of them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I might tell my hon. friend what splendid investigations are sometimes made. He has given us a certain

Combines

date. That date reminds me of one of his startling discoveries made during the last election when he found that a whole carload of 45,000 pounds of campaign literature had ben sent from Ottawa to help me in the West York campaign.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is getting out of order; he is wandering from the immediate consideration of
clause 6.


James Murdock: Who started that, a
Tory?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh, no; the hon. gentleman knows where it started.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend knows very well. I thought this came up as the result of a question that the hon. gentleman put to me.


George Newcombe Gordon: The fact that the hon. member is asked a question does not justify wandering from the subject.


Arthur Meighen: Is the investigation^to be secret or public?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Secret, or
rather I should say private.


Arthur Meighen: So the sun does not commence to shine just yet?


Mr. GOOD:: Will the Prime Minister allow a suggestion as to wording which I think will make the meaning of the section a little clearer? I would suggest putting in the word "such" before the word "and" in line 29, and delete the words "to inquire into" in line 31, to that the section will then read:
The registrar shall cause such an inquiry to be made into all such matters whether of fact or of law with respect to the said alleged combine as he shall consider necessary with the view of determiningand so on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think thpt would alter the meaning. However, I have no objection to using it if the committee think that is oetter phrasing.


William Alves Boys: I gather from the remarks of the Prime Minister that he does not agree with the construction placed upon the first two lines of this section by the Minister of Labour, but it would be well to make sure of that. If I understood the Minister of .Labour rightly, he really read the section as if the word "or" were "and"; but if I interpret, the remarks of the Prime Minister correctly he does not intend that the word "or"
fSir Henry Drayton.]
should have the effect of the word "and" at all, and there are three distinct propositions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


William Alves Boys: If the Minister of Labour is right in his view, there is no question that when you receive the application you then must go a step further and the registrar must have reason to believe a combine exists. I do not think that was the intention, and I see that the Prime Minister does not think that is the intention of it either.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Labour said he never could agree to that meaning. Is he going to resign?


James Murdock: Not at the present moment. That would be too entirely satisfying to my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It might be a good thing for the country.


James Murdock: I respectfully decline to resign. It seems as though it is really necessary for me to explain my position a little further. I do not take any exception whatever to the statement made by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys); but I hold that, under any reasonable and consistent application of the first words of that section, where six gentlemen had made an application to the registrar, if he had, as it is presumed he might have, absolute knowledge of the conditions in effect with regard to the particular matters as to which representations were made, and if he, therefore, had reason substantially to know that there was nothing in it, he would certainly indicate that fact to those who were making the appeal. So that surely, if the registrar is to be a responsible officer acting under the direction of a responsible minister, the general question would be to determine what would be "reasonable knowledge" before proceeding, or to determine that there was no necessity to proceed. That is the reason why I said that it should be surely determined by the words "shall have reasonable knowledge," because in the final analysis, in any case, so far as the registrar is concerned, that would be the determining factor for the registrar in judging how far he might proceed.


William Alves Boys: The point was that if the application is once made the registrar is obliged to act whether he wants to or not, and in making that observation I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to what he next proposes under section 8. The registrar requires a return under oath, with the production of all agreements, contracts, and so on, and he does this on his own initiative.

Combines
1 would not object if that were done on the direction of the minister, but it seems to me it is an extensive power to give a registrar who is in one sense responsible to no one. All he has to do when he gets the application is to call for a return upon oath from the party against whom the allegation is made, and then they have to supply the vast amount of information provided for by this section, and return all contracts and agreements, and so on. My own idea would be that this is too much power to give any registrar. If the minister thought it necessary to call for that, I would not object.


James Murdock: Does section 7 not provide that the minister shall determine this question?


William Alves Boys: No. It provides only one thing, and that is that, if the registrar conies to the conclusion that there is not sufficient ground, he then reports the matter to the minister; who then considers it, and if he agrees with the registrar, he in t^rn gives his reasons for his conclusions to the applicant. On the other hand, as part of that inquiry- I may be reading the act wrongly, but I do not think I am-whether it is the minister or the registrar, or the six individuals, the registrar calls for an extensive return on oath. I say that is a tremendous power to give a registrar.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We can discuss section 8 when we come to it.


William Alves Boys: It has to be discussed in connection with this section, because so long as you leave the words "or whenever the registrar shall have reason to believe a combine exists," you give him that power, and having that power, he proceeds as outlined in the following section. I am quite prepared to discuss. that section when we reach it, but it is quite proper at this stage to refer to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think if the act is to have any virtue, you must give to the ^gistrar all the powers he might find necessary to satisfy his mind as to the applications made. The charge that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has made against this measure is that it has no teeth in it of any character. I think he added that it had no claws. My hon. friend wants to take away apparently all the little i ower that is given to the registrar. I think unless you give the registrar some opportunity of getting any information you render his position one of absolute futility.
167i


William Alves Boys: I think you should sink your teeth in the result, and not in the preliminary investigation. In the preliminary steps teeth are not so essential.


Mr. BIRD:: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say this section gives the registrar the power to begin an inquiry on his own initiative?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: That is apart from any previous proceeding?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, if he believes there is a combine in restraint of trade.


Thomas William Bird: From information he has acquired himself?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Thomas William Bird: Would he be expected to exercise surveillance over the conduct of business in general on behalf of the public?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think he would probably find his time would be very well taken up simply discharging the duties the act places upon him without attempting any general supervision of business.


Thomas William Bird: I asked that question because it seemed to me almost vital that he should be expected to exercise some degree of surveillance over the business that he is concerned with. I understand from the tenor of the right hon. mfember's speech on this matter, that the registrar would be appointed as a guardian of the rights of the public. The history of the guardians of the public is instructive. The guardian of the rights of the public unfoirtunately occupies a delicate position. That is, he takes up his position on lines that divide the public from their would-be exploiters, and I recall to mind the history of the guardians of the poor in the history of the British Poor law. Originally guaidians were instituted with human motives in regard to the rights of the poor, but. eventually they degenerated into guardians of the taxpayers, and were always on their guard against the encroachments of the poor. It seems to me to be vital, and in fact I do not see that any other part of this act is at all vital as compared with that part which delimits the functions of the would-be guardian. If this registrar is simply placed there to take the buffet and absorb the shock of public complaint ere it reaches the foot of the throne, I do not think there is very much in this legislation after all, and I would very much prefer that this registrar were given certain police powers, powers of surveillance, so that his
Combines

spare time might be employed on behalf of the people as agaiDst their would-be exploiters. My prophecy is that unless that is done his position will degenerate into that of a guardian of the exploiters of the people, and will not maintain its original intention of being a guardian of the people themselves.
I offer that as a criticism of this bill. It is all right to be precise and exact about the incidentals, but when you come to define the functions of the man or the person who is to carry out the law you are touching its nerve. Therein lies the whole work. The registrar, whoever he may be, will be exposed to much influence from the public. Any motion that comes from the public will be now and then and here and there, scattered and pretty much ineffective. It will not be concerted. The powers that will move upon him from above will not be of that kind. They will be concerted, concentrated; and woe to the man if his duties are not defined and if those duties are not so defined as to make it beyond any peradventure that he is placed there on behalf of the public. I wish the committee to note that that was the sole motive for introducing this legislation-that the public should be safeguarded from this menace that exists from growing combines. The whole intention of the legislation is defeated to begin with if you do not so state-put it in the bond-that this registrar is placed there purely for public reasons, for the public benefit, and not in any way to absorb the effect of public complaint before it reaches the point where it can be effectively heard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the fact
that any liberty is given to any six individuals to bring to the attention of an officer of the government a matter which, they believe, affects the public in a detrimental manner, is not sufficient in the way of supervision in the public interest, I doubt very much if more effective supervision could be found in giving to one government officer the general business of going around and hunting for grievances and difficulties. What my hon. friend suggests would lead only to an expectation on the part of the people, of interference with business in a manner which would hardly be in the public interest itself.


Harold Putnam: To revert to a minor matter, I must support the suggestion of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) that the word
"such" be inserted in line 29 before the word "and." This will not alter the meaning in any degree, and it will make good language. The word "such" is rather obviously omitted.
I Mr. Bird.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have the
word "such" appearing six or seven times in the one sentence. That does not affect the meaning.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Registrar to report to minister on inquiry; minister to decide whether further inquiry shall be made.
Mr. CARROLL:: Has the Prime Minister
taken into consideration the suggestion I made the other evening regarding the finality of the minister's decision in matters of this kind, whether or not, after he has read the evidence sent up by the registrar, he will place the matter before the attorney general of the province? I would think, unless the minister who will have charge of this matter is the Minister of Justice, there might possibly be an appeal to the Minister of Justice or to the members of the government. The reasons I gave for that were that if the minister who w'ould function under this measure were a layman, he might, perhaps, not be just in a position to understand the nature and weight of evidence as well as the Minister of Justice or members of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any action of the minister would be action on the part of the members of the government. I think that will cover the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Power of registrar to investigate and to enter and examine premises, books, etc.:
Mr. LEWIS:: Is this power of investigation limited to the registrar himself, or can ha appoint anyone to conduct the investigation? The clause does not say anything about anyone whom the registrar may appoint for the purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: J presume the registrar would have in that regard just the same powers that a judge would have in making an investigation. Some things which it might be impossible for him to investigate personally, he might detail an officer to work out for him; but the responsibility for the investigation must be with the registrar himself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Governor in Council may appoint commissioners to hold investigations:
Arthur Meighen: I presume, under clause 7, if the minister orders another investigation, the registrar has to go on and make another

Combines
investigation. The bill does not say so, but that is clearly presumable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Clause 7 reads:
Whether further inquiry shall or shall not be made.
I think the further inquiry there rather refers to an inquiry by the commissioner than by the registrar.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister orders a further inquiry, he further inquires. Will this, further inquiry be private or public?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it will still remain private unless hon. gentlemen wish to change the drafting of the law.


Arthur Meighen: I am waiting to see when the sun comes out, that the minister referred to yesterday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just as soon as the bill passes.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This clause refers to the commissioner. I think this would be the proper moment to suggest the amendment which I tried to introduce before, that the man appointed should be a lawyer of ten years' standing at the bar, or a judge of the Superior Court in the province in which the inquiry is to be held. I understand there might be some objection in the case of a registrar, because a registrar would more likey be an officer such as we call a protho-notary, or an officer of the court. When the question is one of appointing a commissioner who is going to go outside, in a larger territory and wider field, to investigate matters, he ought to be a lawyer of a certain number of years' standing at the bar, say, with the number of years' standing necessary to be a judge, or a judge of the Superior Court. Under the old act of 1910, it was always a judge who was president of the board. A board comprising Mr. Justice Laurendeau, of Montreal, Mr. Walsh and, a lawyer, I think, a Mr. White, conducted the only investigation that took place at that time. In this case, the amendment that I suggest might have its raison d'etre, and it ought to be adopted by the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend stops to consider the class of persons who have been appointed on royal commissions, he will see the wisdom, possibly, of not limiting the individuals just to members of the legal profession. No doubt members of the legal profession have some special qualifications; but there might be cases pertaining to industry in its various branches in which an individual who was more or less familiar with
the particular industry or allied business, might be a more suitable man to conduct the investigation than a member of the legal profession. The government will have to take the responsibility for its appointments in that regard. Appointments will be made by the Governor in Council, and I think my hon. friend may feel that care will be exercised in .the selections made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Another knock at the lawyers.


Mr. GOULD:: I suggest to the hon. gentleman who so frequently offers amendments in favour of the lawyers that it is quite unfair that he should advance arguments so often in support of class legislation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is not class legislation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are my right hon. friend's ideas as to the remuneration that will be paid the commissioners to be appointed, and also the registrar? The bill may be useful although we think it is too much emasculated to be of use. However, we hope it will be useful to some extent at least. It may also be turned into a beautiful mess of patronage and prove a waste of money, and I think the House has a right to know now what the views of the cabinet are in regard to the remuneration of these gentlemen, whether you call them commissioners or anythirg else. The usual practice in the past has been to select the prosecuting attorney of the district, who is accustomed to elucidate facts aDd is familiar with search warrants, the seizure of papers and so forth, for such duties as are here contemplated. If that plan were adopted, although the government might rob 'tself of the opportunity to reward a few more Liberal politicians wjio are not yet satisfied, the country would be very greatly benefited by a very much reduced scale of costs in the appointment of persons who have been accustomed to look after this sort of thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may have noticed that the bill gives power to the government to name some individual who already holds a position in the public service to act as registrar or, if the circumstances seem to necessitate it, to make a separate appointment; and I should think that for the class of wo:k expected of the registrar, and having regard to the character of the man who would fill the position he would correspond very nearly to a deputy minister and the salary would be proportionate. As to the amount to be allowed the commis-
2G28
Combines

sioners, I should think that what has been the average in the case of royal commissions would possibly be the amount that the government would think proper for these officers. 1 have no final judgment on that point, but I am sure that in fixing the amount the government will bear in mind its responsibility to parliament for such expenditures as it may find necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the average allowed royal commissioners? I confess I do not know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: About 830 a day-it varies between 820 and $40-with necessary expenses. Some commissions have gone much higher than that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What my hon.
friend has in mind is an amount between $20 and $40?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING- Yes.


Robert Forke: What the bon. member for West York wants to know, I suppose, is how much it will take to satisfy disgruntled politicians.


Samuel William Jacobs: It depends on how disgruntled they are


William Alves Boys: Would the appointment of the registrar be for life or for ten years as in the case of the Railway Commission? On what basis will he be appointed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a basis similar to other members of the Civil Service.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Prime Minister really think that the registrar in this position, with the powers he has under the act, if it does not become a dead letter, should be a creature of the government, subject to dismissal at any time by the government? Should he not be in the position of members of the Civil Service Commission, or of the Railway Commission, or of the late Board of Commerce?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is very desirable that whoever is appointed should feel that there is some certainty of permanency about the position so long as his duties are being performed in a satisfactory manner, and I should hope that if the government ever changed, the government succeeding would retain in office whomsoever might be appointed provided he filled the office satisfactorily. I do not know that the expression "r nature of the government" is wholly a proper one to use in reference to an appointment of this kind. I think the

government would be fully aware of its responsibility to the public and to parliament in the matter of such an appointment and would seek to appoint someone whose standing in the community commended itself to the people. The government would be the first to recognize that the effect of a measure of this kind wou'd depend on the character of the men who had to do with its administration.


Arthur Meighen: That does not answer my point. If 'what the Prime Minister says is right and applies generally, then judges should be appointed on the same basis. If the government can always be relied on never to dismiss anyone for selfish reasons, if the government is always of the nature depicted by some hon. gentlemen yesterday-virtuous and right no matter what issues from it-then, of course, the Prime Minister's position is defensible. But, judging from some appointments that this government has made if one may not judge from anything else, I must say that my faith in that regard has been rudely shattered.


Mr. CAHILL:: Did you ever have faith in this government?


Arthur Meighen: I can say that I have had more than I have now.


James Murdock: Your government made mistakes, too.


Arthur Meighen: We appointed strong Liberals, and I do not know that we ever made a greater mistake than that relating to the hon. gentleman who interrupted me. If I am ever forgiven for that I shall be safe for all time. Now, I do not myself anticipate- I give my opinion for what it is worth, of course-that this registrar will have very much to do. He will have one job a month; about the end of each month he will have a small task. He may possibly have a little w-ork in between if the act is put into operation and does not become a dead letter; but practically speaking he will have one job a month. If these great inquiries that are supposed to take place are to be of the nature of the sun that dispels thieves and robbers and unworthy things, according to King Richard II in Shakespeare, if these inquiries are to act as a sun to clear away the germs that the	Prime	Minister mentioned yesterday, there will have, of course, to be an operation of the act. But the registrar sitting in his office will not be any such sun. Anyone who suggests, for example, that the Combines Investigation Act operated as a preventive must have a great imagination.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was a registrar under the Combines Investigation Act.


Arthur Meighen: He had a fine sinecure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was a deputy minister.


Arthur Meighen: He did no work at all. The power of investigation was in the old act, but so far as that act proved a preventive of combines, it might as well have never been passed, and the whole country knows it. There were never as many combines formed in the history of Canada in the same period as during the existence of that act. My anticipation is that this will be just the same and that the registrar will have the duty of drawing his salary once a month. To the extent that it operates the act may prove vexatious, but it will get nowhere. But in the exercise of his duties, in order that at least the minimum of harm may be done and that effective action may be possible, the registrar should not be subject to dismissal at the will of the government. If such is the case he is disrobed of all judicial clothing whatsoever; there is nothing judicial about his office; he is simply there to carry out the will of the minister and of the government, subject to dismissal if he does not. The moment you place a man in a judicial position you must place him beyond the power of dismissal at the hands of the government. Is there anything of the nature of a judicial office in the post of registrar? If there is, then he should not be subject to dismissal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with my right hon. friend, I think whoever holds this position should feel that he is to all intents and purposes precisely in the same position in relation to the government as is a judge. But the duties are somewhat new and it may be that it would be difficult to find a man of experience to fill the position. Therefore I think it would not be wise to provide in the statute that the registrar shall not be removable from office until it is seen just how far it may be possible to secure a person who will fill this position in the most satisfactory manner. Personally I would not have any objection whatever to having the statute include a clause to the effect that the registrar shall be in the same position as a judge and be appointed for life; but when we are introducing legislation of a new character I think it is wise not to finally close the door to a possible change in the event of an appointment being made which would not be all that the government hoped it would be. I certainly agree that if the office were made in
Combined
any sense political it would be a great abuse of the whole purpose of the statute.


Robert Forke: I do not know whether what I am about to offer is a practical suggestion, but would it not be possible to make the appointee responsible to parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All members ot the service in one sense are responsible to parliament.


Robert Forke: I know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every minister is responsible to parliament.


Robert Forke: But could not the appointee be removed by action of the whole House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That practically comes to just what my right hon. friend is suggesting, that the position be similar to that of a judge. If the committee think it wise I would have no objection to this being done, but I submit that perhaps it would be better to have the registrar appointed on the understanding that his office would be a life appointment, unless after he had exercised the functions of the 5 p.m. office for some months it was found he was not the person adapted to such a position. I think it would be better to leave the door open in this way so that if the man appointed in the first instance did not measure up to what was expected of him he could be removed from office.


William Alves Boys: I suppose the appointment of a registrar would involve also the appointment of a secretary and a stenographer and provision for special office accommodation, all of w'hich would cost not less than ten or fifteen thousand dollars. Does not the Prime Minister think that before the country is saddled with any such permanent expenditure there should be some certainty of the registrar having something to do? As my right hon. leader said, I do not think the appointee will be very busy. If he has four or five investigations to make in a year I venture to say that is the utmost he will be called upon to undertake, in fact there may not be as many. Supposing we are right, if the office is once established we are committed to this expenditure. I would suggest that an officer of one of the courts in Ottawa should receive this appointment, at the outset at all events, until we see where this legislation is going to land us. Of course, he should get fair remuneration for an}' work he does. After a year, or at the outside two years, we will have an idea as to whether there is any real need for such an officer or not. There is power in the bill now to appoint some person
Combines

who already holds office. That is what I would suggest at the outset, say the registrar of one of our courts in Ottawa, or possibly the deputy minister could for the time being fill the office. There is certainly no good reason to make a life appointment and incur this heavy expenditure until we know just what the duties of registrar will involve. For my part if we find there is necessity for a registrar and important work for him to do, I certainly agree that he should not be subject to removal by any government, but should be in the same position, as a judge and be removable from office only for proper cause.


Mr. RICKMAN:: In any event I would suggest to the Prime Minister that such a life appointment be not made until it is determined that this measure is within the competency of parliament to enact. One of the most learned counsel in Toronto has already expressed the opinion that such legislation is beyond the competence of this parliament, and I for one would think that it was not in the interests of the country to appoint a registrar and staff, involving superannuation allowance and other burdens, until it is beyond doubt that this legislation is not ultra vires.	[DOT]


Albert Frederick Healy: Mr. Chairman, I think the question asked by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) as to whether there is any-need of a registrar being appointed is easily answered. In my opinion there is sufficient evidence before the committee now to warrant the speedy appointment of a registrar.
The other day the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) inquired as to whether the refusal by the Canadian Press Limited

as it then was-of a franchise to the proposed Ottawa paper would come within the provisions of this measure. In attempting to give some information the other evening I recited part of the history of a case that had come before the Canadian Press Limited. My remarks called forth from the Ottawa Journal two full columns of personal abuse and a double column editorial this morning. In the latter the Journal calls me almost everything that it is possible to call a man, but I suppose hon. members are not interested in such personal abuse heaped upon themselves. However, as I am termed a company promoter by the writer of the editorial, I may at once state that I never owned a share of promotion stock in my life or drew a fee for promoting a company. I am also charged with the crime of writing a letter to the Canadian Press, Limited, in stationery that happened to be bwned by a company in the city of Detroit
I Mr. Boys.]	*
of which I am president. Of course, this may be a crime in the eyes of the Ottawa Journal.
But perhaps the real reason for these abusive articles is that the managing director of the Ottawa Journal is the president of the Canadian Press which I suggested might be a combine. Now, I think some provision might be made in this bill that where a registrar discovers that a combine exists, and that this combine is subsidized by the government in order that it may exist, the government should cancel the subsidy or any unpaid portion of it during the year in which the discovery was made. That is only a suggestion, but as to the fact whether this is a combine or not the Ottawa Journal goes along for two columns and gives the history of two cases. It connects me very thoroughly with one and ends up by saying that I should be the last person, or words to that effect, to complain because the Canadian Press did eventually grant a franchise to a paper that I promoted and own. The facts are I was a director of the Windsor Telegram, that the Windsor Telegram invested in buildings, plant, machinery and paper $167,000, put a paper on the street, and then asked the Canadian Press for a franchise. The only connection I ever had with that, except writing a few letters, was to appear for five minufes before the Canadian Press at the city of Toronto. They said: ''It is all very fine. There is one paper in your border cities of sixty thousand. If you stand the gaff long enough we will probably give you a franchise next September." We carried along our paper without any telegraphic news whatever because the Canadian Press absolutely controls the telegraphic news of this country. It also has an agreement with the Associated Press, and it is impossible for any newspaper in this country to get any telegraphic news without the Canadian Press service. They say in this article, and have said before, that they do not prevent anyone from starting a daily newspaper. Quite right. Mr. Herman could come into the city of Ottawa and invest a million dollars in plant, land, buildings and machinery, and put a daily newspaper on the streets of Ottawa, but he would have no telegraphic news in it. He would have no news of the proceedings of the legislatures. It is true that he could put a special reporter here, but he would have no news from any other part of Canada unless he owned a franchise now controlled absolutely by the Canadian Press, which is controlled in this city by three men, not five, as is stated in this article,-because the Citizen owns two franchises, the Journal owns two, and the French paper one.

Combines
Now that is the situation. If that is a com-, bine, if the people of this country are willing to pay that combine $58,000 a year so that it will exist, we should know whether a newspaper owner or any number of men who wish to start another daily paper in any part of this country cannot have the telegraphic news.
I suggest humbly that it is possible somewhere in this act to take care of a situation such as that. I believe personally that the combine does exist. I believe that it is not for the benefit of the public that it exists. I do not for one moment criticise the service rendered by the Canadian Press. The statement in this article is absolutely correct, that every report sent out by the Canadian Press is accurate. There has been no politics of any description in the reports sent out. I am not attempting to criticise the newspaper men, but I do criticise the men who control these franchises and I say it is to the detriment of the general public of this country that such a situation exists, and that we should cease subsidizing them and perhaps cease allowing them to gather their news over the telegraphic lines owned by the people of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Employment of experts:
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the intention as to the employment of these other people? Are they to be just temporary employees for each particular case or what?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just temporary,
certainly, to meet a special situation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They will not be regular employees; no additions to staff there at all? It is still private down to that point too, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless my hon. friend would like to move to make it public.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am just asking. You have not got the sun yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not yet.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Powers of registrar and commissioner as to witnessses, evidence on oath and production of papers:
Henry Lumley Drayton: As to non-attendance of any person who has been duly served with an order, does that cover any ordinary individual who may happen to make default under subpoena.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is referring to paragraph <d) ? This is simply to require the attendance of witnesses that
are essential for the investigation. It would be impossible for the registrar or a commissioner to make any headway with the inquiry if no' attention was to be paid by witnesses they might subpoena.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What provision of previous legislation do you rely upon for this precedent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 36 of the Combines Investigation Act, 1910.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon friend-I ask merely for information-ever considered the application of penalties of tins character, six months in prison and a fine <u one thousand dollars in the case of non-attendance of. a witness? Now if he was charging against the people that were interested in the combines that they had destroyed then books or withheld evidence or anything of that kind, well and good, but what does my hon. friend think of imposing a penalty of six months' imprisonment and a thousand dollar fine for a witness forgetting his subpoena papers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless the wit ness was a material witness and there was some evidence of deliberate intent on his part, not to comply with the requirements of the law, I do not think that there would be any likelihood whatever of the penalty being imposed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid my hon. friend is relying very very much upon somebody else going through this and putting the proper amendments in for him. It is a most extraordinary situation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-No person excused from attending or giving evidence on ground that evidence may incriminate him:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have an amendment to this section, Mr. Chairman, that I mentioned it was my intention to introduce. I move to amend the section by inserting the word "oral" before the word "evidence" in line 40 and by striking out the words "or documents" in line 42 and substituting therefor the words "so given." The section as it stands protects in the event of a criminal prosecution any person as respects the oral evidence which he may have given and also as respects documents he may have introduced. It is quite clear that unless the words "or documents" are stricken out, the clause would only serve, to protect the combine in the matter of the evidence that was needed at the criminal prosecution.
Combines


James Murdock: I would point out in that connection that it will be necessary to insert the word "oral" in line 4.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I have done.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-Proceedings in private:
Herbert Meredith Marler: I suggested a few days ago that the proceedings up to the end of the preliminary investigation should be in private, and that secrecy should be maintained with respect to the documents produced. I do not think the bill carries that out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The complaint made with respect to this bill, as I understand it, is rather that there is too much privacy about the legislation as drawn. I think the intention is perfectly clear that the proceedings shall be private. The documents certainly would be kept private.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Counsel may be instructed to conduct investigation:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is th'e Prime
Minister of the view that when he is going to appoint investigators the investigators have to have counsel to tell them what to do?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be cases where it would be in the public interest to have a commissioner assisted by counsel.
I think it should be left to the Minister of Justice to appoint counsel if, in the opinion of the government, that step would be wise in the public interest.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is evident that this bill is thorough in one respect-it is about the only thing I can congratulate my hon. friend on having done thoroughly-and that is getting opportunities' to employ people. The bill is very thorough there. Now, my right hon. friend, in the first instance, has his registrars and his commissioners. Then he has a right to appoint experts for the purpose of assisting the commissioners when assistance is necessary. Now on top of that he wants to get the right to appoint counsel. If the commissioner is not an expert he might need an expert to advise him. If tl^ commissioner is neither an expert on the one hand nor intelligent on the other, and requires counsel to tell him what ought to be done he should not be appointed. If my right hon. friend accepts my suggestion and appoints the local 
county crown attorneys as his commissioners he will have no such trouble, and if no additional expenditure is to be incurred the Minister of Finance will be correspondingly relieved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to my hon. friend that the government is not seeking, in connection with this bill, the right to make any more appointments than have been thought advisable, for example, in the case of royal commissions empowered to investigate different subjects. I think the act has to be broad enough to permit the meeting of any kind of case that may arise. The government will naturally wish to be economical in the administration of this measure and will feel its responsibility for expenditures that are incurred.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, very much, as in the case of the German claims.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 22-Distribution of report:
William Alves Boys: Is it the intention that the
report shall be available to anybody who wishes to get it? If so why should it be left to the minister to furnish copies? Under section 19 the proceedings of the registrar and commissioner are to be conducted in private, but the minister may order any portion of those proceedings to be conducted in public. When it comes to the report it is provided that a newspaper or any person can get it only if the minister so directs. I do not 6ee any necessity at all for that precaution. Surely if the country has to pay for all these proceedings, anyone should be able to get a copy of the report, possibly, if thought proper, upon payment of the usual fee of ten cents a folio or a reasonable charge. It should not be for the minister to 6ay that the report shall or shall not be made public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There again, Mr. Chairman, I would feel that there is a responsibility with the minister which he may be expected to exercise in accordance with what was in the public interest. I can conceive of some cases where, perhaps, it would be the part of wisdom for a minister to withhold a report. But he would be responsible to parliament for his action in so doing; he would have to give the reason for having refused to make a report public. In fact I can conceive of cases where the commissioners might, after having gone into a matter very fully, give it as their opinion that it was inadvisable that the report should be made public. Therefore I think, discre-

Combines
tion should be left with the minister in that regard. Personally I am rather sympathetic with the point of view of my hon. friends opposite that everything should be made public; but let me point out again that the government, in this legislation, has sought to avoid what some hon. gentlemen have pointed out as a possible danger-too much interference with business and subjecting private businesses to an amount of publicity that might bring about a possible injury. The government is sincere it its desire to not prejudice a private interest if that can possibly be avoided in the carrying out of this legislation. I think, probably, it is wise to leave with the minister discretion as to the amount of publicity that is to be given to a report.


William Alves Boys: I do not know that I can agree with my right hon. friend there. I quite appreciate that the earlier stages of the inquiry should be private; but when you have once found that there was something to inquire into, and when a commissioner goes into the matter and hears the evidence and a report is made, surely what I suggest is not going to hurt the firm or person investigated. If the report is unfavourable why should not the public have a right to know the result of the proceedings for which they are paying? As the bill stands at present the whole thing is absolutely private from beginning to end and even the report can be withheld unless the minister chooses to say it can be made public. Not one single step to be taken under the provisions of this bill can be made public except with the minister's authority. Even when the country has paid for the investigation and the report arising out of it is ready that report cannot be obtained except with the minister's permission. The newspapers of the country cannot get the report, the newspapers cannot even be represented at the investigation unless, forsooth a minister of the Crown says so. I am absolutely in accord with the views of the Prime Minister as to the earlier stages of the investigation: I do not think it would be fair to a company, when the matter is being first investigated, that the press and public should know all about it. But when the registrar is of the opinion that there is something to be investigated, and when a commissioner is appointed to take that investigation in hand, why in the world should not the proceedings of that court be open to the public and the press just as readily as the proceedings of any court of justice. Whether the Prime Minister will agree with me in that I do not know; but to maintain, that after a report
has been made, the press and the public are not entitled to a copy of it unless some minister says they may have it, seems to me extraordinary. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister which justifies that. Let me repeat:	If the report
whitewashes a suggested combine surely to goodness they would want it made public and they, or anybody else, ought to be able to get a copy of the report. On the other hand, if the report finds there has been a combine why put it in the hands of any minister to hush the whole thing up if he wants to? Surely it is in the public interest that the matter should then be made public? What is the good of this bill if the whole thing can be kept from the public? I am not saying the minister will do this, I hardly believe he wants to do it, but why give him this power? The proceedings having reached the stage where the alleged combine is being investigated, the parties concerned being represented by counsel if necessary, I cannot see why they should not then be just a3 public as in any court of justice. However, if the Prime Minister does not think that procedure is correct I do trust he will accede to the suggestion that at least those interested, including the public and the press, may get a copy of the report when that report is made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
word "may" is, to all intents and purposes, equivalent to the word "shall" with this one possible difference; that if you insert the word "shall" you leave no discretion whatever for the holding back of an individual report. You compel every report to be published, regardless altogether of what the circumstances may be. In the event of any report being withheld, the minister is responsible. I have not the slightest objection, if my hon. friend wishes, to move to insert the word "shall" in place of the word "may". The only reason the government has used the language which appears in this bill is the one I have given, an endeavour to have caution exercised in respect of any matters which are likely to be of concern to private business, so as to interfere as little as possible with private business. I feel certain that the minister administering the act would take advantage of the word "may" to give publicity to reports which had been received. If he is given that permission I think that is almost sufficient guarantee that he will exercise it. unless there is exceptional reason for not doing so.	[DOT]


William Alves Boys: If the Prime Minister intended his remarks as an answer to my suggestion, he
2C34
Combines
COMMiONS
misapprehended my meaning. I do not care whether the word "may" or the word "shall" is inserted. If you leave the word "may" in the section I admit you, perhaps, leave it open for a judicial decision. I know that in the county of Simcoe we had a case which lasted one solid week, and finally reached the Court of Appeal, which involved the meaning of the word "may." It was a very costly affair. But my point is as to the words "if the minister so directs". The section reads:
A copy of any report may, if the minister so directs, be sent free of charge to any person.
And so on. My suggestion is that it should be amended so as to read:
A copy of any report shall be available and free to any j erson and to anjr newspaper in Canada.


James Murdock: As to a case in which the report is against the concern being investigated. as referred to a few moments ago, I would like to ask a question. Considering that the minister has no authority to assess the penalties, or to finally determine, in a real court of justice, the actual guilt for penalty assessing purposes, does the hon. member think it would be in accordance with British justice that the report should be heralded through the country at all times broadcast to the world that one single individual, acting as a commissioner, had expressed to the minister his best judgment that a serious situation existed, that should be sent on-


William Alves Boys: This is a speech, not a question.


James Murdock: No, it is a question.


William Alves Boys: I will answer it, if the minister will give me a chance.


James Murdock: Does the hon. member
think it would be in accordance with British justice to send a man to trial with that cloud hanging over him? Would that not rather be a proper thing for the attorney general of the province or the Solicitor General to deal with in sending the case on for determination.


William Alves Boys: I do not think the question is at all troublesome. Have you not exactly the same state of affairs in a preliminary investigation in any criminal court? Many people are prosecuted in the police court. An investigation takes place there. If the magistrate thinks there is sufficient evidence to place the party on trial, the proceedings in the police court are public, and the party is sent up for trial. At the same time these parties are sometimes found to be innocent. After you have had your preliminary investigation, and this registrar, who has the status of a deputy minister, a fairly responsible man, comes to the [Mr. Bovs.l
conclusion that there is something to investigate, you then go further and your commissioner, another high-priced and capable man, investigates the matter. Both sides are heard. He thinks there is a combine. Do you not think it is time the public knew something about it?


James Murdock: I am entirely willing to
accept the hon. member's view.


William Alves Boys: I am delighted I have made
some impression on the minister. I was trying to answer his question. I cannot see anything terrible about what the minister has suggested. I did not hear all the discussion yesterday. I was more pleasantly engaged.


Ernest Lapointe: Where?


William Alves Boys: Read the papers and you
will find out. I understood the suggestion was
there was to be so much light thrown upon this, and it was to be exposed to the sun. Now, I find the whole thing is to be in camera, unless the minister otherwise directs. Coming back to my suggestion-and I make it for the last time-I say that this clause should be amended so that when we reach the last stage of a double investigation no matter what the report is, any newspaper or any individual should be permitted to get a copy of the report if they want it.
Then the bill goes on and provides that the proceedings should be sent to the attorney general, and he should institute proceedings and if he does not do so in three months, the department at Ottawa takes it in hand, and we have a further investigation. It seems to me the provisions of the bill are useless if, when you go through the entire process, the public can not even get a copy of the report unless the minister says so.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think it would be bettei if the House did not pass this bill at all. The committee has carried twenty one clauses, and we are never going to get anywhere in regulating the trusts and combines with this bill. The result of this bill, if it passes, will simply mean a lot of party politics. The registrar and the commissioner, when appointed, will be under the control of a minister of the Crown, While he may be a good minister, he is still a politician, and he will have to deal with the matter of regulation of trusts and combines. This bill provides for a private or star chamber inquiry, and we are not going to get anywhere against the powerful influence of the shipping combine and other trusts, the banking institutions, the gTeat manufacturers' association, and all the rest of these trusts and combines. We have had on and off the

Combines
statute books for thirty years various legislation dealing with this problem, and we have never got anywhere in solving it. We have not been able to accomplish anything for the working classes in the way of bringing down the cost of living. I listened to the Minister of Labour yesterday and to-day,^ and I may say that the more I look into this bill the more I am convinced that it is simply fashioned after the style of the Board of Commerce Act of 1919. The registrar will be a politician, and the commissioner will be a politician; one reports to the other, and the other reports to the minister, and then you have got to the end of the first circle. They have to go to the minister and get permission to go further. The proceeding is not conducted as a court would be conducted at all. They had the same legislation in the United States twenty years ago, but they went further, and as I said yesterday the grand jury system was then adopted. Our Board of Commerce Act was based on the same principle as the United States Federal Trade Commission. They did not get anywhere. What has been the result in Chicago under the grand jury system? They had the great motor combines and the oil combines indicted. These gigantic combines are located at the foot of lake Michigan, in the city of Chicago. The grand jury sat and Judge Landis fined the Standard Oil fifty million dollars.
I urge that we take this question out of party politics, and leave it to the grand juries in the different centres of population throughout Canada. In that way we would relieve the government of a great burden. I do not think it is fair to ask the government of Canada, whether this government or their successors, to deal with this matter. The Ministers of the Crown are too busy to attend to it. It is not fair to ask them to take hold of a matter like this, and the country does not expect the government to do the impossible. I think it would be far better if the minister would consider whether he would not, at the end of this bill insert a provision vesting in the grand juries throughout the country the power to deal with this question. There are judicial and national questions and they deal with economic matters. We must be fair to capital on the one side, and to everybody concerned in trade and commerce. You cannot deal with the matter properly if you are going to handle it as a political question instead of as an economic one. You must be fair to the mergers and trusts in that respect, because some of them have been doing good work; some of them have been effecting economies in many spheres of activity.
The majority, however, have not, and they should be under some form of public control. Railway transportation interests are under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners ; they are not under the control of a registrar or of a commission, and there is a suggestion to give that commission increased powers and to put transportation on the ocean and the Great Lakes under its control. If that board can deal with matters like that which are of a national character, surely grand juries can handle the trusts and combines better. They know local conditions and the judges and juries have the time, which a busy minister of the Crown has not, to study the problems. I do not think it is fair to a minister of the Crown on the opposite side, because ministers are loaded up with work, that he should have to assume this additional burden. I would not ask the Prime Minister to do so. The grand jury is a judicial body which can handle this question, it has the time and machinery to handle it, and it is the only body in the Dominion of Canada that can properly handle this question. Under the old Combines Act, 1910, there was only one inquiry, that into the United Shoe Machinery Company; the minister said that from 1908 to 1923 there was only this one inquiry.
Conditions are continually changing in Canada. I hope tl*e government will succeed under this legislation, but I doubt very much if they are going to succeed. I do not doubt their sincerity; I do not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister in introducing this legislation; I give him credit for bringing this legislation before parliament. I will be glad to see him bring about some results; but on the one hand, in these days of stress and strain, we must not forget that the capitalists have some rights and, on the other hand, the consumers must come in somewhere. Therefore, I think the courts are better fitted for this work than ministers of the Crown, and registrars and commissioners appointed as they no doubt will be under party politics. We should take this whole question out of party politics to get results.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it were
possible to foresee all the circumstances and how they were likely to operate, I would, I think, agree with my hon. friend that it were well to change the wording and make the publication of the report compulsory as soon as it is handed in. On the other hand, I think a moment's reflection will show that circumstances might arise where an investigation has brought to light many facts which are included in the report. The minister may feel that the case is one which should go on
Combines

immediately to the courts as the combine is of a character that should be prosecuted. He might wish to reserve for the time being, to place in the hands of the attorney general of the province or the Solicitor General who might be prosecuting the combine, the evidence and the report made on the evidence. It might be to the public interest that all those facts should not be disclosed before the case comes to trial. That discretion should be left with the minister. At all events. I would say to my hon. friend that I think that is a clause which might be permitted to stand as it is, at least, until the legislation is given a trial, and if experience shows that it is wise to make it mandatory rather than permissive, we can have it amended at a subsequent session.
Mr. I'ORKE' I am rather in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys). I think it is clause 25 which says that unless the minister thinks there is sufficient evidence to go on with, the whole thing is put aside. That seems to throw a tremendous responsibility on the minister. The whole proceedings have been in secret; nobody knows anything about them. The evidence is taken; then the matter comes before the minister, and he can shelve it if he likes. If the public had some information as to what evidence had been gathered in the inquiry that had been made, they would be in a position to know whether the minister had acted fairly or otherwise in dismissing the case. A tremendous responsibility is thrown upon the minister; in fact, this is a temptation that, perhaps, he should not be subjected to without some public investigation of some kind. I admit the argument which the Prime Minister has advanced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might point out to my hon. friend that his remarks would have great force and weight and I would agree with him wholly, were it the circumstance that the minister is not responsible to parliament for everything that he does. But when members of the committee recall that with respect to every action of a minister, either in giving out a report, or in withholding it, he is accountable to parliament, and that any hon. member may call for any report that has been made, may demand from the minister in the presence of his fellow members, an explanation of why that report was not made public at a particular time, with that thought in mind, having regard to the unforeseen nature of the circumstances of different cases and what the public interest at the moment may render most desirable,

I think it is better not to take away the discretionary power of the minister. I think a minister will seek at all times to further what he believes to be the public interest. I cannot conceive of any minister, unless he is heading straight to destruction, both for himself and for his government, trying to take a course that will be other than in the public interest and one that he can defend on the floor of parhament. That is 'my reason for thinking that, on the whole, it is wiser to leave with the minister the discretion as to the time, at any rate, of giving out a report that may be made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Just let us see how far we are really going in this legislation -towards enabling the whole of the matter to be turned into a matter of party political exigency, that and nothing else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend this question when he speaks about turning the whole matter into a matter of party political exigency? Is that the point of view from which he would administer the legislation? If not, why should he impute a different motive to anyone else?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I cannot see any other reason from the manner in which the bill -is drawn. In the first instance, my hon. friend is perfectly right. He is going into this question of a combine, and he does not know whether there is anything in it or not. He puts a man, in whom he is supposed to have trust and confidence-or else he would not appoint him-in a position for the purpose of finding out whether the prima facie case is such that it is clear that a combine exists. It is quite right that that should be all private. Nobody is arguing that that should be made public. That is the first proceeding. The second proceeding is this, that my hon. friend turns around and this particular concern over here is turned inside out, and that particular concern over there is turned inside out for the purpose of finding out whether the commissioner or the registrar was correct or not in his views. Those people are, in effect, on trial and they ought to be. I am not quarrelling with that at all. They are undergoing a preliminary investigation, and they are undergoing a preliminary investigation at the hands of the person that my hon. friend again has to have confidence in or he ought not to appoint him, for the purpose of finding out whether or not they are guilty of an offence. On top of all that, money is being spent. The investigation here and the investigation there are costing the country money, for experts,

Combines
commissioners, time, evidence and the like. The result is a result from which further criminal proceedings are to start or not to start, just exactly the same as in the case of a preliminary investigation. The crime is certainly no graver than are crimes that are covered by preliminary investigations. These preliminary investigations are held under the laws passed by this House. They are public; they relate to far more serious offences, such as the improper publication of the opinion of a magistrate that the committal should be made, and they do far more harm than any mere trade offence can do. And there are further investigations that are not surrounded with as many safeguards as we have here. I ask my hon. friend why there should be the difference, unless there is to be political favouritism or favouritism of some other kind. A concern over here, let us say, is being investigated. The minister may not like the colour of the man's hair or the kind of business he carried on, and he makes the report public. Another concern is being investigated at the same time; the minister likes the man and thinks his business is all right; and there is no publicity in that case. The one is taken and the other is left. If my hon. friend wants to have something like unifrom treatment of companies and wishes to see justice in the administration of the act, there should be no room for such favouritism. The minister should take his stand openly in regard to either course. He may be right or wrong in both, but the public surely have a right to know what the facte are. We have criticized this bill on the ground that it is going to take us nowhere. Surely my hon. friend must see the force of these criticisms, if the whole thing is to be left to the possibility of being tied up in secrecy. My hon. friend suggests that the matter should be kept quiet until the attorney general knows about it. Why? Why should it be kept quiet before the attorney general knows about it any more than any other crime under the statute? What possible harm can come of publicity? I think my hon. friend on further consideration should have that clause so amended as to provide that the public shall have the second report when it is made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member starts on the assumption that the minister who is to administer the act will not make the reports public; I think I am equally entitled to assume that he will make all reports public. It is from that point of view that the government is proceeding, namely, that the reports will all be made public unless there is some very special reason why publicity should not be given to a particular report at a particular time. I think that any minister who would refuse to make a report would incur a great responsibility. The minister in charge would be very careful in exercising that right in view of that responsibility.
I have in mind a matter that is the subject of inquiry at the present moment,-the question of freight rates on the Great Lakes. The government had a preliminary investigation made of that matter and a report was presented by the investigator. I believe the whole report has been substantiated under a royal commission which had power to put parties under oath. An effort was made on the part of interests concerned to secure a copy of the report before they were brought to the position where they would have to appear before the commission for investigation. The government refused to make the report public, believing that it was in the public interest that the information gathered in that way should be handed over to the commission that was to make inquiry into the matter and be used by the commission in such a manner as would best serve the public interest. The government, I think, was wise in withholding the report from publication at the time; and I can conceive of cases under this act where, a group of interests having associated themselves, are acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the public, information is obtained and a report submitted which is so strong that the government intends then to proceed to prosecution of the combine concerned. It might in such cases be very much in the interest of the public to withhold the report of the evidence on which the decision to prosecute is based, until such time as the combine itself has been investigated in a court of law in the regular way. This is a matter that can be determined only in the light of each case as it arises. I am entirely with my hon. friends opposite in this regard,-I think that wherever it is possible, and there is reasonable ground for believing that no just interest will suffer, the fullest publicity should be gi^en to all proceedings under the act.


William Alves Boys: My right hon. friend is with us, but he will not accede to our request.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let the hon.
member move an amendment.
Mr. BOY'S: I was more or less impressed by what the Prime Minister said with regard to the finding on the part of the commissioner. In special cases it might not be desirable to publish the report. Personally I should be satis-
Combines

fied if the Prime Minister would go this length, that if the commissioner himself, who should be the best judge because he has to hear all the evidence, recommends against the publication of the report, then by all means the minister should withhold it and let the matter go on to trial. If the report is a favourable one I can see no reason why it should not be published; any question of withholding the report could arise only in the case of its being unfavourable. If the commissioner after hearing the evidence is of opinion that the report should not be published, and he so recommends, the minister should be in a position to exercise his discretion and withhold its publication. But if the commissioner does not so recommend, I do not believe any minister should have the power that is here provided. I think you are putting more on the shoulders of the minister than you should; and if perchance there ever were a minister who wanted to use legislation to personal advantage or profit, you are certainly giving him a wonderful opportunity. You might have a report recommending a prosecution or stating that a combine existed, and if the minister were a man susceptible to influence, and if he were so influenced, the work of the whole investigation could be frustrated merely by a word from him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
pleased to hold the section and confer with my hon. friend to see if we can draft a clause to meet what he has in mind. I share the views of hon. gentlemen who want to give as much publicity as possible to inquiries, and shall be only too happy to go as far as I can if I can get the committee to go with me.
Section stands.
On section 27-Contempt of registrar or commissioner:


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the
precedent for this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is similar to section 31 of the Combines Investigation Act of 1910.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems a rather absurd section; it goes further than anything I have yet run across.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is very similar to a clause in the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act which has been on the statutes for twelve or fourteen years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The section refers to any person who "wilfully insults" the registrar or any commissioner. Who is to determine when such an insult takes place?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You never know how anyone will behave.


Henry Lumley Drayton: But what does the Prime Minister think?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a section of the bill which cites the manner in which persons offending under its provisions are to be tried, and I presume it will be in accordance with that section that action will be taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can understand the reference to "interruption" much
more readily than I can the reference to the "insult." I do not know what exactly is sought to be got at. Suppose anyone said the registrar was stupid. Would that be an insult?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, possibly my hon. friend is correct. But what does he think would be an insult under that clause?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The following section provides:
For the purpose of the trial of any indictment for liny offence against this act, section five hundred and eighty-one of the Criminal Code authorizing speedy trials without juries, shall apply.
And the next section:	.
Any person who contravenes or fails to observe the provisions-


Sir HENRI DRAT  TON@: My hon. friend is missing the point. His reference to section 27 has nothing to do with my question. I was asking him what is a "wilful insult." He says it would not be a wilful insult to say that the commissioner is stupid? What is the intent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose if he hit him over the head it would be an insult.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would call that an assault.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly-an insult too.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is covered by the Criminal Code.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was Crown prosecutor for a long time and is, I think, pretty familiar with a wilful insult


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was never called upon to deal with anything so silly as a wilful insult.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.

Pensions Commission
Friday, May 11, 1923