1935-06-19

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to table correspondence moved for by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) on the 17th instant respecting the retirement of Doctor H. M. Tory as head of the national research council. I should like to say that in a letter to me dated March 7, Doctor Tory made cer-

Questions
tain representations. This letter was marked "personal," and for that reason it is not included in the file; otherwise it would be produced. I have not been able to get Doctor Tory to release the privilege as he is not in the city.



LOAN OF $750,000,000

Right Hon.   S@: When the resolution on which Bill No. 110, to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service, was before the committee last Monday, the bon. .member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) for certain information. The hon. member mentioned this again yesterday evening when the bill was being put through and suggested that the information might be given to him on the estimates, but as I have it with me now, I will send it over to him. I think that will answer the purpose.
Hon. L4.N MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): I appreciate the courtesy of the right hon. gentleman. I think however the information should be a matter of record. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) asked one of the questions and I suggest that the information be filed.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The hon. gentleman would like it tabled as a return:


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Yes.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Has any minister, deputy minister or other officer of the government made or caused to be made, any shipments of dairy cattle, brood mares, stallions or other domestic live stock to Australia or South Africa since August, 1930?
2.	If so (a) which minister and department initiated and had charge of each undertaking and in what province were such animals secured; (b) how many head of each class of live stock were selected for export, by whom and at what price each; (c) were such animals examined by qualified government inspectors under the live stock branch at initial point of shipment or at ocean port of embarkation and with what result as to their respective fitness, age and general qualifications to meet the requirements of the purchasers; (d) did such inspection result in any of such animals being rejected, and for what reasons, how many, and what disposition was made of them; (e) out of what vote were any such live stock purchases paid; (f) were any financial losses or expenses sustained by the
government in these transactions, and how much; (g) if any of such live stock exports to Australia were shipped via Halifax or other Atlantic port, why were they not sent the usual route to Australia via the Pacific?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


DOCTOR ARNOLD RANKIN RICHARDS
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: 1.	Was Doctor Arnold Rankin Richards employed by the government as consulting and resident doctor for patients transferred from the military hospital, Petawawa, to the hospitals at Pembroke, Ontario?
2.	What money was paid Doctor Richards by the government?
3.	Who recommended Doctor Richards for the position?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	No.
2.	$55 in February, 1932, for professional services rendered to a part-time caretaker at the Pembroke armoury who met with an accident in the performance of his duties.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


DOCTOR ROBERT THORNTON PERCIVAL
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: 1.	Was Doctor Robert Thornton Percival employed by the government as consulting and resident doctor for patients transferred from the military hospital, Petawawa, to the hospitals at Pembroke, Ontario?
2.	What money was paid Doctor Percival by the government?
3.	Who recommended Doctor Percival for the position?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Dr. Percival was employed for patients transferred from the unemployment relief project at Petawawa to the Pembroke hospital and for the medical examination of men from Pembroke going to the unemployment relief project at Petawawa.
2.	$932.
3.	Selected for employment in accordance with departmental practice.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
joliette-l'assomption-montcalm rural mail SERVICE
Mr. FERLAND:: For a return showing:-
1.	A list of all contractors carrying rural mail in the county of Joliette-l'Assomption-Montealm, giving the name of the contractors, the date of such contracts, the contract prices and the mileage in each case.
2.	Contracts awarded on a tender basis, and those awarded without tenders, by way of renewal of former contracts.
Vancouver Dock Strike


GLACE BAY, N.S., SUB-COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS
Mr. RALSTON:: For a copy of all applications, reports, ratings and correspondence in the possession of the government or the civil service commission, in connection with filling the recent vacancy in the position of subcollector of customs for the port of Glace Bay, Novta Scotia.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT

Mr. CASGRAIN :: For a copy of the letter addressed by Mr. M. A. MacPherson, on March 27, 1935, to agents appointed under the terms of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the said M. A. MacPherson and the government in that regard.



CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY RURAL MAIL SERVICE

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a list showing:-
1.	The names of all contractors in charge of the carrying of rural mail in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, with the dates on which the contracts were let, the terms and the distance to be covered in each case.
2.	The contracts let by tender, the name of those to whom they were awarded without tenders, and those whose contracts were renewed.



VANCOUVER DOCK STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):	In the absence of the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Gordon) I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), although, it does not strictly involve any question of government policy. It is in reference to the regrettable disturbances that took place in Vancouver yesterday after-non. Has the Prime Minister any statement to make, in particular as to the advisability in the public interest of appointing a royal commis:son under the Inquiries Act to inquire into the matter?
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Anticipating the possibility of such
a question being asked I got a memorandum from the Department of Labour with respect to the matter, and when I came to the building I found1 the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) had sent a note to me that he proposed to ask the question which he has just asked.
The information as far as I have been able to obtain it indicates that early in February of this year the Vancouver and New Westminster Waterfront Workers Association (longshoremen) notified the British Columbia Shipping Federation that

they desired to reopen the agreement then existing, the main points to be considered being (1) making effective a six-hour working day, (2) union control of dispatching of longshore gangs, (3) elimination of the differential of four cents an hour between shore and ship gangs-the rates at present being respectively 81 cents and 8a cents- and (4) the establishment of a new minimum rate of 95 cents per hour in line with the rate effective in the United States Pacific coast ports. Numerous other items were involved, such as the refusal of members of this association to work with non-union labour.
An exchange of correspondence followed between the shipping federation and the longshoremen, covering a considerable period, but no apparent headway was made towards settlement of any part of these demands. Press reports intimated that the longshoremen were likely to go on strike at any time, and Mr. F. E. Harrison, the western representative of the federal Department of Labour advised both parties in writing that the conciliation services of the Department of Labour were available upon request by either or both parties, at the same time calling to their attention the requirements of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act that if a dispute could not be adjusted through negotiation these matters would first have to be dealt with by a board of conciliation and investigation.
On April 25 a mass meeting of the longshoremen in Vancouver was held and the following among other resolutions were adopted:
1.	An assessment of one per cent of all longshoremen's wages would be made for one pay period to assist relief camp workers now on strike.
2.	A cessation of work was agreed to on the 29th of April between the hours of three and four p.m. as a protest against relief camps.
3.	No work would be performed on May 1, May day; and
4.	That the resignation of Mayor G. G. McGeer be demanded. [DOT]
The cessation of work took place in violation of their agreement. Following this a strike took place of what are termed booming gangs, men employed in sorting logs on the waterfront for export. This dispute did not directly affect the shipping federation of British Columbia, but the longshoremen, in violation of their agreement with the federation, refused to load these logs on the ground that it was unfair cargo. The shipping federation, however, were able to load this shipment with non-union men. Some time following this the longshoremen organized a

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
union at Powell River. Very few of their numbers had ever been employed] by the Powell River Company, and in these few instances only as temporary help, and the company refused to accede to the demands. That port was then declared unfair, and again the Vancouver longshoremen refused to load or unload ships moving to or from Powell River.
The shipping federation maintain that the agreement under which they have been operating has been violated in at least seven instances. Following this latter difficulty, the shipping federation made application under date of May 25 for the establishment of a board of conciliation and investigation. This application reached the department on May 30, a board was established the following day and both parties to the dispute were accordingly notified by telegraph. No nominations were received from either party and under date of June 5 the shipping federation telegraphed withdrawing their application and advising that the present agreement had been cancelled. Upon receipt of this telegram a wire was dispatched to the federation and also the longshoremen's association urging that all matters in dispute should be dealt with through board procedure and that in the meantime both parties should agree to adhere strictly to the terms of the present agreement. The shipping federation replied that they could not go on with this proposal, inasmuch as they had already entered into an agreement with another union. No reply whatever was received from the longshoremen's representatives. No action has yet been taken to cancel the establishment of the board.
Sympathetic strikes have been called by the Coastwise Longshoremen and Freight Handlers' Association of Vancouver, Seafarers' Industrial Union of Vancouver, and Marine Transport Union of Nanaimo. All of these groups, including Vancouver and District Waterfront Workers' Association, are affiliated with the Longshoremen and Water Transport Workers of Canada, and are said to be controlled by the Workers Unity League and that group of known extremists.
The Deputy Minister of Labour has been in communication by long distance telephone this morning with Mr. F. E. Harrison, who has been from the outset closely in touch with both parties to the dispute. Last evening there was a three hour conference with representatives of the men and the shipping federation, but in the meantime violence was resorted to, not with arms but with sticks and clubs as indicated in the press this morning. Neither the Department of Labour nor the Department of Justice is further informed with respect to the matter, except that the mayor of Vancouver has publicly stated that the matter is under control. There was a number of mounted police on the Ballantyne pier; they had been asked to remain there by the chief of police of Vancouver and by the Vancouver harbour board, as well as by the attorney general of the province of British Columbia. There is no further information that we have available at the moment. It is not contemplated in view of the facts I have recited that an inquiry should be held and in view of the statement made by the mayor of Vancouver this morning as to the forces that were organized behind this outbreak yesterday it is not thought desirable that any further action should be taken at the moment unless requested.



MONTREAL HARBOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: In the absence of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) I should like to ask the Prime Minister if a delegation from the harbour commissioners of Montreal has been in Ottawa to-day concerning the depth of the water in the harbour and, if so, if we can expect a declaration from the government on the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I fancy the hon. member is aware of the fact that a delegation did meet the Minister of Marine and other members of the government, but the conference was protracted to such an extent that the minister is not yet in his place.



TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 86, to establish a dominion trade and industry commission.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (East Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words in connection with the third reading of this bill I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to express some views in connection with the manner in which the report of the price spreads committee and commission has been implemented, and also to direct the attention of the house to a few matters relating thereto which I believe should receive very careful and thoughtful consideration by the house.

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
May I open my references to the report by referring to one feature of it or, shall I say, a philosophy which runs through the whole of the report, to which I think all too little attention has been paid. On the second reading of the bill now before the house for third reading I made rather extended and detailed remarks with reference to this feature. At the moment I shall content myself with merely mentioning the point. It will be recalled, sir, that in the preparation of the report certain chapters were introduced leading up to the more practical features of it. I wish to quote again to-day a paragraph which I quoted previously and then, using that as a foundation, to give expression to certain views in regard to the matter. At the opening of chapter III, headed "Concentration and the Corporate System of Business" we have these words:
The evidence before us ... has shown that a few great corporations are predominant in the industries that have been investigated'; also that this power, all the more dangerous because it is impersonal, can be wielded in such a way that competition within the industry is blocked, the welfare of the producer disregarded, and the interests of the investor ignored.
As the hearings into various forms of economic activity were carried on, it has been difficult not to be impressed by the fact that the corporate form of business, not only often gives freedom from legal liability, but also facilitates the evasion of moral responsibility for inequitable and uneconomic practices.
And one other paragraph:
The net result of this combination of flexibility and rigidity is that unregulated competition no longer guarantees efficiency and . maximum production at fair prices. Competition degenerates sometimes into economic warfare where victory may go to the strong, rather than to the efficient.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What page is that?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pages 12 and 13. I read these words for the purpose of indicating that there is a new orientation of business. I enlarged on that the other day, but I am going to speak for the moment as a member of the Conservative party in this house. I was elected as a Conservative, and I take it that the very essence of the economic policy of the Conservative party is to be found in what is known as the national policy. Through all the years the Conservative party, as the representative of a large body of opinion in this country, has taken the principles of the national policy as its guide and lead in matters economic. I wish to say, sir, that in holding the views I do now, in the light of the studies revealed in this report, I am not departing one iota from the economic principles of the Conservative party. I took the trouble to 
look up some quotations and I am going to read them, briefly, in order to indicate and to impress upon the minds of hon. members on this side of the house-and hon. members opposite to the extent that they will do me the courtesy of listening-that when the national policy was launched in Canada in 1878 it was never contemplated that that policy would lead to the development of industry to a point where a monopoly would dominate within any particular branch of industry. It is not pertinent at this point to debate what they should have foreseen, or anything of that kind. I shall deal only with the historic facts. Sir John Macdonald, speaking in 1878, is reported at page 859 of Hansard of that year as follows:
It should consist-
Speaking of his new policy-
-of a judicious readjustment of the tariff which would benefit and foster the argicul-tural, the mining, the manufacturing, and other interests of the dominion; a judicious readjustment of the tariff will, mean, to a certain extent, an increased duty upon certain articles.
Note, Mir. Speaker, that this was a policy directed towards the development of the interests of agriculture, mining and manufacturing, as well as other interests. Then I read from a speech by Sir John Macdonald delivered at St. Catharines, in which he used these words:
We have, however, readjusted the tariff, reducing the duties on articles of necessity and raw materials, and increasing those on what is required for home manufacturing, this being a direct encouragement to artisans and mechanics.
Here we have the second feature of this policy which was in the mind of its great framer, namely, that throughout it should protect or redound to the advantage and interest of the workers in industry.
I now turn to another quotation. In the year 1878, at a meeting in Toronto the Liberal Conservative Association of Ontario declared on this subject. This was the pronouncement by a meeting of the Conservative association:
We are satisfied that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national financial policy which, by a judicious readjustment of the tariff, will benefit and foster the agricultural. mining and manufacturing interests of the dominion.
It was not, sir, for the creation of monopolies or for the creation of powerful corporations to operate without law and with a selfish disregard for the rights of others-no, not that, but for the fostering of agriculture, mining and manufacturing.

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
I now turn to a quotation from a speech delivered in 1895, after the policy had been in operation. An extract from the budget speech delivered by Sir George Foster, the then Minister of Finance, is as follows:
If there is to be a protective system at all, everybody knows it must be higher in its inception than as the years gradually pass, when industries have become established and when the industrial development of the country grows apace.
Again I point out that the framers of the national policy never contemplated the growth of great monopolies under that policy, nor in later years did the framers of the Combines Investigation Act contemplate that in. spite of that aot great monopolies would dominate, as the report has stated, branches of industry in which they are engaged to a degree of almost complete monopoly.
Sir, there is one other interesting quotation I should like to read, because it shows the attitude of the Liberal party of that day towards this problem. I rather welcome these words because they give an indication of the tolerant spirit shown by .that great party at that time towards the policy,-making a certain reservation. This is a quotation from a speech of Alexander Mackenzie delivered in 1877:
I have no objection to the principle of protection per se; that is, if you can make everybody wealthy without making any person poor. If that is the principle of protection, I am quite in favour of it, if the plan by which it is to be achieved can be shown.
I admit the words sound a little facetious, but I submit further that what they did disclose was the attitude of the leader of the Liberal party of that day, namely, that he had no objection to the principle of protection, if it would result in benefits to the people generally,-and of course to industry, providing it did not result in the creation of iniquities within the industrial system.
Again I say it is futile to look back, with our present knowledge and to say that those of that day should have looked to the future and should have realized that mass production would develop, that the machine age would grow, and that men would be thrown out of work by the tens of thousands through the mechanization of industry and agriculture. These conditions were not foreseen. They were not foreseen twenty years ago, even; they were not foreseen in their present magnitude until they were, in a sense, upon us. But this point stands out clearly, that the framers of the national policy, so-called, never contemplated the creation in this country of industrial groups so powerful that
they could defy government as well as competition. And, sir, throughout our examinations of the past eighteen months, condensed now in the form of this report, it is clear that these great industrial organizations have developed. It does not necessarily follow that they have grown great because of efficiency. That is clearly stated in the report which is presented as a result of our examinations. On the other hand, it is therein stated-this is certainly my firm conviction and I have seen no contradiction of it by other members of the commission-that it was the power of massed capital rather than efficiency which caused or gave power to these great industries. I agree that some members of the commission would qualify that statement, in part, but my conviction is that it is far more due to the control of wealth or capital by these institutions than by their efficiency that they have gained their position of great power.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Was the
hon. gentleman in Canada in the early nineties? Was he a resident of Canada in the early nineties?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know what my personal history has to do with this discussion.


Charles A. Stewart: A matter of curiosity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it would satisfy the
hon. member I could give a brief statement, if that is what the hon. gentleman wishes to come at. As I was not bom in Canada probably he questions my right to speak.


Charles A. Stewart: No, not at
all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was bom in a city-no mean city-the city of Bristol, England. I came to Canada in 1887, and I could tell my hon. friend a good de_l more than that about my early experiences in Canada, if it would serve any purpose. But I do not see why a man's personal life as a boy in this country has anything to do with it.


Mr. STEW  ART@Edmonton: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked in all sincerity. I merely questioned as to whether the hon. member was a resident in the nineties.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will set it down to my dullness in failing to see the point.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, I see.

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: I recall perfectly well the early days of the nineties. My hon. friend's interruption prompts me to make just a few observations in regard to that. I remember when I was in the city of Peterborough as a boy. I remember when just such conditions as obtain to-day obtained only in a lesser degree.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember when the late George A. Cox in the city of Peterborough by foreclosing mortgages all over the country reduced hundreds of citizens to penury and want.


Charles A. Stewart: Agreed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has not escaped my memory, but I do not see what force there is in pursuing that discussion.
Canada grew, and it grew because capital poured into this country, and there was practically unlimited opportunity for speculation. The point I am coming to is this. In spite of the very foundations of the national policy, monopolies have grown up in this country, and in spite of the enactement of the Combines Investigation Act-and I want to say to the right hon. gentleman who holds that act in such reverence, that I am not criticizing it; I am one of those who want to see it enforced rigidly, and I want him to understand that; I am speaking in good faith-in spite of the combines act monopolies did develop in this country and great dominating factories in industry have grown.
Now I would like to read a few extracts from the speeches of the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada in his radio addresses last January, and I invite him and I invite the Conservative party in this house to give ear to what I shall now read. I do this not in any critical spirit at all because what I am about to read reflects very largely my own views. WThat I am about to read would in my opinion, if followed up and crystallized into law. go far to correct many of the inequities in the country. In the first radio address delivered by the Prime Minister on January 2 last these words appear:
You would agree that free competition-
I ask hon. gentlemen to follow this:
You would agree that free competition and the open market place, as they were known in the old days, have lost their place in the system, and that the only substitute for them, in these modern times, is government regulation and control.
I pause there to say this. Those are not the words of some irresponsible individual: 
they are the words of the Prime Minister of Canada, spoken by him to the people of Canada, and I believe earnestly spoken. What do they say? That the only substitute for the open market place, which has passed and gone, is government regulation and control. That is all that I have asked for. It is all that I expected. I submit that these measures to which we have been invited to give consideration do not do justice to this utterance of the Prime Minister which I have just read. I shall deal with these measures later.
I read further from the second radio address of the Prime Minister on January 4:
The economic system must be reformed. Great' social and economic changes have taken place in the life of all the nations and these have gravely disturbed the operation of the system.	.
That is precisely my view. Great changes have come. They have disturbed the operation of the system. I have shown that it is certainly different from what the framers of the national policy conceived. Therefore it has been my argument, and is my argument, that it is the paramount duty first of the Conservative party in this house, and I think it is the duty of the whole of parliament, to address itself first to the recognition of these matters and to their correction. The Prime Minister's radio speech goes on:
Therefore capitalism must change to meet the changed conditions of this new world, if it is longer adequately to serve you.
Those are strong words. I have not, Mr. Speaker, gone to the extent of suggesting a complete renovation of capitalism. I am a believer in capitalism provided that capitalism is not expressed in the terms of great monopoly and the control of all its credit in the hands of a few. I am in favour of capitalism in so far as it recognizes the right of individuals to hold and control property, but I am not in favour of a system of capitalism such as was disclosed in the examination by the commission to which I have already made reference. I quote further from the Prime Minister's speech:
If you hold the views I do, what would you require to be done?	Would you demand
reform? Would you demand that the government, as the only power able to effect the necessary measures of reform, act decisively and without delay?
I say yes. That is precisely what I am asking. He goes on:
Would you petition the government to intervene?
Yes, I believe that the government, or rather I will put it this way, that parliament should intervene and set up a power that

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
will be the referee between these great monopolies and those with whom they come into competition.
The other day, Mr. Speaker, I called the attention of the house to this fact, which I shall take the liberty to repeat now. Times have so changed, and I heard this only to-day in a convention of business men in this city, that no longer can one business man conducting a small business approach another business man representing a corporation and discuss their affairs man to man because the official representing the large corporation invariably answers, "Well, I see your point. I would like to do what you wish but orders from head office prevent me doing it. This is all I can do." Those were his orders, as I said the other day, from New York, Montreal, Chicago, or some other distant point where the head office was located.
The whole method of doing business has changed, and what opportunity, as I remarked the other day, has a small business man, and there are hundreds of thousands of them in this country, to compete with these great corporations unless there is some power in between which can hold the scales in equity between them? And that is all that I have asked. I quote further from the Prime Minister's radio address:
Would you proclaim the urgent need of government regulation of business?
I have scarcely gone that far. I call, sir, upon parliament to set up machinery, not so much to regulate business, as to referee business. The Prime Minister's words were:
AVould you proclaim the urgent need of government regulation of business?
I am willing to go that far. These measures do not go that far. These measures will not successfully discharge that promise. I quote again:
I think you would, if you had a proper regard for your own welfare. And of course you have, and so assuredly have I.
Now I quote from the Prime Minister's third radio address delivered on January 7 last. This has to do with the subject of concentration to which I have referred. I am not a lone voice in the wilderness on this question of concentration, Mr. Speaker. From the standpoint of the eminence of the one who uttered these words I a.m indeed in good company. The Prime Minister said:
Many years ago disequilibrium in the original interrelationship of wages, costs, prices and profits began to manifest itself. This disequilibrium has been increasing.
That is precisely my view.
As that machine grew mightier and more dominant, so competition became proportionately less effective to achieve its original purpose.
Those words find an echo in my heart.
What we are concerned with, as practical men and humanitarians, is to devise some corrective of the disabilities which it takes no economist to discern. Whatever caused them, there is a fair and sensible cure which can be effectively applied. It is our business to apply it.
All that I am asking is that these effective, fair and sensible cures shall be applied willingly to these evils or to this distress.
There is one other quotation which I wish particularly to submit to the attention of hon. members on this side of the house. This is headed Price Spreads Commission and reads:
At the last session of parliament, the House of Commons, upon the invitation of the government, appointed a committee to go into the whole question of these concentrations of business and price spreads and exploitations of the defenceless primary producer and the equally defenceless ultimate consumer.
I pause to repeat that this commission was appointed to go into the question of the exploitation of the defenceless primary producer. Will any one say that by the wildest stretch of imagination the bill to amend the live stock act is in any remote degree a correction of what were found to be exploitations of the defenceless producer? Is anyone bold enough to suggest that? In so far as the difficulties which face the primary producer are concerned a more anaemic piece of legislation could not have been introduced. It is because of that and because of one or two other things to which I shall refer that I find myself forced to make this declaration to-day. The next quotation I wish to make reads:
When the report of the commission is received by the government, parliament will be invited to take action in accordance with the commission's recommendation.
I will say this for the right hon. gentleman, when he uttered those words he had no idea of what was to be in the report. Here is a definite pledge that the government will invite parliament to take action in accordance with the commission's report. I continue to quote:
I think that to-night I need only say this to you: Should' the commission find that the primary producer has been denied his rightful profits or that the consumer has had to bear the excessive profits of a dominant industry; if as a consequence of this, the primary producer or the ultimate consumer, has had his standard of living adversely affected, action will be taken to put a stop to these iniquities.
I ask:	Has the primary producer been
denied his rightful privileges? Is there anyone in this house this afternoon who will say that during the last four years the primary producer of Canada has not been denied his



Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
rightful privileges which should accrue from the labour and energy which he has put into his operations? Will anyone deny that? No; it cannot be denied. It is one of the travesties of the times, as has been shown in this report, that so far as farm implements are concerned, so far as his relations in the marketing of his products through the packers are concerned, so far as his relations to the canning industry are concerned, the primary producer has held the bag. to use a colloquialism. The primary producer is the one who has lost out. Have we been invited to take adequate steps to correct these iniquities? I submit that no adequate steps have been taken. I quote:
So long as I am head of the government of this country, I will see fair play between the producer and the consumer, between industry and the public. I have no prejudices. I hope, and I play no favourites. But I could not better show my concern for industry than to rid' it of those practices which unfairly affect the pocketbook of the great bulk of the people of this country and work a damning injury to industry itself.
These are noble words, but I fail to find in the measures so far submitted to parliament that degree of remedy which was indicated in these words of the Prime Minister.
Let me call the attention of the house to what we have before us. We have had an amendment to the live stock act. One can dismiss that and say that it is little more than worthless. It does propose one or two things which were recommended in the commission's report, but had it been drawn up by the great packing institutions of this country it could not have been more satisfactory to them.
The next are the amendments to the criminal code. Has there ever been a time in the history of Canada and in the history of this parliament when a measure was introduced to parliament in response to the recommendations of a commission which sat for fifteen months with such words as those used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he introduced the measure and later when the discussion was finally brought to a head? The Minister of Justice said that these things were offered to parliament but it was not considered that they could be made effective because of constitutional difficulties. Whose business was it to draw them so that they would be effective? I say to the Minister of Justice that had he simply made the offences stated in that bill crimes, they would have been within the powers of parliament. I know what will happen when I say that; I shall be laughed at and ridiculed as a sort of ignorant layman who presumes

to talk on constitutional matters. I submit that an impartially minded legal man could draft these measures in the light of the chapter on labour of the report so that they would be within the constitution. Subsection (a), I think it is, of section 5 may be questionable, but I submit that most of the sections could have been brought within the criminal code. How were these amendments introduced? Parliament was told first by the Minister of Justice and then by a leading legal mind of the opposition that they were so much nonsense, on the one hand, and would not be effective, on the other. Did ever legislation start out on a career of reform under conditions such as that?
What was next? We come now to the amendments to the Companies Act. The minister who introduced this legislation stated in one part of his remarks that if he were in private practice he would like nothing better than to be briefed to contest the very measures he was introducing. I ask the serious minded hon. members of this house: Did ever legislation which was supposed to give effect to the solemn words and noble sentiments contained in the three speeches from which I have quoted start on its career of reform under auspices such as that?
We come now to the most important of all, the bill which is before us for third reading. I expressed previously my views on this legislation and I shall not repeat them other than to say this:	The bill is drafted1 and
confined to the narrowest interpretation of constitutional law when the report is as clear as day that there are prevailing in this country practices and customs which the report has indicated cannot be covered by statute law but if a commission were set up that would review these matters and make declarations on them, you could build1 up in this country a corporate practice that would recreate the fair practice of man, that practice which passed away with the open market place. That is what the report suggested. I still suubmit, not as a lawyer, but just as an ordinary member of the house, that if that board had been set up in that spirit, was given as wide constitutional powers as possible, having placed' upon it the administration of the various acts, but also being made a referee between conflicting business interests in Canada, a very great service could have been rendered.
But what is the chief weakness of this bill? It has been turned over to the tariff board. I have referred to that before. Let me repeat this: In so far as the worthy judge who presides over the. tariff board is con-

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
cerned, I could conceive of no man betteT able than he to preside over a body of this kind; but I know, every hon. member knows in his heart that that gentleman has now more to do than he can possibly do, and to place upon his shoulders the interpretation of that report through these anaemic statutes and expect results is asking for the impossible. It cannot be done and it will not be done; do not let us make any mistake about that. We may go out to the country and say that we have set up a trade and industry commission; we may go out and speak in laudatory terms of the chairman and his colleagues-and one could not speak too highly to suit me-but as surely as the sun rises to-morrow, you have handicapped that individual and1 that commission to such an extent that it is an impossibility for them to give effect to the reforms indicated in this report. What is the use of our deceiving ourselves? I am speaking thus because I am profoundly convinced that we dare not leave these matters in their present form without a final word of protest.
Let me now refer briefly to the Liberal view as expressed in the minority report, and I want to pay this tribute to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) with whose economic and social views I do not find myself in harmony at all-not that I do not respect him; he knows I do. But from my long acquaintance with him I know he will take words of criticism from me not as any personal reflection on himself or his party but simply as a conflict of ideas. The Liberal minority view is expressed in these words: it refers to the distress of the workers and it assigns that distress largely, and I think I might say almost wholly, to loss of external markets. I am not going to labour that point, but I wish to place very briefly in review the answer to that which I think is so definite there is no escape from it. It is not argument; it Js fact. There is not in Europe a country that in the years between 1923 and 1935 did not erect almost insuperable barriers against most of the primary products that we desire to export. Two or three years ago I placed on Hansard1 the record, giving the dates, of the amendments to their tariffs. This had nothing to do with Canada; I do not blame those in power during those days. No one has ever heard me charge the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) or his l'ate Minister of Finance or my dear old friend who on account of ill health is so rarely in the house, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Mal-92582-2411
colm) at any time with their having lost Canadian markets, and I say to the leader of the opposition now-and he can use this on every hustings in Canada so far as I am concerned-I do not say that he was responsible for losing the markets; but I do say this: Wheat, oats, bacon, cheese, live stock, honey, flour and a lot of other things all had the duties against them in Italy, France, Germany. Czechoslovakia, Belgium and the United States raised steadily while he was in office. I appeal to the hon. member for Weyburn and in general to hon. gentlemen opposite:	In the face of those
facts, is it going to advantage the workers of Canada to say to them that the reason they are in their present dilemma is that this government has lost markets for Canada? It simply is not true; that is all. Do not let us go out to the country and1 say to the working man that restored markets are the cure. I will say this to the present government and I will say it to the leaders on the other side of the house: I will join with anyone at any time in an effort to get wider markets; but do not let us blind our eyes to the exact situation. In addition to loss of markets, there was dislocation of exchange. Is it not amazing that the night before last this house passed in a one, two, three, a bill setting aside some $64,000,000 to stabilize exchange? WThy did1 we not wake up to that need four years ago? It is this belated recognition of problems-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friends opposite say: "Hear, hear.''- Not the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) who defeated me in the last election, because he has advocated stabilization, but I notice along the front benches hon. gentlemen who were very cautious about tampering with the monetary system of the country. But the point I make is this: here we are five years-r-well, from September, 1931, three and a half years-after Britain went off the gold standard when the question of exchange became an acute problem. After going through one year, two years, of depreciated sterling currency and disturbance of our trade with Britain in that respect; after all that, now we admit that exchange should be stabilized. It would have been infinitely better had we had the foresight to take that action at that time.
But I come back to the hon. member for Weyburn. The collapse of external markets, the closing of markets abroad, not by this government, not by the government that preceded it, but by the governments of Europe, and the dislocation of exchange, are what has

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
caused in large measure the collapse of our trade. Let me say to the hon. member for Weyburn: Will he suggest to me that the suffering in the needle trades which is revealed in this report in such tragic form is due to loss of external markets? Will he say that? What we drew attention to in this report was the tragic fate of 30,000. 40,000 or 50,000 workers in this country in the needle trades. Let me give the house a few examples. I read from page 109 of the report:
Characterized by economic instability and excessive competition, with "contract shops" and "home workers" alongside the usual type of manufacturer, this industry, though it includes many progressive and socially minded members, has had on the whole a doubtful record. The evidence we have taken shows that in many cases this record is only too well deserved.
Then it goes on:
Through price and wage cutting, these small firms maintain a precarious and temporary existence for themselves at a heavy social cost. Their low wages tend to reduce the level of wages elsewhere, to impair general purchasing power, and to increase relief costs. Their uneconomicaly low prices eagerly sought, if not dictated, by mass buyers, endanger the solvency of more reputable and stable establishments and contribute to the general disorganization of the industry.
I could, if time permitted, follow with quotation after quotation indicating the tragic condition of the workers. Is that due to the loss of external markets? I hear my hon. friend say, sotto voce, yes.


Mr. YOUNG:: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend still persists. It was caused, as the report indicates, largely by mass buying, largely by the concentration in the hands of a few people of the buying, and in some instances, not so much in this industry as in other industries, the cause lay in the hands of producing concerns. Those conditions cannot be blamed on a loss of external trade. They are conditions which have grown up in Canada and are there challenging our consideration and attention. We are told that the remedy for that is amendments to the criminal code which the Minister of Justice introduced the other day with such doubtful terminology.
Now, sir, the other argument of my hon. friend in this respect is the law of supply and demand. Perhaps he would like me to cite his words to the house. He says:
The best balance will be maintained by the free play of nature's law of supply and demand.
And again:
If economic forces are allowed free play the narginal producer will be the first to go-

I should like my hon. friends to listen to this:
-and the field will be left to the more efficient. In this way the industry would be put on a sounder and more economic basis than would be possible under a regulating board.
What the hon. gentleman says there is this -he will correct me if I misinterpret him. He says the best balance will be maintained by allowing nature's law of supply and demand to have full swing. Will he or anyone in this house indicate any place in the world, outside of perhaps some remote country that we scarcely ever hear of, where the law of supply and demand is functioning? Is there any place in the realm of international trade to-day where the law of supply and demand is functioning, not fully, but functioning at all?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not even in the cocoa-nut groves in the south seas.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not functioning. In Europe every major country which is a market for Canadian products has prohibitions of one kind and another and for one reason and another; in part because of fear, of the threat of future war; in part to take up again the tasks of pre-war days in the way of agricultural production and so forth; in part growing out of the tendency that developed in post-war days of dumping goods all over the world. Great Britain did it, the United States did it, Canada did it; Czechoslovakia, Germany, France, Italy, all did it. What did you read in your papers the other night? That an organization had been formed in Germany of certain industrial groups. What for? To tax each member of the group, I think seven to ten per cent, to create a fund out of which to pay bonuses for the export of goods. That is the competition we are going to be faced with. What is Japan doing? I think my hon. friend in one of his speeches cited Japan. What is her policy? Japan's policy is for the government to control the great corporations like Mitsui and Mitsu Bishi, which work hand in glove with the government, almost as departments of the government. And how do they handle it? By their system of control of these corporations. Internally they charge a price which they fix as a reasonable price for their people, and then, out of resources thus built up, they sell the goods abroad at figures that appal the world; figures that startled Italy so much that Mussolini set up practical prohibitions against Japanese goods; figures that startled England so much that the year before last she had to take measures to deal with the matter, and compromise by giving Japan a quota in her

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
territory; figures that have driven Canadian trade out of the West Indies, out of parts of Africa, and are threatening us in other parts of the world; figures that it is clearly demonstrated are below any possible costs of production. Such systems exist in various countries. What is the use of saying to this parliament and to the hard driven worker of this country: The solution for you, my friend, is the unrestricted play of the law of supply and demand. One might just as well talk about controlling the laws of gravity. These laws are not functioning to-day. My hon. friend cannot put his finger on any country in the world where they are.
But what is the ultimate result of his course, assuming it could be operative? He says:
If economic forces are allowed free play, the marginal producer-
Get this.
-the marginal producer will be the first to
go.
In other words he introduces the old law, the natural law, I suppose he would call it, of the survival of the fittest.


Edward Joseph Garland: The jungle law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: "The jungle law" someone suggests. Well, Mr. Speaker, is Canada to come under the jungle law? As a matter of fact we have it to-day. What I am trying to do, and what others are trying to do who argue as I have argued in this matter, is to induce parliament to recognize that two-thirds I would say, of our people to-day are suffering because certain groups are practising the jungle law. In this report we have called for a recognition of the overwhelming power of concentrated wealth, and the penalties that are suffered by the whole agricultural industry, by the workers in large measure and by the small business men and professional men of this country. That is why we are asking that parliament, as the custodian of the social rights of the people of Canada, should step in and-not regulate and interfere with private business, but stand between predatory interests and the fair operation of competitive measures between citizens of this country.
Now, sir, I want to speak very kindly but very frankly and plainly to my hon. hon. friends on this side of the house. We came into this house five years ago with a large majority. We had unlimited power so far as parliament was concerned.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You used it, too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We were swept into office on a wave of distress and depression. It is
of no profit now to go back and review what might have happened in the last days of the government of my right hon. friend opposite. We were honoured with the confidence of the people of this country. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Have we been true to that trust? That question calls for answer; that question is going to be answered some time within the next few months.
Let me ask this, Mr. Speaker: Have we solved our domestic problems in Canada? It may be interjected here that there were great international problems challenging the attention of the government. I question whether a country like Canada is justified in giving great external questions precedence over domestic questions; I question that frankly. What have we had externally? We had an international conference on monetary matters. I ask any hon. gentleman in this house: Did anything come out of that, other than a peculiar determination to buy a certain amount of silver? Did anything come out of that of any value to Canada? It is true that the nations of the world said twenty-five per cent gold coverage was sufficient where practice and custom had said forty per cent previously, but will anybody say that the great gold standard policy is any more effective now in bringing happiness, contentment, stability and prosperity to this country than it was five years ago, before that conference was held? Is there anyone, other than Montagu Norman of the Bank of England and a few others who still stick to it, who will say that the gold standard so-called is operating in any country in the world? I think Switzerland is the only country in which it is operating. Holland is boasting that it is operating there; it is not. France has boasted that it has maintained it; it has not. The United States has the largest quantity of gold of any country in the world, and certainly the gold standard is not in operation there. Great Britain has a stabilization fund of some six or seven hundred million pounds, but the gold standard is not operating there. Canada is the second or third largest producer of gold in the world and is in a fortunate position, but the gold standard is not operating here. We have been clinging to these old shibboleths; we have been hanging on tenaciously to stability of currency and things of that kind, and at the same time we have forgotten that there are domestic problems calling for attention and consideration and solution.
What have we done in connection with the unemployment problem? It does not follow that my hon. friends opposite can say that the whole responsibility is on the government,

Trade Commission-Mr. Stevens
because after all, as I said the other day, this house represents the last stronghold of democracy and it will not do for hon. gentlemen opposite simply to cast that question across the floor of the house. I ask this house: What have we done in regard to unemployment except give relief to people in distress, and generally speaking I think that has been done generously. But, sir, as to the underlying causes of unemployment I ask you: In the last five years has this house spent, I was going to say one consecutive hour, on it, other than some desultory speeches, n an attempt to solve that problem? W'hat aave we done with regard to the high interest burden? Has that question been solved? Is it a question that Canada ought to face? Is it a domestic question? True the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and one or two others brought it before parliament and it has been discussed in a desultory sort of way, but the problem of the weight of debt and the high, usurious rates of interest in this country has never once gripped the attention of this house though it is one of the underlying domestic problems that is causing much of the distress in this country.
Well, we come to the wheat question. I cannot discuss that in detail, but I think I am at liberty to refer to it in passing. The wheat question was under consideration at an international conference held more than two years ago. Certainly no results came from that conference, except that there was an attempt to stabilize the movement of wheat in the world, which was quickly abandoned by one country, which threw the whole matter out of gear. The one thing that prevented the vheat question from 'becoming one of the most ;ragic problems this country had to face last rear was the failure of nature to bring some *ain in the United States and the Canadian vest, and the fact that there were some grasshoppers there. These factors brought about the postponement of the wheat question, but what have we to-day? You, Mr. Speaker, and others in this house who come from the west, know that there is a likehood of a four hundred million bushel crop in western Canada and a two hundred million bushel carryover. We are setting up a wheat board, that is all very well. Let me pay this tribute to the right hon. Prime Minister: I am in hearty accord with the review of the last four and a half or five years which he gave in the house in such an able manner the other day. But, sir, what of the future? By turning over your problem to a wheat board have you solved the problem? Why, you have not approached a solution. I want to say that in my belief next winter, in all probability, we are going 
to be confronted with the worst problem in connection with wheat that we have ever been confronted with. I should not like that to be interpreted as a suggestion that the policy that has been followed for the last four years is wrong. There may be some things that might have been done or some things which should have been left undone, but in the main I think everything was done in the best interests of the country at the time, and the western farmers have benefited. Let me say to my hon. friends from the west, from where I come myself, that this autumn we are going to be faced with one of the most difficult problems that ever confronted this country or any government in this country. So do not let us think we have solved the wheat problem.
What about housing? A bill was introduced last night in that connection. I have not had time fully to study it but I was grievously disappointed when I found that only $10,000,000 was provided for housing. Does this house realize the situation? For four years we have been spending probably $60,000,000, $70,000,000 or a little more in construction and reconstruction. The normal expenditure over a long period of years is about $300,000,000. Not long ago I ventured the statement-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but I do not think he should refer to that question. It is before the house in another measure and is not the subject matter of this bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
I will refer briefly, then, to the sweatshops. I have already indicated the abortive nature of the amendments to the criminal code, which were introduced in this house by a minister who damned the bill in its introduction. I have already dealt with vicious trade practices.
In conclusion, sir, I want to say that this parliament-I am speaking of the parliament and not of the government-came into existence five years ago with high expectations. The people trusted it. It has been nurtured throughout largely on dissertations on constitutional law. There has not been a question of importance brought up concerning the domestic affairs of this country in connection with which we have not been confronted with the British North America Act, to such an extent that when you go throughout the country to-day as I do there is scarcely a place where people will not approach you and ask what is meant by the constant resurrection or bringing to the front of the British North America Act. I admit the force of the argument that we must not invade provincial rights; no man has ever heard me advocate

Trade Commission-Mr. Bennett
that but, as I said the other day, if parliament is to be handcuffed by the British North America Act in heaven's name let us at least attempt to unravel that problem. But we have not done much in regard to it. We have been drugged into quiescence by a few ill-considered bills that were damned when they were introduced by those who introduced them.
Mr. Speaker, I speak with a good deal of regret, but I feel that we have failed to hear the rumblings in the country, the rumblings of discontent, the demands for action, the claims from the farmers, the workers, the business men, industrialists, manufacturers and professional men, all of whom are looking to parliament to find some way out of this difficulty with which we find ourselves confronted. I still believe it is possible for parliament-too late now, perhaps-but I still believe it was possible for parliament to bring some measure of justice, some measure of equity, some laws which would enable men to live one with the other in honest competition, rather than to be subjected to the domineering control of certain industries. I believe, sir, that the ideal of the Canadian people is justice, equity and fair dealing, and I believe the Canadian people will demand of hon. members, as we leave this parliament and face the country, that we answer them as to why it was in this closing session of parliament we have not done more than has been done in these three or four bills which, in my opinion, are wholly inadequate to deal with the difficulties with which we have been confronted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in 1867 the provinces were united together under a statute known as the British North America Act. This statute constitutes the constitution of the Dominion of Canada. It contemplated a federal, not a legislative union. Under the provisions of that statute, whether we like it or not, we are bound until such time as the statute has been changed, by proper authority.
On May 30, 1919, this House of Commons set up a committee constituting of Messrs. Nicholson (Algoma), Stevens-the hon. member who has just taken his seat-Reid (Mackenzie), Douglas (Strathcona), Davis, Hocken, Sutherland, Fielding, Davidson, Nesbit, Mc-Coig, Sinclair (Queens, P.E.I.), Devlin, Vien and Eulerfor the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel and other necessities of life, and as to the rates of profit made thereon by dealers and others concerned in
their production, distribution and sale; also as to rentals of dwelling houses in industrial centres of Canada and rates of return of capital invested therein, with power-
And so on.
That committee held many meetings, and made two reports an interim and a final report. I shall refer to the interim report. The committee was presided over by the late George B. Nicholson, and I believe the hon. member who has just taken his seat was at times vice-chairman. The interim report reads in part as follows;
Tuesday, June 26, 1919. The special committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel and other necessities of life, and as to the rates of profit made thereon by dealers and others concerned in their production, distribution and sale, also as to the rentals of dwelling houses in industrial centres of Canada and rates of return of capital invested therein, presented the second' report of the said committee.
Then they report that they have examined numbers of witnesses.
There has come to the attention of your committee evidence in regard to undue profits being made on certain commodities. Your committee in order to provide a means by which a recurrence of such may be prevented and that the public may be protected against unfair practices in trade recommend to the consideration of the house and the government that legislation be enacted at this session of parliament creating a tribunal with power to investigate mergers, trusts, monopolies or organizations of any kind or nature, which tend to limit facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing, or preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production, or fixing a common price, or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage, or transportation, or enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation or preventing or lessening competition in or substantially controlling within any particular district, or enerally, production, manufacture, purchase, arter, sale, transportation, insurance, or supply, or otherwise restraining or injuring commerce, or unduly enhancing the price of the necessaries of life, also with regulative power in connection with discriminations in price between different purchasers of commodities, exclusive purchase and sale arrangements, inter-corporate shareholding and interlocking directorates and unfair methods in commerce.
That report is signed by the chairman.
The third report was dated July 5, 1919, and is a comprehensive survey and review of conditions as they had existed in Canada. Those conclusions being somewhat long I shall not take the time this afternoon-indeed I am not able to-to read them at length, beyond saying that the remedy is to be found at page 12 of the report. I shall direct the attention of the house seriously to these remedies or recommendations:

Trade Commission-Mr. Bennett
26. The board of commerce. Your committee in their interim report recommended the constitution of a board of commerce, which would continue and extend the work done not only by this committee but by the various controls which the government have put into operation during the war. The publicity given to the investigations of such a board will have a steadying effect. Its powers of regulation applied to trade practices and agreements will speed reform, and large questions of policy where trade tends to combinations and restrictions may be submitted to the board for advisory action.
Cooperation was the next recommendation. Then, "specific remedies for these conditions can only be expressed in general terms." The report goes on to give further details.
What happened? On the strength of that report the then Prime Minister introduced two resolutions to this House of Commons which, in due course, were followed by two bills. Those two bills were given first reading in this house, second reading in this house and third reading in this house, were sent to the Senate and became law. At page 488, of the Journals of the House of Commons for 1919 these words are to be found:
By leave of the house Mr. Meighen obtained leave to introduce the following bills, which were read the first time, and ordered for a second reading at the next sitting of the house, viz.:-
Bill No. 166, an act to constitute a board of commerce for Canada.
Bill No. 167, an act concerning the investigation and restraint of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers and the withholding and enhancement of the price of commodities.
I shall not follow the references in detail. It will be observed that on the recommendation of the select committee of the House of Commons, of which the hon. member who has just taken his seat was a member, so far as I can find the report was made unanimous. This is a report of a committee considered and approved by both sides of the house. The essential facts in the report may be summarized in two recommendations (1) that a board of commerce with large powers shall be created, and (2) that a statute dealing with monopolies and combines was to be enacted by this parliament.
On the strength of those recommendations Mr. Meighen, the then Prime Minister, introduced these bills to the House of Commons, and those who are desirous of reading them will find them in the statutes for that year. They are extremely comprehensive; they are extremely drastic. They attempt to do everything that has been suggested here this afternoon may be done-everything.
As I said at the threshold of my observations this country has a constitution; it is

a federal union. Those two statutes in due course went before the privy council, and the privy council decided both of them were bad. Those are the facts. That constitution, not having been changed, meantime the law of this country as it affects these matters is to be found in those two cases. Therefore a government must do one of two things, it must invite parliament to pass a statute which it knows is illegal and which will be set aside at the first opportunity, or it must ensure that there will be some amendment to the constitution in order to render constitutional that which has been declared unconstitutional.
Now just let us for a moment look at it because those two cases have had a tremendous effect upon certain things that I said and that I believed in then and still believe in to-day. I have not changed my mind, but I am going to point out what these cases mean. There is the board of commerce case. I am not going to bother the House of Commons this afternoon to read the decision of the privy council with respect to that case. But there was a court set up by this parliament with all the regulatory powers that have been suggested this afternoon should be vested in some board created by this parliament. The privy council says you cannot do that thing. There was also the statute against combines and monopolies, which also was set aside. Fortunately this later statute as it was developed in more recent years was held to be intra vires by the privy council, and it is unnecessary for me to do more than to say that part of the effort made in 1919 has been accomplished by the effort that has been made successfully in the present combines act.
Those being the facts, let us look at this matter fairly. It is no good to appeal to prejudice; it is no good to inveigh in passionate terms with respect to evils, if this tribunal cannot deal with those evils. All I can say is that there are certain evils that I believed could be dealt with, and I referred to them in certain radio addresses, and I did say that I would endeavour to implement the recommendations of the price spreads commission, but I of course believed that the price spreads commission would at least recommend legislation that was intra vires of this parliament. I believed that it would at least recommend legislation that it knew could be dealt with by this parliament. I believed that it would at least take some cognizance of the report made in 1919 and of the two statutes which the Prime Minister of that day introduced to implement it and which were declared in due course to be bad, invalid, and ultra vires, and I

Trade Commission-Mr. Bennett
stand by what I then said. Within the constitutional power of this parliament we have submitted to this house measures that we believe are within the competence of this parliament, subject to what I shall say presently, and which embodied the effect and purport of the decisions of the privy council with respect to the legislation on the recommendations made in 1919.
My view is that the constitution of this country must be changed. I have held that view strongly. But it is all right to say you believe in that. You must remember this in a country like ours: This is a country in which you have diverse races. You have minority rights to consider. You are not like a country where your entire population is of one race, speaking one language, and with one set of customs. You must have regard to these facts when you talk about amending the constitution. The constitution cannot be changed in a single day because some man finds that he cannot do under the present constitution what he would like to do. The constitution of Canada was arrived at as a compromise. It was arrived at after many matters had been discussed, after many negotiations and those who are familiar with the agitation that has been carried on in the maritime provinces cannot but recall that in the city of Saint John and elsewhere it has been contended that the constitution as it now stands was a departure from the understanding between the parties who negotiated the terms of the constitution.
I have endeavoured to discuss the question of amendments to the constitution on more than one occasion with representatives of the provinces. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition called together a conference, they sat for a week discussing the question in a solemn and serious effort to arrive at a conclusion as to what steps might be taken to amend the constitution and at the end they had arrived at no definite conclusion because there are problems that you meet at the very threshold of any such discussion that make it very difficult not to create an air of suspicion with respect to rights that are prized more dearly than anything else in the world. It is so necessary that we should keep that fact in mind in dealing with a problem of this kind. I have endeavoured to point out that anyone dealing with this matter must take cognizance of what has taken place, of the effort made by parliament and of the failure of parliament to accomplish the end aimed at because of insufficiency of legislative jurisdiction.
Now let us go a step further and deal with the report that is now before the house called
the price spreads report, as it relates to the legislation in this bill which is now before the house for its third reading. I suppose I must in the very nature of things make a few observations with respect to one or two matters that have been referred to.
How can it be possible for any member of this house to stand up in his place and say seriously:	Why don't you pass an amendment to the criminal code and deal with these matters that way? Well, the counsel who argued the board of commerce and combines cases in 1919 urged that same argument. They are all dealt with, and in the proprietary medicine case Lord Atkin dealt with this problem. I may point out that the present chief justice of Canada speaking for the privy council in the celebrated reciprocal insurance case pointed out that it was ultra vires of this parliament to make anything it pleases a crime. The chief justice in reading the judgment of all the court pointed out-I am speaking from memory-that when parliament endeavoured to make it a crime for an insurance agent to solicit business for a nonregistered company, a company that had not come within the provisions of the insurance act, that that was ultra vires of parliament and must be treated as such, and he set aside that part of the statute as being invalid because it was an interference with and an encroachment upon provincial rights, and disguising the encroachment upon that power by the assertion that a certain combination of conditions constituted a crime. Now I have to meet that fact. Whether we like it or not we have to meet it, and if I assumed with the aid of counsel that the price spreads commission was going to make recommendations within the law, I think I was perfectly right in assuming it would when I made the statement I did in January. What is more, to the limit of the power of parliament we have invited parliament to pass measures that will give redress within our competence.
To deal for a moment with criminal law, I would be the last to say that men who are trained in the law have any peculiar monopoly of judgment with respect to any particular matter, but they at least are trained to know something of the principles that govern courts in deciding cases, and it is their business at least to point out, if they happen to be in government, to those with whom they are associated, the Minister of Justice and others with whom they can discuss it, what constitutes the limitations upon our constitutional powers. It is so easy for those who do not know to assume a power which does not exist. It is so difficult at times to make the ordinary

Trade Commission-Mr. Bennett
man realize a power does not exist. It is so easy for one to say:	Why cannot you make
that a crime? I confess that I am one of those who in my younger days believed that parliament could make anything a crime. I thought that power did exist, and when the privy council declared it did not, I had to revise my views. That is one of the things lawyers have to do, revise their views from time to time as decisions are made as to what rules shall govern in determining whether or not a particular statute is within or without the powers of parliament. Leaving criminal law for the moment I desire to deal with one other matter.
It is said, for instance, that the statutes which are now before the house fail to implement the promises that have been made with respect to what parliament would be asked to do, and particular reference has been made to the live stock industry and the live stock statute. Well, sir, there is perhaps no one single matter that engaged the attention of the Department of Justice more than that, and the difficulty of the price spreads commission lies in the fact that it did not adequately understand the extent to which existing legislation granted a remedy. That is the real trouble. For instance, on the question of the difficulties with respect to live stock I hold in my hand a memorandum submitted to the Minister of Justice (Mr* Guthrie) by the Department of Agriculture, and I am going to read part of it:
"As a step toward the solution of some, at least, of the problems...." of the producers of live stock, the royal commission on price spreads recommends that a live stock board' be established under appropriate jurisdiction.
It is evident that the suggested duties of such a board, as summarized in section 15 on page xxii of the report, have been outlined with but scant recognition of the extent to which many of them are now being performed by the Department of Agriculture, and without consideration of the possibility of providing for the performance of practically all of the remainder through minor amendments to existing legislation, more particularly the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.
It is the considered opinion of the department that the creation of a live stock board for the purposes outlined would result in overlapping of, and confusion in respect of administrative authority, and that it would seriously retard progress which, through constructive effort over a long period of years, has been made in encouraging the production of improved live stock and in safeguarding the producer in the marketing of it. Increased momentum in the direction of the objectives defined in the commission's recommendations can, in the opinion of the department, best be attained under authority of the Natural Products Marketing Act and of the Live Stock 
and Live Stock Products Act, amended where necessary to provide for extension of this authority.
Dealing specifically with the duties of the proposed live stock board as outlined by the commission, the comment of this department is as follows:
"(a) The prompt dissemination of information to producers and the trade generally, in respect to production, marketing, stocks, and prices, both export and domestic:"
Through the markets intelligence service of the live stock branch, market information is now assembled by telegraph from all stockyards in the country, and by cable from Great Britain. This information is supplied to the daily press and to broadcasting stations. It covers:-numbers of all classes of live stock marketed in each yard, price ranges, grade by grade, movements within the dominion and on export, comparisons with previous years, comments on price tendencies, et cetera, and, in the form of weekly summaries, monthly reports and annual reviews, is available to producers and to the trade.
"(b) Administrative jurisdiction in matters connected with all phases of live stock marketing and in connection with disputes between producers, processors, et cetera:"
Under the authority of the Live Stock Products Act. the department has for years exercised administrative jurisdiction in matters connected with live stock marketing. This authority has been extended from time to time to provide for increased encouragement of, and protection to producers, and, as indicated in dealing with sections 1 to 14 in the commission's recommendations, is capable of further extension.
Section 17 (1) of the Natural Products Marketing Act provides that "The minister may, at the request of the board or upon his own initiative authorize an investigation into the cost of_ production, wages, prices, spread, trade practices, methods of financing, management policies, grading, transportation and other matters in relation to the production and marketing, adaptation for sale, processing or conversion of any natural or regulated product." In addition, under section 4 (b) of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, authority is given to the governor in council to make regulations prescribing "the manner in which complaints against the operation, maintenance, or management of stockyards shall be made and investigated:"
Again, under section 4	(j) of this act,
authority is given for the making of regulations prescribing "the manner in which complaints against live stock exchanges, cooperative associations, commission merchants, dealers, or members of live stock exchanges, shall be made and investigated:"
There is the power which has existed for years. Why pass another statute which will overlap the existing laws? As is known to hon. members, the difficulty lies in the lack of enforcement of the laws of Canada; it is not in connection with laws, which if slightly amended, as has been done in this ease, will meet the situation to which the price spreads reports direct attention. The difficulty has been that no one has been charged with the enforcement of these laws and that is why

Trade Commission

Mr. Bennett
provision is made for a director of public prosecutions in the bill now before the house for third reading. The following is the next recommendation:
"(c) Licensing and supervision of truckers, dealers and export packers; where necessary in cooperation with provincial authorities;" Under sections 7. 8 and 10 of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, authority is given for regulations under which commission men and dealers in live stock are now licensed. Suggestions as to how, under this authority, the basis of licensing could be modified to more closely correspond with the recommendations of the commission were made in dealing with recommendation 4. Regulations established under authority of section 4 of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act now provide for the licensing of packers in respect to the exporting of bacon to Great Britain. The licensing of truckers, as implied in the committee's recommendation, involves cooperation wnth provincial authorities, and the manner in which effect could be given to this phase of the recommendation to the fullest degree was covered in dealing with recommendation 5.
"(d) Adequate inspection of all marketing stages and action to correct abuses:"
The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act is primarily designed to provide for adequate inspection of all stages in the marketing of live stock, and to correct abuses in the system. Under the authority of the Natural Products Marketing Act, producers now have the opportunity of exercising as much influence as may be found possible to this end.
"(e) Cooperation with producers, processors and the trade generally, to ensure as far as possible a balance between production and available markets;" ...	.
This recommendation implies regulation of production which, in the case of live stock, can possibly never be accomplished except to a very minor extent. Under the authority of the Natural Products Marketing Act, producers now have the opportunity to accomplish, indirectly as much as may be advisable in this regard.
"(f) To encourage the organization of producers of live stock for regular and orderly marketing;"
Under the Natural Products Marketing Act, producers now have every opportunity to organize to promote regular and orderly marketing.
Last year we passed the Natural Products Marketing Act to deal with that very thing. Why duplicate it? Why place upon the statute book something that already exists?
"(g) Improvement of quality of all live
Three branches of the department-the live stock branch, the experimental farms branch and the health of animals branch-in cooperation with the several provincial departments of agriculture and agricultural colleges, have been for years, and are now engaged in numerous activities designed to improve the quality of live stock of all classes throughout the dominion.
Does anyone suggest that we require a new law to deal with that recommendation? Does anyone suggest that there has not been upon
the statute books of this dominion and the various provinces ample legislation to deal with that? The recommendations continue:
"(h) The formation of a uniform policy on extenral marketing, with a view not only to promoting new, but also retaining and developing, existing markets;"
Government policy in relation to external trade, rather than the administrative functions of any board or department, will be involved in giving effect to this recommendation.
It is known that we 'have people in England for the purpose of maintaining the quality of our products under this very act and for the purpose of making our standards what they should be. The bill now before the house for third reading provides for the creation of Canada standards similar to the British standards which they have in Great Britain.
"(i) The stabilization of supplies, and the regulation of quality to each particular market;"
Under the Natural Products Marketing Act, producers now have the opportunity to go as far as may be found possible in stabilization of supplies and in regulation of quality to each particular market.
"(j) The utilization of all available means to secure fair returns to the primary producers of good stock."
The establishment of adequate grading services is implied by this recommendation. Such services, in relation to certain products, are now in effect under authority of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, and provision for the establishment of others may be made by minor amendments to the act, as already recommended in dealing with recommendations 7, 8 and 11. In addition to this provision, there is the possibility of developing relative grade values under the Natural Products Marketing Act.
"16. The live stock board to make a careful survey of the situation in the British market, with a view to:

(a)	Ascertaining to what extent Canadian packers and the British bacon committee operate as a mutual body; and
(b)	To revise the grading of export bacon so as to insure the highest possible price for Canadian "selects" and "bacon" hogs; and
(c)	To secure such a system of distribution as will satisfactorily meet the requirements of the British trade, while at the same time insuring full and adequate protection to the producer of hogs in Canada."
(a)	Any survey of the situation in the British market which may be found advisable may now be made under authority of part II of the Natural Products Marketing Act.
These surveys have been going on in England both under the live stock act and the marketing act and reports are coming in week by week as to what should be done to im-pove conditions there.
(b)	Any revision of the grading of export bacon which may be found advisable involves merely modification of regulations now established under authority of section 4 of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think any man will question that. I well remember a former minister of the crown saying to me at the time of the war, Germany must pay this, for we will never be able to. I have never forgotten it, it was a very sound statement. This country has a debt, incurred directly as a result of our engaging in European hostilities, the annual interest on which is much more than the whole national debt of this country for many years after it came into being. That is a serious fact. But to state the fact is not to remedy it, to call attention to it does not cure it. Attention has been called to it in this house and will be. I believe that by 1937 someone must undertake the great problem of a Canadian conversion.

Trade Commissiortr-Mr. Bennett
But if we are going to (have a conversion there is only one way it can be done, and that is by maintaining our credit.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If we lost our national
character, which is our credit, then we shall never be able to make the conversion. The one object that this government has had1 in mind1 more than any other in dealing with our financial problems has been so to conduct our affairs that reasonable and honest men may say that we have treated our creditors as honest men do; that we have so utilized our legislative powers that it could be said that we had encouraged men to be honest and1 pay their debts according to their promises.
But bankruptcy intervenes, and bankruptcy is not anything new in law, we know what it is founded on, we know what it goes back to; and we did conceive the thought, after a case had been submitted to the supreme court of Canada, that we could deal with these cases in the manner im which they have been dealt with. If there is one thing more than any other that has brought relief to the Canadian farmer it has been the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, 'hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now with respect to
other bills I do not propose to say more than this; that within the ambit of our powers we have offered to this parliament legislation that is within our constitutional right. The attack made upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) because he ventured to point out, as I think it was his duty to do for a reason I shall presently give, that doubt had been expressed by counsel to whom the case had been referred as to the validity of the legislation, was unfair because that was what you would expect any attorney general of Canada to do in view of past experience of this parliament. I think any man would say that was the least an attorney general of Canada could do. Why? Because the report of a commission was before the house, and I pointed out the other day that we had made up our minds within our legal rights to implement its recommendations. The minister was obviously bound in good faith to communicate to this house the fact that doubts had been expressed to him as to the validity of the bill, not for the purpose of making it abortive legislation, not for the purpose of saying it was anaemic, but for the purpose of keeping faith as an honest man with those
who looked to him as Minister of Justice for guidance. Those who remember what was said about the Board of Commerce Act in 1919-look it up in the debates-will recall that doubts were expressed with respect to it, but the government proceeded with it in order that the question might be settled. So with respect to this legislation, the government submitted the legislation to the house. And when we come to the Companies Act, about which different opinions have -been held for the last half century and will continue to be held, as to the best means of effecting the desired ends, the minister submitted that to the house and said: It is your bill as much as mine, let me have your suggestions, I only say that there is a provision in it which I believe if I were practising law I could have set aside. That was not any lack of good1 faith, it was because he wanted this house to realize that in dealing with legislation which was doubtful the house should have the benefit of the views of counsel who had been consulted for the purpose of determining whether parliament was within its rights in enacting it. It is all very well to say that people are sick of hearing about the British North America Act. We have had several illustrations of what it means when people and parliaments and legislatures do not observe its provisions. We have had the insurance references and other references which I could mention. We had the board of commerce case, the combines case, and matters of that sort.
My duty, as I conceive it, is to offer legislation to this house for enactment which the Minister of Justice, with the aid of counsel whom he has consulted, believes to be constitutional and valid. If there be a doubt then we are willing that the house should take the responsibility of enacting it if they think it desirable, 'but it is our duty to tell the house of that doubt. Would it be right for the Minister of Justice to conceal these facts and say to the house: Here is a valid legislative enactment that you 'may pass; or is it right and proper that he should say that up to a certain point there seems to be no doubt, the courts have decided that we have the power, but when it gets beyond that there is doubt and uncertainty; I merely say that these opinions have been expressed to me as I have expressed them to you.
Now, sir, if the people of the country have been led into the belief that this parliament can pass any kind of legislation it likes regardless of the constitution, the age of law-

Trade Commission-Mr. Bennett
lessness is upon us. Let there be no misunderstanding of that. Those who read history and understand its implications know that the first step towards fascism in Europe was what? The first step towards dictatorship in Europe was what? It was a prejudicial appeal to the little man; that was first. Then followed the inevitable utter disregard of constitutional limitations, the utter disregard of constitutional liberties and the utter disregard of consitutional freedom. Sir, there is a way by which this country may obtain jurisdiction for this parliament to deal with these matters. It well may be that the parliament of Canada should have greater powers than it possesses; there is a difference of opinion with respect to that matter, a very earnest difference of opinion. In these days of stress and strain some men have concluded that if we had one Central parliament with county councils instead of provincial legislatures all would be well. It may be so. It may be that the readjustment of the financial position of the provinces and the municipalities may bring limitations upon the exercise of power by the provincial legislatures. That may well be, but it cannot be brought about by endeavouring to induce the people to believe that parliament may do what the courts say it may not do. I repeat that the third branch of government, the judiciary, becomes tremendously important. That is why I have said that in the ultimate analysis we always have to depend upon the conclusions and decisions of the courts. That is why in the end, if we are a law abiding people who believe in reform and not in revolution, we must proceed precept by precept, line upon line, to the end that in an orderly and legal manner we may accomplish the ends we have in mind. But it is never right, it never can be right, to induce those who do not understand to believe that a parliament has power and will not exercise it out of mere obstinacy or fear. That serves no purpose, except to induce people to believe that there is a body of legislators sitting in this house some of whom are less honest than one, and that therefore they will not do that which one would do.


Mr. POULIOT:: Name them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I spare the hon. gentleman's feelings; I might name him. I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that the only method by which we will ever be able in this parliament to possess the powers it is suggested we should exercise is by that change in our constitutional fabric that may be brought about by a constitutional conference. As I have pointed out, there was a constitutional conference in the years prior to 1867, a conference 
that was not limited to men of one party, at which they met together and discussed how they might be able to bring about the union of these provinces of British North America. If we desire to change this constitution we can do it in an orderly and proper manner, but until we have done it let us, as loyal and law abiding citizens, be bound by the courts of the country that have been set up for the purpose of deciding how far we may go and where our proud hand must be stayed.
That is the position which I submit to this house as the governing principle that has determined the actions taken by this government during the last few months in dealing with these problems. I do point out that even if we stay here for the rest of the summer we are content to enact legislation that lies within our competence. When suggestions come that are within the law, according to the advice of competent counsel, for instance, when the Companies Act is under consideration, I for one shall be glad to hear them. This very bill, the third reading of which we are now considering, was amended in one particular, for example, owing to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young), who thought that wider publicity should be given. I at once said I believed that was a sound thing to do and an amendment was introduced providing that the public who may be interested might have an opportunity to be heard before any agreement as contemplated between producers should receive the sanction of the commission.
It has been said that the tariff board has not the power to undertake this task because it is busy. All I can say is that the chairman of that board has said that he feels that the board is able to undertake this task. We did not ask this house to give the tariff board authority to deal with these matters until we knew that they thought, at least, that it was within their power and their competence to do so so far as time was concerned. More than that, we cannot and will not ask this parliament to set up a body that has the power to enact laws, for that is a delegation of power that has not been made constitutional as matters now stand. This parliament must enact such legislation, and the regulations framed under it may indeed be made by any body, and the body has been set up under the act, the third reading of which is now under consideration. This act gives effect to every principle that should be given effect to within the legal competence of this parliament under the price spreads report, so called, with respect to the matters dealt with; when taken with the other statutes to
Trade Commission-Mr. Woodsworth

which I have alluded, and with which I will not deal at length this afternoon, it will be found that every recommendation that is within our legal competence has been given effect to. I regret if the manner in which that has been done does not commend itself to the judgment of all the members of that commission, but there is no rule that provides that you must enact legislation that pleases every member of a commission. There is no rule that calls upon this parliament to enact legislation in the terms of a recommendation, unless indeed the recommendation is legal. For as sixteen years ago those recommendations were made in good faith and were found to be the basis of invalid and unconstitutional legislation, we trust that in the meantime, with sixteen years of experience with the decisions of the courts, we have avoided the pitfalls that were pointed out by the privy council.
I do submit to this house, in asking for the third reading of this bill, that in this measure we have made an earnest effort-not the last word but an earnest effort-to attain the end in view. If it happens that all these ends are not attained at one fell swoop I am always content to remember that the development of British institutions, of the very institution which we enjoy to-day, as xyell as of our common law, has been here a little and there a litttle, precept upon precept, line upon line, until the growth and development of common sense has found expression in legislation reflecting the will and purpose of the people.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's eloquent defence of the present legislation there are many of us who recognize the hopeless inadequacy of the bill as it comes before us for third reading. We feel, too, that it is far from implementing the report of the price spreads commission. I always enjoy listening to the Prime Minister's speeches, but I have a feeling that as a great advocate he might almost as easily argue on the other side and be equally convincing. He makes use of a great many well rounded phrases and catch words which often becloud rather than clarify the issue before the house. I believe that was the case in the speech to which we have just listened.
I must say that the speaker who preceded the right hon. gentleman, the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) made a speech with much of which I very heartily concur. He gave an indictment of the existing business practices which was not in any sense answered by the Prime Minister. Indeed
the Prime Minister was so busy talking about constitutional questions, difficulties and limitations that he did not really get around to a consideration of the great evils besetting the people of Canada to-day. At least in part these evils have been set forth in the report of the price spreads commission, and I do not intend to take the time to enumerate them. I believe we all realize however that we cannot long endure present conditions.
This and other bills which have been introduced by the government, professing to implement the report of the price spreads commission, do not I submit begin to touch the evils of existing practices. More than that, the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce has given an indictment of the proposed legislation which I believe maintains its strength, notwithstanding all that the Prime Minister has said. Again I do not wish to review the ground traversed by the ex-minister, but I must say that he has expressed to-day what is in the minds of a great many people in Canada, namely, that notwithstanding these constitutional and financial difficulties we cannot go on as we are for very much longer. He has expressed, too, the disappointment of large numbers of Canadian people in the legislation now before the house.
Further than that, I quite agree with what he said concerning Liberal theories. It seems to me that the Liberal position with regard to these bills has been anything but justifiable on the part of people who are-as they are- making a bid for power within the next few months. We have yet to learn what the Liberal policy is. For months, at this session of parliament, the legislative program of the Conservative party has been under criticism. I believe the Liberal party are quite right in criticizing, but we have not yet been given any alternative policy. It seems to me that position cannot be justified. In this instance the Liberals simply go back to the old theory of free competition, individual liberty, and that kind of thing at a time, as the ex-minister has pointed out, when those phrases simply do not apply and when certainly they will not solve our problem.
I believe I should not have ventured however to say anything at this stage, had not the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce taken the ground that there had been very little discussion in this house with regard to some of the most important problems with which, in his judgment, we could deal. He spoke about questions of currency, and indicated that we should have considered the stabilization of currency; in fact he indicated that we should have had it five years ago. Well,


Edward Joseph Garland: Even if
the repentance is qualified.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; at the same
time I do say that it is not fair of the ex-minister to speak as he did to-day, as if an earnest effort had not been made to bring these matters before the house, and as if during that period he had not been a member of the government that negatived these efforts of ours. We also brought in a motion dealing with debts and with the whole question of economic conditions.
In 1933 the hon. member for Macleod brought in one of his numerous amendments to the Interest Act. In 1934 there was a motion for the national control of credit and finance; our cooperative commonwealth motion again, and on this occasion the debate was adjourned, which killed the discussion. We also brought up the question of unemploymem relief, and the resolution still stood on the order paper at the end of the session, so again we did not get the fullest discussion. We brought in a motion on the nationalization of insurance, a motion to control credit, and an amendment to distribute the abundance that we had. In 1934 there was an
amendment of ours to provide a stable currency and credit system based on goods and services; and so on.
I need not mention the motions and amendments of this year, but I have mentioned some of those of preceding years just to show that during the time the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce was a member of the cabinet we persistently urged the very reforms that he is urging to-day.
The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce advanced the idea to-day that the government should be in the position of referee. He says that he is not opposed to capitalism but simply to the evils of capitalism, and he is out to champion the small business men against unscrupulous corporations. Well, I congratulate him on having come pretty nearly to the traditional Liberal policy, because that is the position they have taken all along, that the government should be simply a policeman to see that there are no fouls on cither side and that generally there is fair .play, I think the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce would go further than that and say that there should be definite regulation.
The Prime Minister makes as his defence the statement that the government has done all that it legally may do, and having done so, no good citizen should criticize the government. Of course that is a begging of the whole question. No one wants to criticize if the government has done all it should do, but that is the very point at issue. The Prime Minister raises the old constitutional question. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the history of all constitutional questions is this, that what at one time was declared unconstitutional has a few years later been declared constitutional. We had an illustration of that a few days ago. The Prime Minister told us that it was not within his .power to interfere with the march of the British Columbia relief camp strikers, that he could not interfere unless he was asked to do so by the provincial government, but three or four days later this government gave orders for the police to stop the marchers in Saskatchewan, and that in spite of the protests of the premier of Saskatchewan. What was unconstitutional one week became quite constitutional the next.
Going back (three or four years to the days of the blank cheque, we found that under peace, order and good government, or under the special provisions introduced ad that time, it was quite possible under unemployment relief legislation to assist the banks and insurance companies. They were given help by being allowed to write up their assets.
3S14	COMMONS
Trade Commission-Mr. Woodsworth


Edward Joseph Garland: Falsify their recounts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, falsify their accounts. I do not think that is too strong a term to use. Their assets were put up to a figure higher than what they had paid for them and much higher than the market prices. If that had not been permitted, some of our insurance companies would have gone bankrupt. That was done under the unemployment relief act. It does seem to me that if the government could handle that situation in that way in the interests of big business, it coidd very easily, if it were in earnest, handle this other situation and protect the living standards of men, women and children, which standards have been so seriously threatened by the practices which have grown up.
The Prime Minister says we have not the money to spend, but that is the same old cry. According to a statement issued by the bureau of statistics, last year, 307 Canadians paid income taxes on incomes of more than $50,000 per year. That little statement shows the real situation. When there is so much money in the hands of some of our people that 300 of them have incomes of more than $50,000- some of these run to exceedingly high figures but we cannot tell exactly, as the Minister of Finance has said that it would not be in the public interest to divulge this information- there is no earthly reason why we cannot adopt policies which will give every man work and a decent living.
Surely there is sufficient credit in the country. I submit that if a war were declared to-morrow the money would be found with which to carry it on, in spite of the enormously heavy debts which we now have. Surely the credit of the country is sufficient to provide every man with a decent job at a decent wage. If it is not, we may as well go out of business entirely. The Prime Minister gets back to his favourite argument, that we must not destroy contracts, that we must maintain our credit and recognize our solemn obligations. I have said before on many public platforms, and I repeat, that while we may be said to have certain obligations to the bondholders of the Canadian National Railways and the government, in my judgment the obligations which we owe to the returned men, many of whom are on the verge of destitution; the obligations which we owe to the scattered pioneers of this country, many of whom are suffering dire want; the obligations which we owe to the coming generation of Canadian children, are infinitely more sacred than those which we owe to the bondholders.

Why take this whole question of contracts for granted? A contract is made on a definite set of conditions, and if those conditions alter, the contract should be altered. That is only equity. If tlhe dollar changes in its purchasing power we will soon reach the stage where we will change the contract in accordance with the changed value of the dollar. We have been saying that from this corner of the house for a number of years, but in spite of all our protestations we find the Prime Minister coming back to his old position and refusing to think of other than nominal values, saying that we must maintain the contracts. He calls us welshers if we do not maintain those contracts. I am not to be bullied by any such words as that flung at me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman must realize that I did not say that. I said that we would be called welshers when we did not meet our obligations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Apparently the
Prime Minister associates himself very closely with that position or he would not use that argument, but I accept 'his correction. I say that I am not to be intimidated by any suoh words or by the calling of nasty names. We have to face the facts as they are in this country.
The Prime Minister then went on to speak about debts. Apparently they cannot be altered. These debts are being treated as sacred things. We all know how the war debts were contracted and that a number of people laid the foundations for their fortunes during those times. After the war the Liberals made a motion to investigate the scandals in connection with war contracts but before they had gone very far they dropped' the matter. We all know that many people made their fortunes at that time and that some of them salted those fortunes away in tax free bonds. There never should have been any bonds of that type issued. Is the ill-considered action of those in authority in those days to tie up the people of this country forever? Have not nearly all the countries of the world recognized that the contracts made at that time were made under very abnormal conditions? Many of the nations have not paid what the Prime Minister undoubtedly would call their honest debt?, Great Britain among them. Great Britain, while she has not formally repudiated her debts, has ceased to pay the instalments due the United States. If we made internal contracts at that time and issued bonds, are we to go on forever as hewers of wood and

B.N.A. Act-Second Report
drawers of water to a few people, many of whom made their fortunes by doubtful methods at that time?
The Prime Minister says that we must maintain our credit.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant* to standing order.
Thursday, June 20, 1935