1935-06-20

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the special committee on Bill No. 98, to provide for the constitution and powers of the Canadian grain board-Mr. Bennett.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) presented the second report of the special committee on the British North America Act, as follows:
The special committee of the House of Commons, appointed to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that while safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope, begs leave to present the following as its second and final report.
Your committee has held' ten sessions and has heard the opinions of a number of witnesses.
Under the instructions of the committee, telegrams were sent to the respective attorneys-general of the nine provinces in the following terms:
"The special committee of the House of Commons on the British North America Act desires to have the views of your government with respect to methods of securing amendments to said act. The resolution referred to the committee follows: 'Resolved that in the opinion of this house a special committee should be set up to study and report on the best method by which the British North America Act may be amended so that w-hile safeguarding the existing rights of racial and religious minorities and legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, the dominion government may be given adequate power to deal effectively with urgent economic problems which are essentially national in scope.' While the committee does not object to the personal attendance of a representative of your government it was thought less costly to ask for a wrritten submission. Copies of proceedings have been sent you. Please intimate when we may expect to receive your submission."
The following answers were received:-
Prince Edward Island-"Your wire March twenty-seventh. Government of Prince Edward Island is of opinion that dominion government should formulate its plan and policy for the purposes intended and that this should be submitted to the provincial governments and afterwards discussed at a conference of representatives of the provinces and the dominion." Signed by II. F. MacPhee, Attorney-General.
New Brunswick-"Will wire views as soon as available. Delay unavoidable." Signed by W. H. Harrison, Attorney-General. (New Brunswick views not yet received).
Nova Scotia

"Our legislature now in session and most difficult to attend to matter of this kind norv in way you suggest. We feel matter should be approached by conferences between representatives of provinces and dominion where each would have the views of the other and ample time to discuss the matter." Signed by J. H. MacQuarrie, Attorney-General.
Quebec-"Your telegram received. Surely the committee cannot expect that the views of the province of Quebec will be discussed by a change of telegrams or letters. In a matter of such importance I suggest that a conference of the dominion and the provinces should be held." Signed by L. A. Taschereau, Attorney-General.
Ontario-"Province of Ontario does not desire to make any representation before your committee re British North America Act amendment as no good purpose will be served by attempting to advise dominion government at this time." Signed by A. W. Roebuck, Attorney-General.
Manitoba-"With further reference to your telegram of the 27th March, to the attorney-general and to his reply of the 5th instant, the government have now had an opportunity of giving consideration to the suggestion that it should make a written submission regarding the subject matter that is before your committee.
"The government of Manitoba is of the opinion that the subject matter referred to in the resolution is one of such importance that no written submission, setting out our views in reference to it, should be made without a conference with the other provinces and the dominion government. We would be willing to attend such a conference at any time, with a view to arriving at a definite method of procedure for making amendments to the British North America Act." Signed by John Bracken.
Saskatchewan.-"Referring to your telegram of the twenty-seventh day of March wherein you requested the government of the province to make representations either orally or by written memoranda as to the methods of
B.N.A. Act-Second Report
[Stage Direction]
procedure which this province would suggest in connection with amendments to the Canadian constitution I would say that I have been following with intense interest the proceedings of your committee. The question of what if any provision is to be made for amendment of the Canadian constitution from time to time is a question which ultimately must be decided by conferences between the governments of the provinces and the government of Canada with the possibility of a previous preliminary interprovincial conference. In view of this fact it would appear to be unwise for the provinces to be giving their views before <a committee of the House of Commons. With due deference might I be permitted to suggest that the proper procedure is for your committee to pursue its present inquiry and to make a report to the House of Commons which I presume will either be accepted or amended or merely received without binding the government to 'accept the proposals of the committee and with this report available the provinces could then give consideration as to what attitude they desired to take and perhaps discuss the matter amongst themselves and thereafter join with the federal government in a general conference. The report of your committee would serve as the basis of discussion around which would take place the ultimate solution of this problem. We realize that the question is one of great national importance and should be decided in the welfare of Canada free of all political considerations and we are certainly prepared to do our share towards the facilitating of a'solution but we feel that we must look after the interests of the province and think that the procedure I have outlined would be the proper course for us to adopt at this time." Signed by T. C. Davis, Attorney General.
Alberta.-"Re -amendment B.N.A. Act. Alberta government appreciate desire of committee to have views of all provinces before it on this very vital question but considers approach to question should be through interchange of views at interprovincial conference." Signed by Mr. Lymburn.
British Columbia.-"Reference your wire twenty-seventh to attorney general requesting written submission from the government of this province to your committee it is the opinion of the government that amendment of the constitution is too important a matter to be deailt with in nranner suggested. It is not thought that satisfactory conclusions can be reached either federally or provinciality until a conference of the provinces and the dominion is held when full discussion may be had and matters properly debated. Other than stating that the right should be secured to amend our constitution in Canada this province respectfully declines to make submission to your committee, neither will it feel bound by any report which may be made by your committee." Signed by T. D. Pattulilo.
In no case did the authorities of these provinces signify any desire to present their views to your committee, either in writing or orally.
The committee recognizes that there is a divergence of opinion with respect to the question of whether or not the British North America Act is a statutory recognition of a compact among the four original provinces of the dominion and as to the necessity or otherwise of provincial concurrence in amendments. Without expressing any opinion upon that question, the committee feel that in the present case and at the present time it is advisable in
TMr. Turnbull.]
the interest of harmony and unity that there should be consultation with the provinces with respect to the adoption of a definite mode of amendment or the enactment of amending legislation which niight seriously alter the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces and the dominion.
Many interesting suggestions were made. Dr. Kennedy, professor of law at Toronto university, suggested thtit a royal commission should be appointed to study the workings of the act, with a view to recommending a rearrangement of powers if thought necessary.
Dr. Ollivier, K.C., LL.D., joint law clerk of the House of Commons suggested that:
(a)	Obsolete sections should be dropped.
(b)	Certain sections should be subject to amendment without consultation of the provinces.
(c)	Certain sections should be amended only with the concurrence of a majority of the provinces.
(d)	Certain sections might be amended with the consent of one province only.
(e)	Other sections should be amended only on consent of all the provinces.
Dr. Scott, professor of civil law at McGill university, expressed the view that as the dominion parliament represented the population of the provinces, ordinary amendments should be made upon a majority vote of both houses and amendments affecting minority rights should be approved in addition by all provincial legislatures, in order to become law.
Professor Rogers, professor of political science at Queens university, suggested that a dominion-provincial conference or a national convention might appoint a committee to draft an amended constitution to be thereafter approved by the conference or convention and subsequently by the dominion and provincial legislatures. He was of the opinion that the question of consulting the provinces was a matter of political expediency rather than one of legal right.
Doctor Arthur Beauchesne, C.M.G., K.C., clerk of the House of Commons, would have a new constitution drafted by a constituent assembly composed of delegates representing the various provinces and the dominion, made up of all classes of people. The constitution so drafted woiuld be thereafter adopted by the dominion and the provinces, approved by the King, and the present a-ct thereupon repealed.
The committee recognizes the urgent necessity for prompt consideration of amendments to the British North America Act with reference to a redistribution of legislative power and to clarify the field of taxation.
It is further of opinion that the conference hereafter proposed should carefully consider the adoption of a recognized yet flexible method of amendment.
In view of the fact that the several provinces did not feel it advisable to give the committee the benefit of their views with respect to the method of procedure to be followed in amending the constitution, the committee is of the opinion that before any decision upon the subject matter of the resolution is finally made, the opinions of the provinces should be obtained otherwise, if at all possible, and for that reason recommends that a dominion-provincial conference be held as early as possible in the present year to study the subject matter of the resolution. The proposed conference should have ample time in which to study every phase of the question.

Questions
In view of t'he above recommendation the committee expressly refrains from recommending any form of procedure for amendment so as to leave the proposed conference entirely free in its study of the question, except that the committee is definitely of the opinion that minority rights agreed upon and granted under the provisions of the British North America Act should not be interfered with.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings and evidence is submitted herewith.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. BENNETT moved the adoption of the report.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Bert-hier-Masikin-onge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay on the table of the house copies of resolutions passed by the municipalities of Saint-Damase-de-Brandon and Louiseville, protesting against the imposition of a sales tax of six per cent on vegetables canned by farmers' cooperative societies.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GERSHAW:: 1.	What was the number of tubercular tests made on milch cows in 1934 in Alberta?
2.	What was the total number of cows tested in 1934 in Alberta?
3.	What was the cost of making the above
tests ?	.
4.	What was the total amount spent in Alberta in 1934 by the health of animals branch?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-STALLIONS
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	How many stallions does the Department of Agriculture own?
2.	What are the registered names and numbers of each?
3.	Of what breed is each?
4.	What did each cost?
5.	What were the transportation charges, if any?
6.	Where are they now located?
7.	What fees, if any, are charged?
8.	What is paid for the care and keep of each animal?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, a question was asked yesterday in the house respecting the situation at Vancouver. I beg to read the following telegram received to-day from Mayor Mc-Geer of Vancouver:
C.N.R.-Capital Structure

Yesterday's attempt of mob incited by communist leader to flout constitutional authority and to attack men lawfully at work on harbour commissioners dock Ballantyne pier effectively suppressed. Wish to publicly express the fullest measure of appreciation of all law abiding citizens for splendid cooperation extended to city police by the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force stationed here.
McGeer,
Mayor.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: all the outstanding preference and common stock of the Grand Trunk at a value to be determined by a board of three arbitrators. New guaranteed stock was to be distributed among the holders of the preference and common stock upon the vesting in the crown or its nominees of such stock, and any stock not so transferred might be declared to be the property of the Minister of Finance in trust for the crown and upon the making of such declaration the stock not so transferred should immediately become the property of the crown and entries in the stock register be made accordingly (see paragraphs 14 and 15).
(7)	On the 7th of September, 1921, two of the arbitrators (the Honourable Sir Walter Cassels and the Right Honourable Sir Thomas White) delivered a majority award finding that there was no value to the holders in the preference and common stocks of the Grand Trunk. The third arbitrator (the Honourable William Howard Taft) dissented and delivered an opinion that the value of the preference and common stocks was not less than 48,000,000 dollars (see paragraph 17).
(8)	By an order in council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 19th of January, 1923, reciting that the majority of the arbitrators had decided that the preference and common stock of the Grand Trunk had no value and that the crown was not entitled to the whole of such stock and to the immediate transfer thereof without the issue of any new guaranteed stock in exchange and that the holders were not entitled to anything, it was declared that the whole of the preference and common stock of the Grand Trunk was the property of the Minister of Finance in trust for the crown and it was directed that entries should be made in the stock register and other books of the Grand Trunk accordingly (see paragraph 19).
(9)	In pursuance of this order transfers to the Minister of Finance of the stock then registered in the name of your petitioner and of his assignors set out above were registered in the books of the Grand Trunk without his or their authority or consent. In the year 1931. duly executed transfers of the stock so assigned to him were presented by him both in London and Canada for registration in his name, but registration was refused. A demand by him that the register should be rectified by restoring therein his name <as owner of the stock registered in his name on the 19th of January, 1923. was also refused (see paragraphs 20, 26, 27 and 28).
(10)	By an indenture dated 30th January, 1923, made between Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the Canadian National") and the Grand Trunk it was purported to be agreed that the Canadian National and the Grand Trunk should be and were amalgamated into one company under the name of the Canadian National; that the capital stock of t.he amalgamated company should be one share of the face value of upwards of 180.000.000 dollars; that this share should be issued to the Minister of Finance in trust for the crown and that upon such issue the minister's holding of the capital stock of the Grand Trunk should be surrendered by him to the Canadian National for cancellation. This agreement was sanctioned by an order in council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 30th of January, 1923 (see paragraphs 21 and 22).

4. Your petitioner therefore claims in this action on behalf of himself and the stockholders he represents the following relief (paragraph 32 of the statement of claim):-
(A)	A declaration that the transfers to the Minister of Finance of the stock of the Grand Trunk registered on the 18th of January, 1923, in the names of your petitioner and the other stockholders are invalid, and rectification of the register accordingly.
(B)	(C) (D) (E) and (F) Declarations that the Grand Trunk Railway Acquisition Act, 1919, the resolution of the general meeting of stockholders held on the 19th of February, 1920, purporting to approve the transfer agreement, the transfer agreement dated 8th of March, 1920, the act of 1920 (10-11 Geo. V. c. 13) confirming the agreement, and the order in council dated 19th January, 1923, are and each of them is ultra vires and void.
Those were the proceedings taken many years ago against the railway company, that is the Canadian National, and also against the attorney general of Canada. Those proceedings ultimately resulted in this country in the action being dismissed on demurrer, the point being that no action could be brought except by petition of right. Then they gave notice of appeal to the privy council. Ultimately it was decided that the provisions of the act of Ontario granting an appeal to the privy council was not sufficient to enable the appeal to be taken. They then lodged their petition in the privy council to perfect their appeal there and it was heard on the 22nd of March, 1935; that is this year, and leave to appeal was granted. Therefore the case that has been pending more or less since 1921 is now before the privy council for argument, and in a public meeting of the Grand Trunk junior stockholders, an organization created to safeguard what is spoken of as the interests of the Grand Trunk shareholders, the chairman, Mr. Ormsby Gore, made statements as to the desirability of the appeal being expedited. In the hearing before the privy council when leave was granted, the application for leave being opposed, the matter was discussed at some length and their lordships urged that steps be taken to expedite the appeal. The Minister of Justice therefore took every appropriate step to ensure that the appeal would be heard as soon as possible, and it is believed that it will be heard some time next month, in the month of July, before the privy council.
That is the record of the litigation, indicating first of all the application for the fiat, down to date. I mention that because to disturb the capital stock as it now stands might in certain eventualities be a matter of some moment to the Dominion of Canada, who are the shareholders, and I desire on that

C.N.R.-Capital Structure
ground to make it clear why I do not desire until this litigation is disposed of, any disturbance in the capital structure. But in so far as the reduction of the capital stock is concerned, when the time comes, to the figure that represents the investment I have nothing to say, but I do submit that most of us are anxious that there should appear in the report of the Canadian National Railways something that indicates what the investment of the Canadian people in the enterprise may be. I greatly regret that an effort was made to give some political meaning to what has taken place. The chairman himself said that he regarded it as the province of the government to say whether or not it thought that this should be done.
Without going into the second ground I indicated my strong conviction that the reports might be prepared in any way that was thought desirable, but the amount of the investment of the Canadian people in the enterprise should appear so that he who runs might read and know exactly what our commitments had been in that regard.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Would the Prime Minister assure the house that a full discussion of this matter may take place if and when the chairman of the special committee moves the adoption of the report?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can give no assurance
of that sort.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day I presume it is not possible to discuss some of the remarks that were made by the Prime Minister, but I would submit to you, sir, that under all the circumstances it would be only fair if some remarks were permitted in reply to, or in connection with, the remarks made by the Prime Minister in regard to railway recapitalization. I would'like, subject to what you are prepared to rule in regard to the matter, to make one or two observations and end with a question which would perhaps put me in order. The Prime Minister has stated, at least I take it that he said this, that he opposses recapitalization-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that at all.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
the right to ask a question but I think he realizes that the matter cannot be the subject of debate at this stage.


William Daum Euler: I made that comment
already, Your Honour, but I say also that it does not seem fair that one side of the question should be presented1 and no opportunity given to present the other side. The
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated that it should always be possible to see from the books of the Canadian National Railways thie amount of money invested) in those railways, or spent upon the railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I used the word "invested."


William Daum Euler: I do not think that is
the proper use of the word; we will say spent or invested. If he insists that that shall be shown on the railway books why are not the entries in the government books *consistent with those in the books of the railways? Those amounts have already been absorbed into the national debt and they should appear on the books as assets owing by the Canadian National Railways. I should1 like to know why the two sets of book's should not be consistent one with the other. There is some further information I should like to have, being a layman instead of a lawyer. The Prime Minister stated that permission had been granted to lodge an appeal in connection with the valuation of the Canadian Northern Railway and Grand Trunk Railway stocks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Daum Euler: With regard to the valuation of the stocks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Daum Euler: The Grand Trunk shareholders in Great Britain are not satisfied, and they desire to go to the courts in order to settle their claims. .Although permission has been granted they have yet to appeal, that appeal has not actually been made. If that is the case, why would that interfere with any action which the government might desire to take in connection with the recapitalization? The amount mentioned by the auditors as capable of being written off by a mere bookkeeping entry was over one billion dollars while the amount involved in the litigation by the Grand Trunk shareholders and even the Canadian Northern shareholders is less than $300,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only reason I rose to speak to this matter was because of a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). I did not endeavour to make a controversial argument, I endeavoured merely to state the facts. I read the letter which I had written on May 15 and the reply thereto. Rather than make a statement, I read from the proceedings before the privy council. The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has entirely
C.N.R.-Capital Structure

misunderstood the reference to the litigation. This litigation strikes at the life of the amalgamation of the Grank Trunk, it asks for a declaration that the whole statute by which we acquired the Grand1 Trunk is ultra vires. It goes further and asks that the action taken by the government in this country pursuant to the statute to strike the names of the shareholders ini Dasbwood House off the record is illegal. It is not a question of simple arbitration.


William Daum Euler: What is the point involved?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole question of
the amalgamation of the Canadian National system. When my hon. friend suggests that notwithstanding that legislation we should go on with the recapitalization, I do not think he understands the true state of affairs. This country should not be in the position of having taken any action to change the status quo during the litigation, and1 that is why I made it clear to the house just what was the position.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What
is the position of the litigation at the present time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The appeal is expected
to be heard in July.


William Daum Euler: Is the appeal actually made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The appeal is pending
for argument in July. All I am asking is that there shall be nothing done upon the books to change the position so tlhat it could be said that we had taken certain action before the completion of the appeal. I endeavoured to confine myself to a reading of the record and I regret that it should be thought that I have any objection to the capital stock of the railways being written down. That may be the right thing to do when the time comes but in the meantime I have expressed the opinion that the investments in the road should be shown upon the books that are published to the world. So far as the method of book-keeping is concerned, the government books show exactly the same amounts. When I ask the government what sums have been invested in the Canadian National Railways they produce the books and show what they have, the only difference being that the amounts are paid as interest on the national debt instead of as interest on the securities of the railways.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this
government interested in the appeal?
rMr. Bennett.1


Richard Bedford Bennett: The attorney general of Canada was joined as a party defendant for the reasons given by Mr. Green when arguing before the privy council.


William Daum Euler: The Prime Minister has said that he gave only the facts. So far as the record is concerned, the recommendations of the auditors intended to preserve the capital amounts which have been expended on the Canadian National Railways in any shape or form and that record will always be there. Some reference to politics has been made and I should like to say that I disavow of that kind so far as the proceedings of the committee are concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I referred merely to the
records.


CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day, on Thursday last an order was passed on motion of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for certain details respecting the organization and expenses of the office of the high commissioner in London, and yesterday the member for Temiscouata asked that a precise date be fixed when this return would be tabled. The return involves a very great deal of research and it will take some considerable time to complete. The time of six days which has elapsed has been altogether insufficient.


TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) for third reading of Bill No. 86, to establish a dominion trade and industry commission.
Mr.  J. S. WOODS W ORTH@Winnipeg North Centre: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned yesterday I was discussing the defence which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had made of the reform program of the government. The speech of the Prime Minister seemed to indicate that financial and legal considerations were paramount, and to this point of view I decidedly object. The Prime Minister has urged that Canada must maintain her credit. He stated that we must

Trade Commission-Mr. Woodsworth
pay back our debts and retain our credit as a matter of national honour. He said:
Once it gets abroad that we are prepared to enact legislation, whether it be provincial or federal, that destroys the contract made between the borrower and the lender-destroys it I say-and substitutes for it something else, that moment we have become what is familiarly known as "welchers."
And again:
If obligations are created without provision for the reduction of the rate with the increase in the purchasing power of money then the contract must be observed if we are to maintain the character of our people.
The Prime Minister as well as others recognizes that at certain times deflation may materially alter the character of a contract. I need only to refer to the statements he made before the committee on finance of the imperial conference when he clearly recognized that deflation had imposed an enormous extra burden upon the people of this country. In spite of this, he said yesterday that if we did not live up to the letter of the law, even although the dollar had changed in value, we would be in an ethically unjustifiable position. He is emphasizing the letter of the contract, the purely legal side of affairs but I submit that even from the legal aspect as well as from the standpoint of equity and ethics, when the dollar has altered as materially as it has, repayment should be made according to the purchasing power of the dollar when the contract was made. Undoubtedly the deflation has meant the transfer, as Irving Fisher told us twelve years ago, of hundreds of thousands of dollars from one set of pockets into another. It has meant that many people have been reduced to beggary while other people have been exalted to a position where they can levy tribute on the entire population of the country. If to maintain our credit means that we are to maintain an unjust relationship between creditor and debtor, then I say our credit may very well go.
Why after all from the standpoint of expediency, should we maintain our credit? I suppose it is in order that we can continue to borrow; that is to say, we should maintain our credit in order that we may be able to go more deeply into debt-a curious point of view. Canada is already carrying a sufficient load, and we ought to be able to deal with the situation as it is without regard to prospective borrowings that may sink us still deeper. But in the last sentence I read I find a phrase to which I cannot but strenuously object. We should pay these supposedly honest debts in order that we may "maintain the character of our
people." Maintain the character of our people! I wonder whether those who deal so exclusively with financial and legal matters can understand the real position that confronts tens of thousands of our people to-day. I hold in my hand, for example, a voucher that was given in connection with unemployment relief by the municipality of East Kil-donan. I am not blaming the government of the day directly for this, but it can readily he seen from this document what sort of treatment the problem has received. The voucher reads:
Municipality of East Kildonan
Unemployment Relief Department Only to be accepted by merchants registered with the Unemployment Relief Department Special
King George V Silver Jubilee
Case No	
Date	
To Merchant:
Please supply party producing for your inspection identification card corresponding to case number and signature contained herein with merchandise to the value of 20 cents.
Relief Officer.
Signature of Recipient.
Signature of Merchant.
The family that received that relief points out that that 20 cents would secure one pound of round steak-that is all-and I submit that this is significant of the kind of treatment that we are giving honest Canadian citizens. And it is abominable treatment; it is nothing less than an insult, that in connection with the King George V Jubilee we should give largesse of that kind. The Prime Minister, even in the statement he made this afternoon with regard: to the Grand Trunk, points out with what infinite care the law guards the rights of shareholders. What I am pleading for is that we should safeguard the rights of Canadian citizens. I am not for the wholesale repudiation of all obligations, but there are far more sacred obligations resting upon us at the present time and which to-day are being disregarded.
One other little document I hold in my hand may perhaps bring home to the house the actual situation which arises from our disregard of the rights of our people, especially our young people. Some months ago in this house I called attention to a lamentable incident in which a young boy had fallen from a freight train. He was badly injured and as his rescuers picked him up he said, "Kill me; I am no good anyhow." A few days ago I
3824	COMMONS
Trade Commission-Mr. Woodsworth
received from Saskatchewan a letter from a man who apparently is of Ukrainian or Polish extraction. He cannot write very good English, but I think his English can be understood. He says:
Dear Sir:
On February 28, 1935, I read in the Western Producer paper, you where referring about a boy who fell from a freight train in the west and begged his rescuers to kill him because he was no good to anyone;
Would ask you kindly to let me know if you know where and when that sad accident happen; why I am asking you our boy went west about a year ago to B.C. and since last June we only had one letter from him, since we don't know where abouts he is; with this capitalistic unemployment system he took the hard road to find a living, went farther west last June and we didn't hear from him since he got to B.C.
You know how parents heart broken feel about it; will you kindly write us a few words.
I was very glad to be able to tell the father that the boy to whom I had referred was not his boy. But there are two thousand such boys now in one group at Regina and tens of thousands more in the camps; and the important point is that the government program, and this particular bill which forms the major part of it, is doing nothing whatever to solve these great problems. The bad practices referred to in the price spreads committee have grown up under the existing system and under existing legislation, which I submit the bill does very little to alter. I suppose we shall have to vote for the bill; it is good as far as it goes. But it is no great help to have the administration of the Combines Investigation Act transferred to a commission; it does not solve our problem. What did the Prime Minister say a few months ago in those radio speeches which excited the interest of us all ^nd made us almost hope that something might be done?
The old system served you well but it ended in a nuisance. Is that so or not? It ended in a condition under which there has been universal depression and unemployment and poverty in the midst of plenty.
Is there anything in this bill before us, is there anything in the whole program of legislation which the Prime Minister has so rigorously defended that will do anything realty to meet that situation? Again, he gave utterance in the last of those radio addresses to this statement which I think fairly summarizes the report of the price spreads commission :
Many faults and injustices in the capitalist system-child labour, sweat shops, slave wages, crushingly long hours, inequality of benefits, low prices to primary producers, high prices to the ultimate consumer.

One would have imagined, after the situation had been so carefully diagnosed, that we might well have expected some sort of remedy. And yet this is the kind of thing we find in the bill, section 20:
Unfair Trade Practices
20. The commission shall receive complaints respecting unfair trade practices and may investigate the same and, either before or after an investigation, if of opinion that the alleged practice constitutes an offence against a law prohibiting unfair trade practices, shall communicate the same to the attorney-general of Canada and to the director of public prosecutions or to the attorney-general of the province within which the offence i9 alleged to have been committed.
Does anyone think that that kind of measure solves the problem, that it comes anywhere within reach of the great outstanding evite which were outlined by the Prime Minister?
Child labour. We all know that there are infringements of the laws against child labour, but supposing this commission does investigate and refer cases to the attorney general of Quebec, does anyone think we shall get any action? None whatever. So here we sit, the dominion parliament, powerless in the face of a terrific abuse.	
An ban. MEMBER: Gh, oh.


Mr.  J. S. WOODS W ORTH@Winnipeg North Centre: 
Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to give a silent vote on this bill. I think the government deserves the utmost credit for being the first government since confederation to endeavour to do something through the regulation of trade and commerce, for the workers of this country. This particular bill to create a federal trade board will create a new industrial magna charta for the workers of this country. The Conservative party has done itself proud in the mass buying commission. It originated with the Conservative party, and all along the Conservative party has been the friend of labour and of the consumer.
We have had this session in my opinion too much law and too little common sense. We should forget that we are lawyers and endeavour to carry out as far as possible the very important recommendations which have been made by the mass buying commission. The purpose of this bill is to give a new deal to the masses of our people and it should not be approached by quoting law cases and decisions based on separate facts, because we are faced with a completely different set of facts now, owing to changed conditions, from those facing the fathers of confederation when the British North America Act was framed.
Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, I advocated a federal trade commission, much of what is proposed in this particular bill, No. 86. Fortunately one of the cardinal principles of the British constitution and of our own constitution, which is part and parcel of it, is that the courts are subservient to the legislature. It was a great mistake in 1867 in so framing the British North America Act that we had any provincial legislatures at all. They were created by the fathers of confederation for political and not for economic purposes. The result has been that this government, which has done more for the working people than any other government since confederation has been very much hampered in framing this relief act or new deal, by stated cases and decisions of the courts on sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act.
The British North America Act is a relic of the past, and in my opinion confederation cannot last much longer unless we grapple

Trade Commission-Mr. Church
with the problem and find a way to solve our economic and social problems in an orderly way. The day of free competition, of the open market, and of the law of supply and demand has gone, possibly forever. Great trusts, combines and monopolies in restraint of trade have been built up on these economic principles, and the abuses in this connection have brought about widespread misery and ruin to thousands of our people. As a result the greatest question in this country to-day is parliamentary and constitutional reform, cabinet reform and senate reform, especially in view of the decisions that have been quoted in this debate by lawyers inside the house and outside the house. I believe that very little progress will be made in solving our economic and social problems until we have constitutional and parliamentary reform. When I hear the learned quotations by the lawyers in this house and the recommendations of eminent lawyers outside the house, I am reminded of the words of Burke, "What shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue." Or, as Tennyson says in his In Memo-riam:
Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be.
They are but broken lights of Thee,
And' Thou, 0 Lord, art more than they.
No country in the world has had such little regulation of trade and commerce as Canada. Look at only one section of the British North America Act, section 91, dealing with the powers of parliament, included in which is the power to regulate trade and commerce. That field has been unexplored ever since confederation; it is a no man's land. Section 91 of the British North America Act which defines the powers of this parliament, says "for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated," and the second subject mentioned is "the regulation of trade and commerce." Paragraph 27 of section 91 gives this parliament power to deal with the criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters, and the last paragraph of that section gives this parliament power to deal with the following classes of subjects:
And any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class 92582-2431
of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.
But there has been no effort to see or take advantage of this exclusive power, the regulation of trade and commerce by this parliament. That field, as I say, has been unexplored; it is a no man's land. No country has so little regulation of trade and commerce as Canada, although this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over that subject. Compare Canada with the United States and Great Britain. The United States has the Clayton Act; the anti-Sherman law, the federal trade commission; regulations by the Secretary of Commerce; newspaper identity regulation; the Interstate Commerce Commission regulation. The legislation of the parliament of England is larger than that of any other country in the world. Yet they have national boards or councils regulating transportation, coal mining, transport, agriculture, the marketing of bacon and eggs and many other products with compulsory powers and beyond even the regulation or control of any court of law. In England, so much so that the Mac-Donald-Baldwin government are called by some people a soviet one in parliament, we talk about too much government in business, yet the big interests themselves are clamoring for government intervention. Had it not been for the government's intervention and help I do not know what would have happened to some of them. In view of the evidence that was given before the mass buying commission the people back home.are demanding that an end be put to the legalized injustices and tyrannies of modern capitalism in Canada, to the detriment of bona fide and legitimate private enterprise.
Private enterprise which brings all ranks of society together into personal contact whether in large enterprises or in small, one-man business or enterprises or in retail business-all these in Canada are in harmony with natural law. Great trusts, combines and restraints of trade are not in Canada hut are mostly directed by big financiers and politicians. They in Canada are in effect an application in practice of nothing else but the communist principle. Let us not forget then the injustices and tyrannies which so-called modern capitalism has inflicted on thousands of the men, women and children and poor people of Canada.
Let us keep that objective in mind and cease talking constitutional questions about the British North America Act. The time

Trade Commission-Mr. Church
has come to stop pussyfooting and to tackle these great organizations that are subsidized and legalized by the state and directed mostly by great financiers and politicians. I speak of those trusts and combines trusts and restraints of trade which are nothing but an application of the communist principle. The average thinking man back home in this country thinks this particular bill is the most important bill that has ever come before parliament since confederation. The common people are demanding a policy that will help pull Canada out of the mire and get our workmen off the dole. They want to see planning by all governments, federal, provincial and municipal, to put half a million workers back to work by the end of the year. The country is ripe for just such leadership; it is waiting for a sign post showing which way we are going to go. This demand comes from the Conservative element in the Canadian nation, and we as a party must go forward to greater objectives. We want a new national policy such as this board is going to create. We must build our prosperity on a new and enduring basis. As the late Lord Salisbury said, the commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcasses of dead policies. Now is the time to do something. There are in my opinion too many Woodrow Wilsons in the legislatures of this country who are too proud to fight for legislation such as this. We should have had an act like this ten or twelve years ago. The field should have been explored then, and this country would not then have been in the economic turmoil it is in to-day.
I am sorry that some of the clauses in this bill have not been written into the criminal code, particularly those which deal with sweatshops. Notwithstanding what has been said about the criminal law of this country, the law courts have never had before them this vast field of trade and commerce which is placed exclusively under the jurisdiction of this parliament by section 91 of the British North America Act. Precedents have not been built up in the courts to deal with that particular section and because lawyers both in and out of the house say that a certain thing is so, does not make it so. No court of law has said that this sweatshop legislation cannot be written into the criminal law. Similar legislation has been written into the criminal law of the United States and the mother country and it can be done here as well. We have practically no regulation of trade and commerce except in connection with our external trade. As I said in a previous debate, we have not been spending enough time on our domestic problems (Mr. Church.]
and perhaps too much time upon our inter-natonal problems. Certain infringements, along social and economic lines could be made crimes by enactments of this legislature. Certain sections of the Clayton act and the Sherman anti-trust act could1 be written into our criminal code.
I believe Canada w-ants this trade commission to be up and doing. We want a trade commission with a kick in it. This commission should be under someone like the late Mr. Justice Malbee, a previous chairman of the railway board. That learned gentleman built up a number of rules and regulations. I regret that a judge has been chosen as head of this commission because if there is one board which should be under a layman, it is this particular one. The mass buying and price spreads had two good chairmen. One of them, the other day, a very brilliant young lawyer gave an address on this question in the house. What this country needs at the present time is a great public rights lawyer; then this parliament would not have to call in corporation lawyers. I have had considerable experience and I say that once a corporation lawyer, always a corporation lawyer, especially when interpreting the British North America Act. They see things in just one way. The Toronto street railway agreement, and the British North America Act have led to more litigation and references to the law courts than any other acts in history or that have come up in recent yeans. I am sorry this country has not produced a great public rights lawyer like Ferdinand1 Pecora of Washington. He straightened out things down there and showed up the abuses of big businessmen and Wall Street; many of these men had1 not paid a cent in income tax. We need a similar public rights lawyer in Canada to deal with the chisellers in this country. What has happened in connection with this matter happened in 1928 when the water power versus navigation matter was before the house. The Supreme Court of Canada was asked' to answer certain abstract questions in connection with water and navigation rights on the St. Lawrence river but those questions were so abstract that neither the supreme court nor the privy council could give a proper answer, and they returned them as unanswered in part owing to their not being concrete.
The enforcement of federal laws is placed upon the provincial attorneys general. Why should1 not this government have law officers of its own to enforce all federal statutes in connection with all our acts and trade and commerce? We know the type of enforcement of our acts which will be carried out by the

Trade Commission-Mr. Church
provincial attorneys general in Victoria, at Queens Park or in Halifax. Our own laws should be enforced by our own law officers. All the law of this country is not contained in the British North America Act. There is a written and unwritten .law, we have as well precedents usages and customs.
This government has endeavoured to do things in a new deal in spite of the obstacles raised by the British North America Act. AH along the Conservative party has been the real socialistic party and the real labour party. Nearly all the useful social legislation has come from this party. This party has given protection to the workingman..
Back in 1905 we saw what great constitutional lawyers could do. The Liberal government of that day attempted to keep the people away from the boon of cheap light and power in Ontario and some of the very same type of lawyers who have been arguing on this particular matter, gave somewhat similar decisions thirty years ago against the people owning their own power plants. I saw a cartoon the other day in the great paper published by Horace Greeley. It showed two sailors who had fallen overboard from a boat in New York harbour. They had life savers around them and were looking up at the sinking ship and saying, "Yet fundamentally the ship is sound." That puts me in mind of our economic ship, we thought it was sound but we have found out that it is not sound. For over one hundred years the working classes have been, striving for .power and they have it to-day in Canada. The controllers of property and commercial enterprises who have for the last 100 years had the political power have been losing it. What Disraeli called the suffering millions are going to decide the coming elections. During the past five years this government has brought Canada out of the mire, we have been blessed in. the gifted Prime Minister we have had. The mass voter is fickle and even the responsible voter seems to be changeable. If we are to have national economic security wTe must make plain the principles and policies for which this party stands in bringing forward this important bill. The average voter thinks that if the state is able to distribute poverty, it should be able to distribute wealth. I believe in fair wages and security. This government has made a brave effort to solve these problems in the price spreads and mass buying committee and commission.
Something has been said with reference to those who have been opposing this particular legislation. Mr. Charles Burton of Toronto was referred to the other day by the hon. gentleman from South Winnipeg (Mr. Kennedy) who was chairman of the mass buying committee. I do not know what type of regulations this proposed board will have and I do not know of any board, human or divine, which has ever been able to regulate some of the institutions with which the gentleman I refer to has been connected. He was out west the other day and while he hides behind the luxuries of his Arcadian Court and ribbon counter; he wants to bring forth a scheme of regimentation of youth; he would have brigadier generals, major generals, honorary colonels, captains and all that sort of thing, a sort of regimented Coxey's army for the youth of this country. It would be much better if he would get up a regiment of profiteers middlemen.. chisellers and tax evaders, bondholders, income tax dodgers, security and trust company racketeers and no par value shareholders. Mr. Burton used the words as reported,
" shyster politicians " in referring to our mass buying commission, members of which worked hard fo.r the people of this country. He would be far better engaged and more at home commanding such a big interest regiment than in criticizing a parliament which is making a brave effort to do something to remedy the evils that now exist. The Conservative party, which has done so much for the farmers and the working classes, is now making a genuine effort to solve the problems that face this country, and I hope that no amendments in another place will be made to the measure now before us. Amendments are coming in every day, from this place to the bar of the house to our clerk; 104 amendments have been brought in this week from another .place, the Senate virtually vetoing the votes of the direct representatives of the people in this chamber. I hope that no amendments having any such effect will be made to this bill or accepted either.
The period from 1921 to 1930 constituted the golden age of mergers, trusts, combines and so on. The Insulls, the Morgans, the Mellons, the Youngs and the Mitchells of Canada were a regimentation that rode the crest of the wave, and nothing was done to stop them or to regulate them. These gigantic mergers were captained by Canadian supermen whose big brains were supposed to be guiding Canada to a greater future. To the average Canadian these gigantic financial manipulators and utility barons, security barons and trust barons were above suspicion; under them disaster seemed almost impossible. But they are no longer the master minds of Canada. I am surprised that on this question

Trade Commission-Mr. Church
in this house the government did not have support, from the very beginning of this session, from all parties. The Liberal party of this country represents to-day the last stand of economic Liberalism in Canada. It relies on these social measures being declared unconstitutional. It is the party that for nine years had a chance to do something along these lines, but only dilly-dallied. It is the same party which in England opposed the factory acts and free schools, and the liberation of the trade unions. To-day it concentrates its attention in Canada on the tariff and on wider markets when wider markets are not available. The Liberal party in Canada is an advocate of social reform, pensions, doles, social insurance-all these are in its platform for the higher life, but they refuse to give to this house a plan or platform to grapple with the cause and effects of the social revolution and with those economic factors which deprive men of the bread of their own production and the fruits of their own toil. I believe that free trade and the error of the Liberal party's policies have been to the detriment of agriculture and of industry in Canada. Many children are in factories to-day who should be in school, and most of the young offenders who come before our courts are underprivileged children many of them from poverty stricken homes, who from birth have never had a proper chance.
In this bill, the Conservative party, which has always been constructive, is again constructive in its effort to solve the problem. The Conservative party has to its credit reform legislation such as the eight hour day bill and legislation for a minimum wage. This party is equipped by position and temperament to bring better order into Canadian life and industry, and to check the abuses which affect the consumer and the labourer. We should remove some of the unethical business practices, and bring protection up to date, eliminate the abuses to protect consumer and labour, and prevent further burdens and artificial barriers being placed on business. The main problem to be solved in Canada is unemployment. That is the main problem because no scheme of pensions and no scheme of unemployment insurance is a substitute for work and wages and the desire of people to work. Employment is the only real agency by which the nation's wealth can be distributed. Without consumption, production is a mere waste, and work and wages for all is the main agency of distribution. This party was the founder of protection, and it should dedicate itself to solving this problem of distributism and of getting people off

the dole and back to work. Agriculture has always been traditionally associated with the Conservative party. As a party we stand for the further development and preservation of the home market for agriculture. Our own markets for our own products, and our own work for our own workmen is our policy. Agriculture is the oldest of our industries from the point of view of employment. It has been content to choose order instead of anarchy, and industry can be made amenable to similar treatment.
I believe this government has made a courageous effort to do what it can. We have, heard express and implied doubts about this legislation and I regret that those doubts have come from the sources from which we have heard them. Such doubts should be expressed by the law courts and not by the law officers of the crown nor by retained corporation lawyers. It sems to me that in the future the government would be well advised to consult some public ownership lawyers, public rights lawyers and lawyers who have a knowledge of labour problems; they should consult lawyers with those sympathies when drafting legislation for improving the condition of the working classes.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) referred to a certain resolution he brought in in 1932 or 1933, and which did not, according to him, get the support of members in this corner. I do not remember just what that resolution was, but I presume it was one asking that some investigation be made or ameliorative measures be taken to protect either the farmer or the working classes from exploitation under the present capitalist system. I am sure that the hon. member for Assiniboia did not advocate the abolition of the capitalist system under which such exploitation takes place and must take place; and if we did not support him it was because we had a better solution for the problem, namely, the abolition of the system that gives rise to all these conditions of which complaints are made.
The attitude of many members in this house reminds me of a story of a certain city council in a town where one of the streets crossed a large ravine. Many accidents were taking place in this ravine, vehicles kept running off, but the city fathers would not put up a railing. Instead they insisted on keeping an ambulance at the foot of the ravine to take care of victims. My friend from Assiniboia will not put up a railing nor abolish the danger, he is satisfied to have an ambulance at the foot to take care of the victims of the capitalist

Trade Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
system. And I am sorry to say that he is not the only one in the house who takes that position; I am afraid the great majority do.
I do not think that any member need apologize for discussing this bill at this 6tage.
It is an important bill, the purpose being to give effect to some of the findings of the commission on price spreads and mass buying. We are fairly well accustomed to committees and commissions in this country, but I doubt whether we ever had a commission or a committee of investigation that created such a stir or so roused the people of the country as did the findings and the evidence of this commission. The country was shocked at the evidence brought out. The press gave wide publicity to the evidence, not only in its news columns but in the way of editorial comment on the practices that were found to prevail.
I believe also that the work of the commission was well done, and the report is well prepared. Although we may differ as to the conclusions reached and some of the remedies proposed, we must commend the members of the commission for the way in which they performed their work.
The commission was almost unanimous in its findings. There is of course a minority report by one of the Liberal members of the commission, but I note that even the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) agrees with some of the findings. For instance he agrees that the government should prohibit the sale of diseased meat. Possibly he made that concession in a weak moment. I am glad he went that far, but his reasons for doing so are not very convincing. After he said that, he opposed the recommendation of the other commissioners that old and thin animals should not be allowed to be sold on the market as food because he held that they were going too far, as their recommendation deprived the owners of such animals of a market, and shut off poor people from a source of food they could afford. If his argument is true of old and thin animals it is equally true of diseased animals.
But after all what did the commission find? They found enormous and far-reaching concentration of industry and finance. They found ruthless crushing of the small capitalist by the big capitalist. They found merciless exploitation of the working class in the shambles of capitalist industry. They found equally ruthless exploitation of the farmer through the control of credit, through virtual monopoly in the production of the implements he uses, and above all through control of the market in which he must dispose of his product. But it was not necessary to appoint a commission to find that out; it was apparent
to anyone who made even a superficial study of the present system. I noticed that in a paper put out by the Liberal party a short time ago, in which they analyzed each member of the group in this comer of the house,
I was put down as an out and out Marxian socialist. I never aspired to that high honour.
I know of people who do aspire to it and I wish they did not. But if my hon. friends to my right would give a little more study to Karl Marx and less to Adam Smith and Ricardo and some others they would be on surer ground and would not have to change their position so often. Let us see what Karl Marx had to say on the concentration of industry, not this year nor last year but some sixty or sixty-five years ago.	The
writings of a man who could see so clearly into the future on even this one point are worthy of some consideration. Referring to the concentration of capital he said:
It comprises a series of forcible methods,-
Such methods as were found by the price spreads commission.
-of which we have passed in review only those that have been epoch-making as methods of the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless vandalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous, the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on the exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e. on wages-labour.
As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed' the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form.
That is, labour having already been cut off from all contact with the means of life, then the small capitalist goes in his turn:
That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of

Trade Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usuable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and this, the international character of the capitalistic regime.
Have we not arrived there now? Is not that what the price spreads commission found even in this new country? Then he continues :
Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation;-[DOT]
Is that not also what the committee found?
-but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers. ... The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it.
Now we have just arrived at that stage, where capital has so developed and the means of further extension are closed, where there is no further opening for the investment of new capital; then the capitalistic mode of production, instead of being an incentive to production, has become a fetter on production. That is what the price spreads commission found. It does not make any difference how many laws and rules and regulations we provide for industry, industry at the present time cannot make a profit except by restricting production.
Now, as I said I have no great fault to find with the report of the price spreads and mass buying commission. I believe the commissioners did their work well. But they made the recommendations which they did because they did not understand the nature of capitalism. I will say this for the hon. member for Weyburn who brought in the minority report, that he has the courage of his convictions. He believes that if you let the law of supply and demand have free play everything will be well; that if we have what is called fair. competition that is all we need. But there can be no such thing as fair competition. Competition of any kind presupposes some advantage by someone of those who are competing. If people are competing for a known objective, a limited reward, then the position of the person who gets the reward is thereby improved. Even in the animal world, where the power of organization is non-existent, the strongest and fastest have the advantage. But when yoij come to human society, where there is the advantage of social organization as well as other advantages, when one advantage is

gained it is socially organized by the individual or group attaining it, and he or it is then better equipped for the next struggle. For that reason what the commission found, the great concentration of capital, is inevitable under the capitalist system. Everything it has found, as I have said before, has been stated from a thousand platforms in this dominion during the last forty years. It has merely cited, as it were, chapter and verse; it has said this is where the exploitation has taken place and there is where the ruthless competition has occurred; this is the company that has done this and that is the company that has done that. That is all that is new in the report. I am wondering where the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) has been all these years. He is not in his seat now, but I may say that he is intelligent and industrious, and that for the last twenty-five years he has been living under circumstances which would have made it very easy for him to acquaint himself with the development of capitalism.
In its findings the commission has drawn attention to the concentration of capital, and in presenting those findings to parliament it draws the conclusion that this great concentration of capital is bad because it interferes with the activities, if you like, of the small capitalist, who no longer can compete on equal terms with the large capitalist. But in my opinion there is a far stronger argument than that against the concentration of capital in private hands. In the Canadian Forum of October, 1933 there appeared an article by Professor E. A. Forsey of McGill university, dealing with the concentration of power in Canadian industry; that was some considerable time prior to the appointment of the price spreads and mass buying committee. He said that perhaps one hundred persons here and abroad decide what we shall eat, what we shall drink, wherewithal we shall be clothed and most of our other activities. Then he went on to show the concentration of capital in the Dominion of Canada. First, with regard to banking, he said that three out of the ten banks had seventy per cent of the banking business, which meant that the other seven divided thirty per cent. In regard to trust companies he said that at that time there were forty-seven such companies in Canada, of which the four largest did seventy-seven per cent of the business. The three largest, the Montreal Trust, the Royal Trust and the National Trust, are closely linked with the three largest banks. Then we come to loan companies, of which there were thirty-six. Of these three did eighty-two per cent of the

Trade Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
business. They also are interlocked with the large banks. At that time there were sixty-six life insurance companies, Canadian and foreign, doing business in Canada. Of those companies three, the Sun Life, the Metropolitan Life and the Canada Life, controlled almost half the total assets. Life insurance companies a.re also closely connected with the banks, as are the investment trusts. In connection with transportation, the Canadian Pacific Railway is an important member of the North Atlantic conference, which dominates shipping. Two Canadian Pacific directors are directors of Canada Steamship Lines, which virtually controls Canadian lake shipping. Five Canadian Pacific directors are directors of Canadian Airways, the most important commercial aviation company in Canada. In regard to communications, the express and telegraph systems belong to the two railway systems. In eastern Canada telephones are controlled by the Bell Telephone Company through direct ownership and interlocking directorates. The directorates of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company interlock also. In regard to electric power, apart form publicly owned systems it is almost entirely in the hands of three groups, the Holt interests, the Nesbitt-Thompson-Killam interests and the International Power and Paper Company. These three are linked up with subsidiary power companies across Canada. In connection with pulp and paper there were fifteen companies listed. One, the Canadian subsidiary of International Power and Paper, is interlocked with seven of these companies. In connection with iron and steel, Ford and General Motors dominate motor manufacture in Canada and International Harvester, Massey-Harris and Cockshutt Plough hold a similar position with regard to agricultural implements. In the general steel industry, Dominion Steel and Coal, Steel of Canada and Algoma Steel control the situation. Everyone knows that nickel is a complete monopoly. In regard to copper the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway, holds a leading position. Cement is the virtual monopoly of the Canada Cement Company. In connection with oil refining t'he Imperial Oil Company, with assets of over $242,000,000, towers over its four competitors with combined assets of only $78,000,000. Rubber is in the hands of four companies. Textiles are largely in the hands or under the control of three main groups. Flour milling is controlled by four or five companies, four of which control a large part of the bread baking industry. Meat
packing is in the hands of three or four companies and tobacco is almost entirely in the hands of one company.
Those were the conditions that were public knowledge before the price spreads and mass buying committee was appointed at all. What I find wrong in this situation is not so much that these large companies eliminate competition and crush the small, individual business; it is that these large companies control the means by which the rest of the community live and by which they must obtain access to the things they need in their everyday life. Such recommendations as have been brought in by the price spreads and mass buying commission are altogether inadequate in a situation like this. Through this control a few individuals, numbering perhaps not more than one hundred, can and do levy tribute on the rest of the community, and it seems to me that during the time I have been here parliament has been mainly concerned with seeing that they were allowed to levy this tribute without let or hindrance. I am reminded of the illustration used by Thomas Carlyle:
The widow is gathering nettles for her children's supper. A perfumed landlord', lounging delicately in Paris, has an alchemy by which he will extract from her every third nettle, and call it rent and law.
If we change the perfumed landlord in Paris to a banker, an industrialist or a bondholder in Montreal, Toronto, New York or London and change rent and law to interest and profit, we have a clear picture of what Thomas Carlyle meant, so far as Canada is concerned at the present time. By the same methods as those used in Carlyle's time we find that today some landlords, some industrialists or other exploiters of labour take the value of the third stitch, if you like to put it that way, that the girl takes in her workroom in the attic or factory, and the third or possibly more than the third part of everything the farmer produces on his land. At page 111 of the report we find this statement:
Frank exploitation of labour's weakness has been common. Evidence has followed evidence with monotonous regularity before the commission to show that, in many cases, the welfare of the worker is almost the last consideration that_ enters into the minds of employers in this industry.
The commission was referring to one of the industries. So long as the labour of the individual is a commodity which is bought and sold in the public market we are bound to have the conditions described in the report. The employer buys his labour in very much the same way he would buy any-

Trade Commission-Mr. Maclnnis
thing else. He buys it the same as he buys the electric current used in his plant, and he pays the labourer the value of his labouring power based on its cost of production. The employer is not concerned with what may become of the individual labourer. His chief concern is that there may be other labourers to do the work when the one now being used is worn out or has passed out of the picture. All the labourer receives for his work is, on an average, enough to maintain himself in a condition whereby as the days pass he may reproduce his labour.
At page 7 we find the commission coming to this conclusion:
It is the fierceness of the struggle, not any unusual depravity in the men concerned, which leads to the adoption of such practices. No one business man can afford to follow the dictates of his conscience and refuse to conform.
If he did he would be eliminated.
Here we have a responsible commission making the statement that conditions in industry in Canada are such that no individual business man may allow his conscience to interfere in the administration of his business. After all we cannot be very greatly surprised at that statement, because in years gone by have we not boasted that there was no sentiment in business, and that we could not allow sentiment to enter into it? That being so, if business must be conducted in that way why should we find fault with the individuals who carry on in the manner indicated in the report?
I maintain that the only remedy for the situation is the abolition of the system under which we live, and the taking away from a few individuals the right to control our means of life, the means by which we obtain access to the things we need. The solution offered by the commission is as follows:
The only way out is for all the members of a trade or industry to agree to ban certain unethical practices, or for the state to force them all to agree to such abandonment.
But before the ink was dry on that statement the commissioners saw its inadequacy and added:
Such an agreement, however, often will involve conflicting loyalties, loyalty to the particular group of producers and loyalty to society at large. If the agreement is mainly one not to compete, but rather to share the advantages of monopoly, other groups in society have nothing to gain.
I submit that that is the difficulty in all our social relationships. In a society divided against itself, as ours is to-day, there is nothing we can do which does not interfere with the economic rights or liberties of some-
]Mr. Maclnnis.]
body. That condition must obtain as long as our society is on a class basis.
I am reminded of a statement made by Doctor Mayo, one of the famous brothers of Rochester. A few years ago he was reported as having said that cancer in the human body was caused by one of the cells of the boidy ceasing bo cooperate with the other cells and becoming predatory in character. Whether or not this is true I am not in a position to say, but we do know that when individuals or corporations consider only their own welfare they become a cancer on the social body. That is what has happened and is happening under the present capitalistic system. No individual is to blame for it. As the commission has pointed out, the fierceness of the struggle for existence in the competitive system compels us to do the very things about which we complain.
In a consideration of legislation to deal with the conditions I find myself to a great extent in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) I believe it was, who said that the government should go ahead and pass the legislation it believed to be necessary, even if it were a little doubtful whether such legislation was constitutional. In my view we cannot place provincial problems in one compartment and federal problems in another, and state that one section must not infringe upon the other. It is my view that the problems confronting the federal member of parliament are the same problems which confront members of provincial legislatures, and where the political complexion of federal and provincial governments is the same I do not believe there should be any difficulty about those governments getting together and arriving at a conclusion as to what amendments may be necessary to carry out that which is in the best interests of the country. Nothing can be opposed to the interests of the dominion and at the same time favour the interests of a province.
There is another reason why I believe the government should go on with this legislation, even though there may be some doubt as to its constitutionality, namely, that when we find out who is opposing the necessary legislation we will be able to put our fingers on those who favour exploitation as against cooperative effort. I am sure that even that would be so much gain.
As far as the bill itself is concerned I think that the objections that have been taken to it so far are well founded. First of all the tariff board is already too busy with its own work to have this additional burden cast upon

it, and the recommendations put into effect by this bill are too important to be a secondary consideration of any board or commission. I could find many reasons for opposing the bill on the ground that it does not go far enough but I suppose like other members I shall have to content myself with half or a quarter of a loaf when we cannot get the whole of it.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mer-cier). Had1 I voted1, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Hadi I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JONES:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Prince (Mr. MacLeanl). Had: I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon.
member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL (West Hamilton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. COTNAM:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nipissimg (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAWSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Trade Commission-Division


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired' with the hon.
member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TURNBULL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. MoPhee). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. 1LSLEY:	I was paired with the hon.
member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BURNS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WILLIS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted1 for the motion.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desroohers). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUFF:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Peck). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of this bill.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreu-il-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of this bill.
TMr. Lawson.]
Mr. VERVlLLE (Translation):	I was
paired with the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of this bill.


Mr. PARENT (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand). Had I voted, I would have voted for the third reading of this bill.


EIGHT HOUR DAY
Richard Bedford Bennett: That a message be sent to the Senate that *this house desires to acquaint their honours that ill respect to the Senate amendments to Bill No. 21, an act to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, m accordance with the convention concerning the application of the principle of the eight hour day or of the forty-eight hour week adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the League of Nations, in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1919, this house agrees with amendments one to eight inclusive;
And that with respect to Senate amendment No. 9, this house moves as a consequential amendment thereto, that the words six months be substituted for the words three months";
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
He said: I believe hon. members have the reprinted bill before them. As I indicated the other night to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I asked to have this bill reprinted so that the amendments of the Senate might be clearly understood. There is an amendment to section 3, line 27 of page 2. After the word "thereof" the words "other than an undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed" are added. That is an obvious necessity. In the succeeding line, the word "and" is substituted for the word "or." In section 5, line 41 of page 2, the word "hours" is inserted after the words "limit of eight." In line 42 the word "by" is substituted for the word "with." I think .the word "with" is quite correct but as the Senate has made an amendment to change it to "by," it will be all right. In line 44 the word "such" is inserted after the word "no." In section 6 line 2 of page 3, the word "any" is inserted after the words "hours in." I think that is important. In the third line the same amendment is ma-de, inserting after the words "hours in" the word "any"-"hours in any" one day. There is no amendment to section 7. Section 8 has been amended, as will be observed, by

inserting after the word "average" in line 17, which is the last word of the section, the words:
Such regulation of the hours of work shall in no case affect any rest days which may be secured by the law of Canada to the workers in such processes in compensation for the weekly rest day.
I believe that is thought to be desirable. In section 9 we have the amendment which I have just moved. It will be observed by reference to the original bill, that it was proposed that the act should come into force three months after the date on which it is assented to, and in the bill as it left this house it read:
notwithstanding anything contained in this act, continue in force for a period of one year from the thirty-first day of March, 1935, unless suspended during such period by the governor in council.
This refers to agreements made with the running trades. It gave a period of one year from March 31, 1935. .to enable them to make such arrangements as would conform to the provisions of the new law. In the Senate, after much discussion, one of the senators being very closely connected with the running trades of the railways, it was finally concluded that the section should be amended by placing, for the words:
one year from the thirty-first day of March, 1935, unless suspended during such period by the governor in council.
-the w-ords "three months from the date of the coming into force of this act," which would mean six months from the date of royal assent being given. It has been felt that this is a matter in which, as there is acute difference of opinion, it is desirable to arrive at some arrangement that will clarify the situation without doing injustice, either remotely or nearly, to any interest that might be affected; and at the conference it was suggested that if the period of time originally proposed, namely, one year, were retained, it would be satisfactory, and inasmuch as a portion of the time has now elapsed, the provision for six months instead of one year from such and such a date-March 31, 1935-will in fact provide that identical time. For the act will come into force, presumably, three months from around about the end of June. That would be July, August and September, and it would then come into force on the first of October, and with the period of six months- October, November, December, January, February and March-you arrive at the original date as fixed by this house, namely, March 31, 1936. That is the consequential
1935	3839
Eight Hour Day-Senate Amendments
amendment which I have moved and which we indicate to the Senate that we ask them to accept.
Paragraph 10 of section 10 of the bill, it will be observed, has been rewritten, from line 36 to line 47 inclusive, and turning over the page, the rest of the section, lines 1 to 20, has been rewritten. I think that possibly as the new section reads it indicates the meaning of parliament more clearly than the old section, which read:
10. (1) The governor in council may by regulation except any or all employment in any industry from the limits of hours of work fixed by this act whenever he is satisfied that,
It will now provide that:
Whenever the governor in council, after consultation as required by the convention mentioned in the preamble to this act has been had, is satisfied that the work, or any class of work, in any industrial undertaking or class of industrial undertaking is-[DOT]
This is done to tie the section to the convention and make it abundantly clear that with respect to this matter reliance is placed upon the convention and upon no other provision, in order to provide for the constitutionality-if I might without apology use that word in this house-of the measure itself. Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to read the new section beyond directing attention to its provisions.
Section 11 has also been somewhat modified for paragraph (a), as it was originally framed, has been deleted and a new subclause substituted therefor. If there are any questions I shall be glad to answer them, but I think it is obvious that the meaning of the new clause in the amendment as enacted by the Senate gives clearer expression to the meaning than we did in our subclause (a): notify by means of the posting of notices in conspicuous places in the works or other suitable place, or by such other method as may be approved by the governor in council, the hours at which work begins and ends and where work is carried on by shifts, the hours at which each shift begins and ends. These hours shall be so fixed that the duration of the work shall not exceed the limits prescribed' by this act, and when so notified they shall not be changed except with such notice and in such manner as may be approved by the governor in council.
That is the general sense of the original subsection, but for clarity I think the Senate clause is to be preferred. The next amendment is to section 12 and it leaves out those provisions that necessitated regulations being communicated to the international labour office at Geneva. It is felt that the general clauses cover that matter and there should

Eight Hour Day-Senate Amendments
not be specific reference to it in this particular case.
In section 13 the amendment is similar to that which I mentioned yesterday. After the words "shall" in line 3 the addition of the words "be guilty of an offence against this act and" is, I think, to be preferred to the original provision. In line 5 of section 13 "and not less than twenty dollars" is left out in connection with penalties. There is a view held by many draftsmen that it is undesirable to mention a minimum fine when a judicial body or tribunal is exercising discretion, and these words are left out. There is no change as to the date on which the act comes into force-three months after the date on which it is assented to. The general effect is that the textual changes made are an improvement in the measure. The section to which I particularly direct attention is a provision that ties the section to the convention. The consequential amendment will have the effect of bringing this act into force, qua agreements with running trades, on March 31, 1936, which was the date this house thought was reasonable at the time it first enacted the legislation, and which I believe is regarded as a reasonable time by those directly interested.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I have a word or two to say with regard to section 9, the one amended, and in which amendment the right hon. gentleman does not concur.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: I have received some requests from unemployed railway men in my constituency asking me to support the amendment made by the Senate to section 9 with regard to delay, and that this house should not insist on the delay of one year mentioned in section 9. I find, however, that what they really want is that the bill should come into force six months after the royal assent. I think that is what the right hon. gentleman is moving in his amendment, so it meets their views, and I have nothing more to add.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding, because it is highly important that my hon. friend should understand exactly what I said. The proposals that I have made to the house would mean that the bill would become operative as an 
act six months after the lapse of the three months mentioned in the last clause, that is nine months in all. It was a year; it will now be practically nine months, as part of the time has elapsed.


Ernest Lapointe: I only wish to put before the house the request of those people that it should come into force at least within six months after the royal assent.


Mr. McGREGOR:: As I have many unemployed railway men in my riding I want to register my protest against this bill being put through at this time. The bill was brought before the Senate committee, was discussed by them for a couple of days, and recommendation made, and I protest on behalf of the unemployed railway men in my riding against this extension of time.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113 for the relief of Dora Eleanor Mathieson Campbell-Mr. Vallance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That a message be sent to the Senate that this house agrees with all the Senate amendments to Bill No. 40, an act to provide for minimum wages pursuant to the convention concerning minimum wages adopted by the International Labour Organization in accordance with the provisions of part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace, and that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the Senate.


Ernest Lapointe: That we agree to all the
amendments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: What are they?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have rewritten part of the bill. If hon. gentlemen so desire I shall be glad to point out what the changes are.
The provisions of the preamble have not been changed, nor has section 1. But on pages 2, 3 and 4 it will be observed that the sections have been entirely recast, down to the end of section 8. The effect is that the section has been tied closely to the terms of the convention. The law officers of the Senate thought it advisable, and the Senate committee agreed, that the terms used in the convention should be reproduced, for the purpose of dealing with, for instance, rateable

Minimum Wage-Senate Amendments
trades and matters of that sort. It will be observed on the page opposite page 2 that words that were not defined in the bill as it left the house have been defined in accordance with the terms of the convention. Some of the changes are very slight but others are quite substantial. Section 3 is recast. Section 4 permits the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister to create, and by regulation provide for the operation of, machinery with respect to minimum wages. Section 5 is recast, and in section 6 there is quite a change. You will observe particularly words to which attention anight be directed as having been added :
the trade and commerce, or the public revenue, of Canada is being injuriously-affected by the absence of uniform minimum rates of wages,
That has been added by the Senate. The words that have been used in section 5 and other sections, "decent standard" have been taken out and the words "suitable standard"
' substituted. It seems to me that perhaps that is an improvement. Those are the essential changes that have been made, in substance, and the recasting has continued, as will be observed opposite page 4. I think I should direct the attention of the house to the last section opposite the end of page 4:
Subsection one of section four of this act and section five of this act shall not come into force until proclaimed by the governor in council.
I think I explained when this bill was before the house originally that it does not come into force until the time limited, because the convention itself did not become operative merely by ratification-I will read the article in order that there may be no difficulty. Article 7 provides:
This convention shall be binding only upon those members whose ratifications have been registered with the secretariat.
It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two members of the international labour organization have been registered with the secretary-general.
I pointed out that this happened, of course, before the convention was submitted to this house. The last paragraph of article 7 is the governing paragraph:
Thereafter, this convention shall come into force for any member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.
Our ratification was registered on the 25th day of April, 1935; therefore the convention does not come into force until twelve months after that date. The amendment made by the senate provides that subsection 1 of section 4
and section 5 shall not come into force until proclaimed by the governor in council, in order that the full twelve months may expire after ratification before the proclamation is made with respect to those provisions that are tied up to the convention itself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does that mean a year from now at least?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Substantially; April 25, 1936, to be exact. That is why it is provided that a proclamation is to be made, in order that the full year may have expired before it comes into force. That refers to section 5 as rewritten and to the provisions of subsection 1 of section 4, and in order that there may be no difficulty about it I will read that subsection:
4.	(1) The governor in council may on the recommendation of the minister create, and by regulation provide for the operation by or under the minister of, machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in rateable trades.
And the act, as recast, defines rateable trades in accordance with the terms of the convention.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire only to say that my concurrence in these amendments does not mean that my view as to the power of this parliament to enact this legislation is altered in any way.


Mr. FACTOR:: May I ask why section 12 was changed to provide that the act shall not come into force until proclamation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am always willing to accommodate hon. gentlemen, but I have just concluded stating the reason. Shortly put, the provisions of the convention under which this statute has been framed do not come into force until twelve months after the ratification has been registered at Geneva. Our ratification was registered on the 25th day of April, 1935; therefore the twelve months will not expire until the 25th day of April, 1936. It is desirable, therefore, that these seotions that depend upon the convention for their validity should not come into force until proclamation, on a date subsequent to the 25th day of April, 1936.


Mr. NEILL:: Do the other sections come
into effect on assent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read th" second time and concurred in.
Post Office Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon, HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 100 to amend the Post Office Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I explained this
bill when I introduced it. It contains only one clause, which provides that a contract for mail service may be renewed for more than a single term. During the past fifty years, I have been informed, it has been the custom in the Post Office Department to renew mail contracts for terms of four years. The statute in that respect provided that where a contract was in other respects satisfactory the Postmaster General might renew the contract with the same contractor for a further term not exceeding four years. Recently the auditor general brought, it to the attention of the Department of Justice that the language of the statute permitted only one renewal for a term of four years. This bill is to make it clear that the renewal may be made for additional terms of four years. As I say, during the past fifty years the practice has been to treat the law as giving a right to the Postmaster General to make not one but several renewals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-No contract for more .than four years.
Ernest Lapointe: I just want to ask
whether this applies only to an expiring contract. I mean a contract could not be renewed two years before it expired, for instance?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the act is quite
definite on that. When a contract expires, if the terms are satisfactory the Postmaster General may renew it not only for one term of four years, but after it has expired again it may be renewed for a further term of four years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) .moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 80, to amend the Income War Tax Act.

He said: In moving concurrence in these amendments, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that they are purely to make clear what the senate conceived was not as clear as it might be. In clause (a) of subsection 7 of section 88 we find the following:
that any transfer of property on the basis oi a quid pro quo is nevertheless a gift, if, in his opinion, the values of the properties passing are disproportionate one to the other.
That is, if in the mind of the taxing authority there is any apparent difference between the exchange of properties he has the right to treat the one that has an excess of value over the other as a gift, if it is disproportionate. The senate have added the words ''in whole or in part," making the subsection read:
that any transfer of property of the basis of a quid pro quo is nevertheless a gift in whole or in part-
Those W'ould seem to be excellent words to have added. Then in clause (a) of subsection 8 of section 88 these words occur:
Gifts or donations made by any individual the aggregate value of which in any year does not exceed $4,000.
That, is, gifts may be made up to $4,000. The Senate have added these words, "and taxation shall be on the amount in excess of $4,000 only"-which, of course, is, as we unfortunate lawyers would say, an abundant precaution, because in my judgment it is involved in the reading of the subsection itself. Under those .circumstances I move that the amendments be concurred in, there 'being added also at the end of section 17 a new section.
18. All actions pending at the time when this act comes into force shall be decided as if this act had not been passed.
That is to meet the contention that it might be construed as retroactive when it did not so state. It is a protection, under circumstances of that kind.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence, for the Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 62, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.

Hours of Labour-Senate Amendments
On section 1-Certain officers deemed to be permanent employees.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many will be affected by the amending section?


Mr. STIRLING:: There are 333 employees now. With regard to the amending bill I should like to say that when the board came into existence seventeen years ago it was not clear what the scope of the work would be, nor was there any certainty as to its duration. So far as employees were concerned it reached a peak in May of 1920 when there were 1,594. It has dwindled down to 333, as I have indicated. The board has the surveillence of 21,268 properties, but besides that it looks after the work developed under the land settlement branch of the Department of Immigration and Colonization, which was formed in 1927. That adds considerably to its work and the possible duration of such work. I remember that in 1928 and 1929 the minister of that day considered t'he matter and I believe was favourably disposed towards it. Indeed, a committee of the house reported in favour of this change.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Grote Stirling: But it slipped up, and the government considers th'at the time is now ripe to take action.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am in favour of the bill; I was just asking how many would be affected.


Grote Stirling: I have referred to 333 who would be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many are ex-service men?


Grote Stirling: Ninety-eight per cent of the male employees.


Alan Webster Neill: Will this cover field instructors-I mean the officers out in the field in the different country districts?


Grote Stirling: The bill uses the expression " any officer, instructor, clerk, stenographer or other employee"-it covers all employees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. FAIR WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 75, respecting fair wages and
houm of labour in relation to public works
and contracts.
He said:	The amendments are merely to
make clear that which I believe is fairly clear in the statute as it reads now. In paragraph (a) of subsection 1, section 3, after the word "shall" have been added the words "during the continuance of the work" so that the paragraph as amended would read:
(a) AH persons in the employ of the contractor, subcontractor, or any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall during the continuance of the work be paid fair wages.
I believe that might have been reasonably inferred, but the Senate have added the words indicated. Then, in section 8 after the word "council" they have added the words "made before the execution of the contract." The effect of that is to modify the terms of the section so that it will read:
This act shall come into force on the first day of May, 1936, but shall not apply to any contract with the government of Canada existing at the said date nor to any contracts, agreements or works thereafter made or undertaken which are by order of the governor in council made before the execution of the contract declared to be excepted from the operation of the provisions of this act.
Someone has thought it very desirable that no temptation be placed in the way of the government to make any such exception after the contract is executed, and' that the exception should be provided1 for before the execution of the contract itself. I think perhaps that is in ,the public interest.
Ernest Lapointe: The words "made before the execution of the contract" apply to the order of the governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the order must be made before the contract has been executed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I notice that section 7 states:
The Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act, 1930, is repealed.
And section 8 states:
This act shall come into force on the first day of May, 1936.
Is there any hiatus?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told by the
law officers that there is not.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What takes its place?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is repealed as a
matter of law when this comes into force.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



Radio Broadcasting-Mr. Duranleau



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved the second reading of Bill No. 99, respecting radio broadcasting.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before second reading is given to the bill I should like to make a few observations on the radio situation in Canada and the circumstances which have led this government to ask parliament to reenact the provisions of the Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 for a further period of nine months, thereby extending the life of the commission to the end of the fiscal year.
When we studied the problem we did not have to make a decision of principle, because that question was settled in 1932 when the house unanimously decided that radio broadcasting in Canada should become a, public utility. The statute, it is well to bear in mind, was enacted after the report of the Aird-Frigon commission which was organized by the administration of hon. members opposite and the report of the committee headed by the Deputy Speaker, both of which recommended and advocated the public ownership of radio. I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, of any change in the attitude or views of the great majority of the members of this house or of any change in public opinion as to the principle of the public ownership of radio. The principle of public ownership was also affirmed by the special committee which reported last session when special recommendations were made to the house. If the house will permit me to quote the first recommendation of that committee, it reads as follows:
That in view of the evidence given before this committee the government should during the recess consider the advisability of amending the act with a view to securing better broadcasting facilities throughout the dominion, [n the opinion of your committee radio broadcasting could best be conducted by a general manager.
As the house can see, the report did not even touch or raise the question of principle. The only question brought to the attention of the government was about the organization and the management of this utility. I can assure this house that the government has given most careful consideration to the report made by that committee, and after careful study we came to the conclusion that as we were nearing the end of the present parliament we should not interfere with the principle or with the organization of the commission at the present time. There is no

doubt that this problem of radio in Canada is a very important one, but we thought that it was not urgent enough to come and ask the house at this session for drastic legislation amending the organization of the commission.
I think that in fairness to the personnel of the commission I should bring some considerations before the house concerning the commission's achievements. I think every member of this house will agree that the commission was entrusted with a very, very difficult task, a task that was somewhat in the nature of an experiment not only in Canada but all over the continent of America. The commission has hardly been two years in office, which is indeed a very short period within which to test the value of the system. Every member of the house I think will also admit that the commission has been further handicapped by the lack of funds. Nobody could expect the commission to build a network to cover half this continent, a network as complete as they have in Great Britain, in less than three years without any capital other than its appropriation of about one million dollars a year. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think that the record of the Canadian radio commission has been a creditable one.
I know that the commission has been very bitterly criticized from almost all sections of the country and I am frank to admit that many of the criticisms were well founded, but I think I should add immediately that those who voiced the criticisms did not allow for the handicaps under which the commission had to operate. The complaints against our present system were listed under two headings, coverage and programs. If hon. members will give me their attention for a few minutes I 3hall endeavour to give them an idea of what the commission has already tried: to accomplish in spite of difficulties and limitations to improve the broadcasting facilities and provide better 'Canadian programs.
The objective assigned to the commission by parliament was the setting up of a national network built around three or four powerful stations, and the taking over of all private stations in Canada except the small or what we call the community stations. That undertaking everybody will admit involved considerable expenditure which the commission could not afford to make under the circumstances, with the meagre credits which were placed at their disposal. The commission has nevertheless managed to establish a network of its own which comprises seven stations

Radio Broadcasting-Mr. Duranleau
situated at strategic points throughout the country, namely, stations 'CRCV, Vancouver; CRCW, Windsor; CRCT, Toronto; CRCO, Ottawa; CRQM, Montreal; CRCK, Quebec; CRCS, Chicoutimi.
William Daum Euler: How many stations are owned by the commission?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The seven I have just mentioned.


William Daum Euler: Is the one in Toronto owned by the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: I think so. It is operated by a company but everything is paid by the commission. The commission has completed its network through agreements made with twenty or more private stations which carry its programs all over Canada. I am told that the commission is working to-day on a program of construction which it intends to carry out with the more generous allowance which we have voted this year and which, will help to increase the coverage all over Canada.
The commission has further improved broadcasting facilities by granting licences to small stations which operate in districts where there was no coverage before.
I know that some hon. members of this house ha?e criticized the commission because of the fact that the number of private stations has increased since the commission has been in operation, but the commission had not the necessary funds to establish its own stations, and in order to give better coverage to different parts of Canada t'he commission thought it well to issue private licences. I might mention in that connection the new stations at Prince Albert in northern Saskatchewan, at Sudbury in northern Ontario, at Sault Ste. Marie, Hull, New Carlisle on the Gaspe coast, and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The commission's programs are supplied without cost to all the private stations all over Canada.
May I add that the commission has carried out so far as possible the recommendations of the special committee of last session with respect to advertising, in which connection a more liberal interpretation was given by the commission as suggested by the report of the committee. The private stations were allowed to carry advertising for as much as fifteen per cent of their time.


William Daum Euler: Did they appoint a manager as suggested by the committee?


Alfred Duranleau: The first recommendation of the special committee dealing with the
92582-244 j
appointment of a manager did not concern the commission but the government, and to carry it out would require an amendment to the act.
Moreover, the private stations were permitted to use electrical transcriptions until 7.30 at night and even later in some cases. The commission has also endeavoured to cooperate with the private stations and assist them in every possible way in accordance with the fifth recommendation of the special committee. I do not intend to enter into any discussion in connection with programs as that is a matter of taste and personal preference. However, I will venture to say that the commission has provided us with distinctly Canadian programs of a higher quality and wider variety than we could have expected from our private stations with their limited resources. Besides the regular news and weather forecast services we have had opera, chamber and choral music, drama, educational talks covering a wide range of subjects and introducing the leaders in all fields of Canadian activity to the whole nation, band concerts, instrumental and vocal recitals, book reviews, news comments, children's programs, dance music, sports broadcasts and so forth. I am sure the establishment of our publicly owned radio system will have a far-reaching influence upon the future of music and drama in Canada. The commission has already discovered a good many Canadian artists of whom we may be proud and we may expect that it will encourage and help our gifted young Canadians. In the past there have been many gifted Canadians. I need mention only Edward Johnson who has been recently honoured. Artists like him might have been induced to establish themselves in Canada if an opportunity had been offered by such a radio system as we have now.
Another point which I wish to stress is the importance of the national service rendered by the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, as was demonstrated by the special broadcast on May 6 on the occasion of the silver jubilee of His Majesty the King. On that occasion Canada was united from coast to colast listening to the special ceremonies and the appropriate program. I am sure the house realizes that the credit for the Canadian participation in that extraordinary broadcast is diue to the Canadian radio broadcasting commission. The facilities which have been organized by the commission in the past two years made it possible for Canadian listeners to enjoy that broadcast along with the rest of the empire.
The Canadian contribution on that occasion, entitled A Retrospect of Twenty-five Years in Canada, was produced and presented by
3846	COMMONS
Radio Broadcasting-Mr. Durardeau
the radio commission, and it was considered to be one of the best programs of that type ever presented. It was hailed as an impressive engineering feat as well as a most remarkable presentation. I am informed by the commission that innumerable messages were received congratulating them on the excellence of the Canadian cavalcade. One of the first messages received was from Sir John Reith, general director of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I do not want to detain the house too long but I think in fairness to the personnel of the commission I should put on record a few of the observations made by some of the newspapers of Canada. The first comment appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of May 7, 1935, and reads:
The engineers who were in control and all who had a share in yesterday's triumph of broadcasting deserve the admiration and thanks of the millions upon millions whom they provided with so rich a feast.
The Regina Leader-Post of May 8 commented as follows:
The lot of the Canadian radio commission has been on the whole to receive more brickbats than boquets, but Canadians generally, we think, will be inclined to let up on the brickbats for a while as a result of the jubilee broadcast on Monday....
The Halifax Herald of May 8 contained the following:
The King's jubilee was productive of one of the most remarkable pictures of the national unit which to-day is Canada.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I do not know whether I am in order but at the present time the minister seems to be putting on record the opinion of certain newspapers. I remember one time when I had occasion to refer to certain editorials and extracts from newspapers commenting upon some conduct of the government, I was stopped by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and my action was finally ruled out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member is quite in order as long as he reads excerpts and does not read the whole article.


Ernest Lapointe: May I assure my hon. friend that we intend to pass the bill.


Alfred Duranleau: In fairness to the commission I think we should put on record the general opinion on the achievements of this commission. That is why I intend to quote three or four lines of appreciation from almost all the newspapers of Canada, but if your honour holds that I am out of order I will desist.
The Moncton Times of May 9 said:
[Mr. Duranleau.l
Great credit is due the Canadian radio commission for the wonderful broadcasts which have been enjoyed by the people of Canada during the celebration of the King's silver jubilee. The empire-wide hook-up on Monday easily surpassed any similar achievement of the Canadian radio commission.
The Regina Star of May 9 said:
The Canadian radio commission is generally given more kicks than ha'pence. Often those who complain of its operation take no consideration of the difficulties that inevitably accompany any new enterprise. But never has it more justified its existence than in the results it achieved on Monday last. Even those who have been prominent in their complaints have been compelled to acknowledge that it accomplished the best work it has ever yet undertaken, and in the future it may be recognized as a public utility that must be preserved and allowed to develop.
Similar comments appeared in the Calgary Herald, the Niagara Falls Review, the Halifax Star, the Kingston Whig-Standard and many others.


William Duff: Any from the Toronto Telegram?


Alfred Duranleau: If it is the desire of the house I would be willing to quote the letters of appreciation received from outstanding citizens of Canada and the United States.


William Duff: Has the minister any .from the Toronto Telegram?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the
Toronto Telegram with me.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Has the minister any of the comments made by British Columbia papers on the radio broadcasting reception during the past few years?


Alfred Duranleau: I have brought with
me only the extracts from the papers I mentioned.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Only favourable ones.


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend
will look at the papers of that time-the British Columbia press-he will find an appreciation of the performance of that day. It must be observed that the jubilee broadcast was not the first occasion on which the radio commission arranged for Canada to participate in an empire broadcast. Since 1932 the commission has arranged for this country to participate in the Empire Christmas broadcast, extending .to Canadian listeners the privilege of hearing His Majesty's Christmas day message. Victoria day is similarly celebrated by an empire broadcast, and this year Canada was invited by the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide an appropriate program for distribution throughout the em-

Radio Broadcasting-Mr. Durardeav,
pire. The production plan of the commission on that day was a real credit to Canadian musical and artistic talent, and is a striking example of the opportunity our national broadcasting system offers to Canadian musicians, and artists in all parts of the empire. Cooperation in such a magnificent broadcast was not provided before the Canadian radio commission came into existence. I do not think we could have achieved the same results when the radio was under private direction.
Among other fields in which the radio commission has rendered conspicuous service is .the broadcasting for Canadian listeners of special events of national significance. For instance, the broadcasting of the opening ceremonies of .the present session of parliament-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I rise to a point of
order.


Alfred Duranleau: was enthusiastically received by the people of Canada.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I direct your honour's
attention to standing order 41, paragraph (o) of 293, at page 96, which declares that it is forbidden to read from a written, previously prepared speech. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman's speech is a prepared written speech. It is a brief.


An hon. MEMBER:: Marked on the back.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think my
hon. friend-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The point of order has
been stated; I should like to have the Speaker decide.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think my
hon. friend will insist on his point of order. I have notes-


Ernest Lapointe: He is a bad boy; he
may insist.


Alfred Duranleau: This is a very technical matter and I think I am entitled to look at my notes when necessary.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You can do better than that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The point of order which has been raised is, I believe, well known to the house and certainly to the minister. As the minister himself says, however, the matter under discussion is somewhat technical and I believe he is merely referring to his notes whenever that course becomes necessary, because of the technical nature of certain of his remarks.


Alfred Duranleau: I desire to give a
list of events of national importance which have been broadcast by the radio commission and which includes the celebration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Saint John, New Brunswick, by the United Empire Loyalists; the arrival and reception of the Italian air armada at Shediac and Montreal; the Institute of Pacific Relations at Banff, where the speakers included delegates from Canada, Great Britain, the United States, Japan and China, who were heard on the national network; the opening of the international grain exposition at Regina; the national remembrance day ceremony on parliament hill, Ottawa; special ceremonies in celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of the landing of Jacques Cartier in Canada; the funeral services at the grave of the late Sir Arthur Currie, and the funeral of King Albert of Belgium, and also the ceremony of the marriage of the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina of Greece-


Ernest Lapointe: Give us more weddings.


Alfred Duranleau: -addresses by Lord
and Lady Baden Powell at the banquet of the boy scouts' association. These are only a few of the special events broadcast by the radio commission.


William Duff: No mention of the five bedtime stories.


Alfred Duranleau: I contend also-


Mr. McINTOSH:: Five lullabies.


Alfred Duranleau: -that the commission has rendered valuable service by cooperating with international institutions in their educational activities and campaigns for funds.


Mr. POWER:: What about funds for campaigns?


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon.
friends opposite will try to use the broadcast system to raise campaign funds for the next election. The commission cooperated with those in charge of the King George V silver jubilee cancer fund for Canada; the Canadian Red Cross Society; the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, and similar institutions. The assistance of the radio commission in arranging broadcasts on behalf of Dominion of Canada loan campaigns was also very much appreciated.
I do not like to take up too much time but I may say this in conclusion. My hon. friends will agree that there is no imperative need for

Radio Broadcasting-Mr. Euler
a change at the present time and that the government has taken the only reasonable course of action in asking this house to prolong the life of the commission to the end of the fiscal year.


William Daum Euler: I do not intend to speak at any length in reply to what the minister has said. Some weeks ago I was one of those critics to whom he referred and I made some comment and observations on the work of the commission, none of which I have any intention of withdrawing. At that time the minister made practically no reply to those criticisms. He has done so to some extent to-night by reading very copiously from what I suppose was supplied to him. I have no fault to find with that. I am satisfied with the statement he has made to-night, that many of the criticisms which were voiced in this house were justified by the facts. I am content with that, and I trust that the disabilities will be removed and the criticisms obviated by subsequent action on the part of this government or possibly by a future government. I can speak for those on this side when I say that we have no intention of blocking the bill. There is no opportunity now, at this late period of the session, to make any particular 'changes, and speaking for myself and, I think, for those on this side, we have no intention of interfering with the policy of public ownership [DOT] of the radio. In conclusion, I may observe, though possibly it should be brought up when the house is in committee, that I, for one, am anxious to obtain from the government an answer with regard to what has been done respecting the suppression of free speech through regulation by the commission. I should like to ask the minister now whether he has given any instructions to the commission, or has anything to say to the house, with regard to that portion of their regulations which forbid anyone criticizing existing legislation.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to answer my hon. friend when the house is in committee.


William Daum Euler: Quite all right.


Charles Edward Bothwell: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Provisions of act of 1932-33 reenacted for nine months.
Ernest Lapointe: Earlier in the session
when an item in the estimates under radio was being discussed, I made the suggestion that it ought to be possible to adopt some such system as we have in the old country, where political leaders who have different views are allowed! to use the broadcasting facilities for the purpose of expressing their views to the people. At the time although this suggestion was supported by other hon. members, it did not seem to meet with much favour on the part of the government. Perhaps I might offer another suggestion not so radical, but which I think should commend itself to the committee. We are going to have an election campaign in a feiw weeks, and radio broadcasting now is part of the activities of election campaigns more than at any former time, but unless you are provided with considerable money you cannot very well use these facilities. I am told that the commission asks the same rate for political addresses as for ordinary commercial service. I do not think that is fair. It ought at least to be possible to give a lower rate fo>r the expression of opinions of candidates and especially of the leaders during the election, not the same rates as for advertising syrup and drugs and other goods. Would it be possible that the commission be instructed to give a lower rate for the use of the radio for political addresses, at
least while the campaign is on, when it is important that all the electors of Canada should be enlightened on the various public questions submitted to them? I offer this suggestion and hope it will commend itself to the judgment of the committee.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: On a former occasion when radio was before the house I asked to wbat extent the recommendations of the committee of last year had been implemented. I understand they have not been.
I think at that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promised a reply at a later day.
I raise the question to-day because I was impressed' with the fairness and strength of his statement at that time in regard to public ownership and the necessity for maintaining the principle. Since then it has come to my attention that there is a serious trend now developing in radio broadcasting in this country, a trend that affects stations of smaller power that may be leased to private owners. I am informed that there is a tendency towards the amalgamation or at least the leasing to chain companies of more and more of these privately owned low powered stations with, consequently, the quiet, steady growth of monopolies among these low powered stations. I do know of some illustrations of joint ownership, or single ownership, of a number of these stations; for example, the stations at North Bay, Kirkland Lake and Timmins are all owned by the same company or are all under the same general management. I think that is something that should be avoided, and I strongly recommend to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine that if the regulations can be amended to protect the principle of public ownership against this danger of a growing private monopoly among the small, low powered stations, it should be done. If it cannot be done by regulation then an amendment to the act should be passed. I suggest to the government that one way of meeting the difficulty would be to have a provision in the licence prohibiting the leasing of the station by the person or company securing the licence to construct and operate the station; in other words, that the right granted in the licence should not be transferable. In that way we would maintain the individual element in the operation of the low powered stations. Otherwise there is a serious danger in the general trend at the present time towards monopoly. I hope the Prime Minister will be able to amplify the statement he made the other evening.
Radio Broadcasting


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not make any observations this evening because I thought the Minister of Marine had covered the whole situation. I discussed the matter with him and he was prepared to make the statement I otherwise would have made as to the carrying out of the recommendations that have been made. I have nothing to add to what he has said except that while I was in England a few weeks ago I made some inquiries as to the operation of the broadcasting system there. Dealing with the question that has been raised by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I can only point out the difficulty the commission has in cases such as he has suggested, in finding the money to pay for the wire. They must pay either the telegraph or the telephone company for the use of wire in connection with these large broadcasts.


Charles Gavan Power: But apart from the telephone and telegraph companies; it is the rate of the commission itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to say that in England that difficulty is negligible. There they have a compact population, and they told me they had seven million licences outstanding. Here to carry a broadcast across the country involves large expenditure for the use of the wire. The commission itself has no wires of any great length, it has stations, as the minister has explained, but to connect all those stations and amplify the broadcast so that it may be carried with sufficient strength and power to all parts of the country involves large expenditures. Our rates do look very high, but when you come to think that it is three thousand miles from Ottawa to Vancouver you realize why they have to be, the commission having no facilities of their own. As I say, they have to use the facilities which they lease for that purpose, and that is where the expenditure comes in.
As the minister observed, the real fact is that there is a very earnest desire on the part of the commission to provide the country with better broadcasting facilities. To do so involves the expenditure of large sums of money for a high powered station in each province; perhaps not one in each province but at least seven high powered stations. They cost a good deal of money, and the equipment connected with them also costs a good deal of money. The funds of the commission are limited entirely to their receipts from the use of their facilities and the money received in licence fees. It is much more expensive than it would appear to operate these broadcasting stations.

The only thing I was going to add to what the minister has said was that I brought back with me a copy of the report made by Sir John Reith on the situation in South Africa. They have decided to nationalize their broadcasting system and to establish the requisite number of stations. I brought the report with me intending to read some of the recommendations, but I find it unnecessary to do so now in view of what has been said.
I can only add that there is a great deal of sound reason in what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has said, because it is quite clear that numbers of small stations owned by the same firm or individual may create a sort of monopoly that will prevent the commission itself from discharging its full functions. But the power that rests in the radio act makes it perfectly clear that all these licences are issued subject to the overriding right of expropriation. There is one thing further: In consequence of certain information that reached me I ascertained upon inquiry that all new licences have been issued subject to the condition that the state may take over the facilities and that no value attaches for good will or franchise, that it is merely the value of the physical equipment whatever that may be. That is my understanding from the answer I received to my inquiry. It makes it much simpler if there is no franchise value attached and obviously one of the difficulties to which reference has been made disappears.
I do not see how the commission, with its limited revenues and its difficulty in making ends meet, can possibly expect to provide facilities for any of us on the terms suggested by the ex-Minister of Justice. It cannot afford to do so; that is the difficulty. Of course the British Broadcasting Corporation, while it is criticized as all corporations are, has had such public support behind it because of the character of its programs that one realizes that it fills a very long felt want on those islands. But you must remember that there are seven million licences outstanding and that the state receives all but 4s. 6d. of the 10s. 6d. received for a licence, and that on the 4s. 6d. plus the advertising, the sale of their programs and their recordings they are able to make a very substantial sum of money. Broadcasting House, the building they have erected at the end of Oxford street, is a magnificent property. It contains great concert halls; they have made provision for Sunday services; they can carry on several programs at the same time, and they have installed every modern device. Notwithstanding that, from time to time they are endeavouring to improve their facilities, as this service always must be im-

Radio Broadcasting
proved. Just take one thing, the question of recordings. That is a modem development. It is possible for my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice to make a speech on the radio at ten o'clock this morning, 'and at the appropriate hour this evening it can be broadcast as though it were being delivered by him at the very moment it is being heard. The perfection of these recordings is a matter now of common knowledge. The progress that has been made in connection with these matters is most marvellous. Last night the governor general designate was being heard in this country very clearly; I suppose many members of the house heard him, speaking in England. When we think of the progress that has been made it really is amazing, and I do not think we have yet reached the end. Senator Marconi tells how warm a place in his heart he has for Canada, because the first signal he transmitted across the Atlantic ocean was largely made possible by the final help that was given him foy this country. I fancy the right hon. gentleman opposite has personal knowledge of the statements I am making. He told me that had it not 'been for the assistance he received from Canada upon that occasion it is doubtful whether or not he would have been able to complete his experiment. When we reflect that the first signal transmitted across the Atlantic ocean from Newfoundland to Poldhu in Cornwall was largely through the confidence that Canada had in his ability to do so, and when we compare that first signal with what we have to-day, I believe we have some reason for satisfaction. In these days we can transmit wireless sounds across the Atlantic ocean with great facility. I understand on the sixth of May those sounds were transmitted in. such a way that every person in Canada, either at a radio station or in his own house, could hear what was taking place in England. The electrical reproduction of it in the evening made it available to those who might have found it inconvenient to listen to the program as it was originally transmitted.	_
All these things cost money-vast sums of money. The only complaint I have ever had to offer was that possibly there was a tendency to be unduly critical of the very difficult position in which the commissioners first found themselves when they took over the organization of this great public utility, in the face of opposition of private owners. I say, and every man must know, that many of the privately owned stations were bitter in their denunciation of the publicly owned facilities, feeling that what would have been a profitable field in the future had been taken from them. They felt that while their property had not been
confiscated they were prevented' from carrying out that which they believed would have been a highly profitable venture in the future. That difficulty was encountered and I believe to some extent, overcome. I have not been blind to the fact however that there has been an insidious campaign going on for the purpose of endeavouring to destroy the public facility from the standpoint of public approval of its operation. Hon. gentlemen may have no idea of the extent to which it was urged upon the government that the time would come when radio would cease to be operated as a public facility and be turned over to private enterprise.
We have not felt warranted in asking parliament for any sum of money beyond that derived from licence fees. The fact is that in a country such as ours, with enormous distances and a very limited number of licences, the record of the commission is something for which we have some reason to be proud. Mr. Graves, of the British Broadcasting Corporation., who was in Ottawa a short time ago, told me he had no idea we had done so much. When he saw the great distance over which the commission had to operate; when he realized the difficulties in connection with land lines and limited appropriations, small population and small number of licences, travelling from here to Halifax he expressed very great interest in what we were doing and voiced the belief that upon his return to 'Great Britain he would more clearly understand our difficulties than he had hoped when he left that country. He is the gentleman responsible for what are known as empire programs of the British Broadcasting Corporation. I suppose every hon. member knows that a substantial number of people from the old country have found homes in western 'Canada and have taken the greatest possible interest in the empire programs broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation. I was told the other day by the manager that the letters he had received from western Canada with regard to the type of program transmitted across the Atlantic ocean and reaching the far western parts of Canada had interested and amazed him.
Although this is a day of small things, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have reason to congratulate ourselves upon the fact that we have retained this facility as the property of the people and' that for the moment there has been no weakening on the part of those charged with the responsibility in their determination to maintain it as a publicly owned facility. Although the future may demand expenditures on a more generous scale than
Radio Broadcasting

we have heretofore been able to provide, I am satisfied that more and more the demand for this facility will continue, and that if we pursue, shall I say, the steady course that we are following, we will in Canada develop a system of broadcasting of which the Canadian people may well in every sense be truly proud1.
I repeat, this is a day of small things, and at times we are apt to compare our requirements, if that word may be used, with- those which can be provided by very rich and powerful peoples. We cannot erect stations costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars. We cannot provide all the facilities some of (he privately owned corporations provide, but quietly, gradually and steadily we are improving the situation. I would say to the hon-. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) that one of the matters with which the commission has been most concerned has been the difficulty of securing adequate coverage in the province of British Columbia. The hon. member, who is so familiar with the coast line and the sparse population scattered throughout the northern part of British Columbia and in the interior, and who is aware that a great part of the population is to be found in the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, will realize that with the limited revenues derived from licence fees the maintenance in the sparsely settled areas of a service such as is maintained in the more thickly populated communities is almost impossible. However the commission is most anxious to erect a station at a point which will provide ample coverage for the whole of British Columbia.
In the prairies they have had many difficulties to meet, largely on account of the large number of small stations. The combination about which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) spoke is not lacking in that country. Although I had not intended to speak, I believe I might say to my fellow Canadians that comparing our facilities with those offered in the older and richer countries I believe Canadians, with the limited amount of money at their disposal, the difficulties in connection with organizing a sendee of this kind, and the further difficulty sometimes brought about by the use of two languages, may well be proud. All these factors enter into broadcasting difficulties. Because of our great area we have time changes at Fort William, again at Broadview and again at Field. Then we have to make allowance for ' daylight saving. These are factors which do not enter into broadcasting in a country such as Great Britain!, but they are factors which must nevertheless be considered. The de-

velopment of a system, for instance, which makes it possible for us to hear a concert in London is not an easy procedure, because there is a difference of five hours in time. Then there are certain adjustments necessary, difficulties in atmospheric changes, and the power of appliances required to move the signal away beyond the ether and the stratosphere so that it may cross the ocean and then be gathered together and reproduced in Canada. These are processes which are almost miraculous. Radio is one of those things which one can never thoroughly understand, and something which to the average person is as near a miracle as anything we know in the world to-day.
I do hope, as the days go by, whatever government is in office may see to it that there are some sort of, shall I say, expressions of approval wherever possible of the earnest effort that is being made to secure and maintain, and that these will not be lacking on the part of those holding positions such as we hold. I trust that the tendency to criticize and condemn, which is not always without some cause, will become less and less. Approval of earnest efforts to provide the people of Canada, despite limited revenues and great physical and other difficulties, will be duly and properly appreciated.


Edward Joseph Garland: I find myself in pretty general agreement with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has just said respecting the general working of the radio commission. However I must come back to this one point, which I shall raise again. I am not altogether content with the assurance that the radio commission will have power or has power now to check any monopolistic development. The fact is I want them to exercise that power. I am informed, for example, that a very strong and financially important company, the General Electric, is at the present time preparing the organization of a holding company with which it proposes to control a large chain of now privately owned stations. In the last year or two there has of course been a very rapid increase, in my opinion too rapid an increase, in the number of licences issued to small private stations. I would have preferred to see that licensing limited to a much greater degree than it has been, but we are now faced with that tendency, and if it is permitted to continue unchecked, in spite of the provision to which the Prime Minister referred, you are eventually going to have a claim based on vested rights which it would be very difficult for this house and for the members of any government to overcome. I

Fruit and Honey Act
suggest that the proper step now to take is to make a provision in the licence whereby the licensee of a privately owned, station shall not have the right to sublet that station or lease it for any period of time to any other interest but must operate it personally or through his own company. In that way you would meet this difficulty and stop the monopolistic trend that is now definitely developing.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has told us more than once I think that he is going to have a powerful station erected in Vancouver. I would ask him when we may expect construction of that station to begin? Might I say to him that in the meantime as an amelioration of the conditions of which we complain he might use his influence to have the present Vancouver station put on a different channel. Where I live on the west coast of Vancouver island cannot be more than 120 miles from Vancouver, and on certain occasions we can hear station CRCV quite clearly, but it is so close to another powerful station on the American side that when that American station is operating the Vancouver station is quite inaudible. That is the trouble. It is not that wre cannot hear CRCV but that it gets mixed up with this powerful station on the American side. If a powerful station were erected at Vancouver it would drown the other out, but in the meantime would the minister use his influence to get the Vancouver station put on a different wave length?


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be pleased to suggest to the commission that they give another channel to that station if it is possible to do so, but as my hon. friend knows, the number of channels we have at our disposal is very limited, and almost all our channels are shared with the United States. I will suggest to the commission, however, that they do their best to accommodate the people of that district.


William Daum Euler: As I intimated a few moments ago I should like the minister to give some reply to the question we raised a few weeks ago with regard to that regulation of the commission which interfered with what we call free speech. I wish the minister would give us some assurance in that regard. We were promised by the minister and by the Minister of Finance that when this bill came up some correction of that regulation would be made.


Alfred Duranleau: It is a fact that when my estimates were up it was promised by the Minister of Finance that we would see to it that regulation 90 be amended in order to satisfy my hon. friends if possible. After
that sitting of the committee I asked the law clerks of the 'house to draft a regulation to replace regulation No. 90, and I will read the draft in question:
No broadcasting station may broadcast any speech, printed matter or program containing defamatory, libellous or obscure statements with regard to persons or institutions, or statements of a treasonable character or intended to promote change by unlawful means and which might lead to a breach of the peace, or any advertising matter containing false or deceptive statements.
I think that will cover the case.


William Daum Euler: It is all right.


Alfred Duranleau: I will see that this
draft regulation is adopted by the commission and ratified by order in council.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister did not reply
to my inquiry as to when he expected construction of the station in Vancouver to begin.


Alfred Duranleau: It is very hard to
say at the present time when it will be started. I know that the commission is working on a plan which includes a powerful station at Vancouver. I cannot say now when it will be started, but I hope it will be soon.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95 respecting fruit, vegetables and honey.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As the minister did not treat us to any great elaboration on the second reading of this bill perhaps I might give him a lead by saying a few words myself. There is nothing very formidable, I will not say very unimportant, in this bill. There are tw.o or three quite important features but not any serious changes from the past. As the explanatory notes say, the purpose of the bill is to consolidate and merge two bills into one, and to the extent that that is being done, it will add to the convenience of administration. There is another purpose, and that is to give effect to that part of the report of the price spreads commission re-
Fruit and Honey Act

ferred to in the explanatory note to section eight. I presume this bill will be catalogued amongst the government's more modest reform .measures because it does make a reference to price spreads and does make a little change in the act as it now applies to vegetables. The explanatory notes refer to section eight as being one of the changes made in consequence of the price spreads report. Section 8 indicates that the inspection of vegetables at canning factories will now be general instead of voluntary. This is following the practice of the past where the inspection and grading of commodities has been introduced as a voluntary proposition, then after sufficient people were interested and satisfied with such inspection service, it was extended to the country as a whole. This practice was found to be generally satisfactory although this government has not always adhered to it. I think however it is a safe practice to pursue. Then I understand there is a detention- clause which will be applied in the future to vegetables as well as fruit and honey as at present. Perhaps the minister would explain this bill more fully.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The hon. member has touched upon practically everything in the bill. First, the purpose is as he 'has stated. This bill has been drafted for the convenience of those interested in fruit, vegetables and honey. The different legislation covering these commodities has been consolidated into one bill. There is really only one recommendation made by the price spreads and mass buying commission contained in this bill and that is the extension of inspection. The experience of the past has shown that voluntary inspection meets with an increased demand.


William Richard Motherwell: Have the canning factories generally applied for this?


Robert Weir: When it was first introduced in 1931 only one plant used it but in 1934 twelve of the largest plants were using it. This shows that there was a demand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. REID:: Clause (k) reads:
"produce" means fruit or vegetables as defined herein and honey-
Will this definition cover comb honey as well as strained?


Robert Weir: All kinds of honey.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5-Powers of inspectors.
Thomas Reid: Subsection (e) reads:
(e) at the expense of the producer or packer take samples of honey from any apiary or other place where honey is prepared or packed.
Does the minister not think he is placing too much power in the hands of the inspectors when he permits them to take samples from the apiaries? I would point out that a sample taken from an apiary might not agree with the honey packed in the jars. An inspector who wanted) to be very officious might consider he had the right to go into any apiary to take samples.
Mir. W'EIR (Melfort): I am informed that care was used in making this provision and that it is the intention to take small samples of honey from the different apiaries for testing purposes.


Thomas Reid: I can 'assure the minister
that it cannot be taken from an apiary with any guarantee that it is the same as the honey in the jars. I think that word "apiary" will lead to a -lot of trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Produce intended- for canning.
Alan Webster Neill: According to the explanation this is a new provision but it seems to be very vague. It reads:
All produce intended for canning in any establishment shall be presented for inspection and grading as provided by the regulations.
Where is it t-o be presented, at the cannery or at some central point? Will an inspector be located at every cannery? I think we should know something as to what we are committing the producer to.


Robert Weir: This inspection will take place at the most convenient point. In the majority of cases it would be on delivery at the cannery.


Alan Webster Neill: That means the department
will maintain an inspector there?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On section 25-general.
William Richard Motherwell: In what section
is the detention provision to be found?


Robert Weir: Section 21.

Fruit and Honey Act


Thomas Reid: Section 22 provides that any
penalty imposed! shall be payable to His Majesty in the right of the Dominion of Canada. Where a provincial policeman carried out the enforcement of this provision and a fine was levied, would it go to the dominion?


Robert Weir: The fine would
be paid to the receiver general of Canada.
Mr. GEiRSHAJW:	How will the inspection
be managed where there is a small canning factory located some distance from any other factory? Will there be a full time inspector employed or a part time man?


Robert Weir: It would be a
part time man.


Alan Webster Neill: In connection with fines, it will be noticed that section 18 provides for a fine of not less than one hundred dollars. That seems to be an excessive penalty for a small offence. The Prime Minister to-day referred to an amendment made by the Senate to a certain bill in which a minimum penalty was cut out, and it was only $25. He suggested that it was held by many people to be desirable not to have a minimum penalty, and here we have a minimum of $100 for a trivial offence. Is this in the old act? In any event that would not justify such an excessive penalty. The minister is aware that the imposition of heavy minimum penalties very often prejudices magistrates in favour of offenders; they would rather let them off than impose an unjust penalty.


Robert Weir: The hon. gentleman will remember that a year ago, when this bill was before the house, this very matter was discussed at great length, though I realize, of course, that this is not an answer to his argument. All these penalties are named by the Department of Justice, and $100 is not really a very large fine to be paid by those who would be concerned, if the act is to have any effect at all.


Alan Webster Neill: The penalties are provided for in connection with sections 10, 11 and 12. Section 10 deals with the commission agent who has neglected to obtain a licence,, and that is not a deadly offence. Section 11 provides that no dealer shall ship, buy, accept or offer to accept or otherwise deal in any produce shipped unless he has obtained a licence; and section 12 provides that no broker shall engage in negotiating shipments on consignment, sales or purchases of any produce, and so on, without having obtained a licence. These are not vicious offences; I can think of offences which are much more
serious and for which the minimum is less than 8100. The minister says cheerfully that $100 is not much. It depends on whose pocket it comes out of; I know people who would have to go to gaol for a trivial offence for a period not exceeding two months if they were required to pay a fine of $100. I do suggest that $100 is a drastic penalty. The minister says that the Department of Agriculture prescribed it. Yes, and I have always noticed that the Department of Agriculture more than any other department is very strong on that-imposing the most excessive penalties for the infringement of any act or regulation they are pleased to make. That department is particularly guilty in this respect. They seem to think that if a man does anything contrary to a regulation on which they have put their imprimatur he should be crucified, on the principle, I suppose, of the Turkish sultan who put a dishonest baker in his oven. But that is not the principle that applies to-day; now we try to make the penalty fit the offence. I do not believe that if the matter were left to the minister himself, who is a fairminded man, he would deny that $100 is an excessive minimum penalty for offences like these. To test the point I move that in section 18, in line 37, the words "one hundred dollars" be struck out and the words "twenty-five dollars" be substituted therefor.


Robert Weir: The fine set out
in section 18 applies to the offences dealt with in sections 10, 11 and 12, on the basis of failure to take out a licence. The taking out of a licence is the basis on which an important part of this bill rests. If the hon. gentleman will read section 19 he will see the penalties enumerated for the smaller offences he has in mind. Before the bill was brought in last year, all these sections had been given consideration for at least eighteen months and had been before the fruit growers' associations in Canada. Some of them had it in their hands for a year. They went into the matter fully and were of the opinion that, because of the importance and the necessity of the licence being insisted upon, the fine should be at least $100. The hon. gentleman would give the impression that the Department of Agriculture is particularly desirous of imposing penalties, but I may tell him that I know of no instance where a penalty had been imposed without at least three warnings. To adopt the hon. member's suggestion would mean that the bill would not be effective. It is felt that it would be more satisfactory to leave it as it is, taking care that no injustice should be done through oversight.
Fruit and Honey Act


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister then
agree to add at the end of the section the provision that no such fine shall be imposed until a man has received at least three warnings? That, he says, is the basis of the bill.


Robert Weir: No; I did not say
that the basis of it was the giving of three warnings; I said that was the policy of the department, and it shows that the department is not anxious to impose fines. The hon. gentleman would be the first to agree that to make the change he suggests would render the bill ineffective with respect to one or two convictions.


Alan Webster Neill: The language is so vague:
No commission agent shall accept or offer to accept for sale on commission ...
The licence may have expired two days before and he may have sent his money to Ottawa; it has not arrived and he is liable. And it is not a matter of his being liable for $100; he is liable for 81,000. Why $1,000? It is all very well to say that the department is not in the habit of being unjust in prosecutions. Possibly not. But why give them such extraordinary powers? Why make the penalties so exorbitant? Half the time the accused will get off, because no reasonable justice of the peace or magistrate will fine a man $100 for a trivial offence. It is the experience of all magistrates that an excessive penalty for a minor offence is always provocative of undue leniency. It is in the interests of the enforcement of the act that I suggest making the penalties reasonable. If they are reasonable there is a better chance of the act being enforced. It is not the terrible penalty that deters a man but the certainty of conviction. Make the officers do their duty and see that every infraction of the act is brought to court. That is the thing that stops it, not the idea that he can take a chance. He may be fined $1,000 or may get off altogether, but it is the certainty of conviction that counts. I suggest that $100 is too much for a mistake of that kind. I would like to go further and reduce the maximum from $1,000 to $500, but I would not press that if the minister would agree to the $100.


Mr. GARDINER:: This matter was before the committee last year. I think the reason this particular penalty was inserted was to protect the producer. As I read the statute, no person can act as commission agent for these products unless he secures a licence. I do not understand that this licence will1 be

renewable from time to time; there is no provision for that. I submit that in order to control these parties effectively and protect the producers it is necessary to licence the commission people who will be taking these goods for sale on commission, and if they have not a licence they should be subject to a substantial penalty. I see no objection to this legislation; in fact I would support it because of the protection it gives the producers.


William Richard Motherwell: Can the minister inform us how long these fines have been in force, how' many prosecutions have been entered and how many convictions obtained', and whether he has found any difficulty from the courts hesitating about convicting because of the large fines? That would help to guide us in our decision. There is no question that when a fine is unreasonable-I am not saying this is-there is difficulty in securing convictions. If the minister would give us his experience of the eases that have been brought to court it -would help us.


Robert Weir: This has been in force for one year. There have been no prosecutions, therefore no fines have been imposed to date. The licence is $25 and if the fine were reduced to $25 it might; be a temptation to some to take a chance.


William Richard Motherwell: My recollection is that on the introduction of any new legislation like this the practice of the Department of Agriculture is to admonish and warn transgressors rather than prosecute much for the first year. Now that year is over; what will be the policy next year? The department will be disposed to be a little more severe, I imagine. If it is not, some will simply go on and on offending to see how much the minister will stand for. I am not disposed to suggest any change here.	I have no doubt the
officers of the department have gone into it carefully and fully and have decided that these fines seem to be workable, and fair, because there is no use having laws unless they are enforced. But when it is broken through ignorance rather than deliberately there should be some consideration shown, and there usually is.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived.
Section 18 agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Combines Investigation Act



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 79, to amend the 'Combines Investigation Act-Mr. Gordon-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: As I read the bill it is largely a reenactment of the old Combines Investigation Act, except that some clauses have had to be rewritten on account of the act being placed under the trade and industry commission instead of remaining under the registrar. There is a more comprehensive definition of the word "combine" and a few changes in the phrasing, but apart from that I do not see anything particularly new.


Hugh Guthrie: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2

Combine.
Hugh Guthrie: It has been pointed out that in subsection 4 on page 2, in line 8, we have used the words "dominate or control." It is suggested that it is better to have it "control." Dominate is an elastic word that may mean something or nothing. If it is the view of the committee, I move: that the words "dominate or" be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Then it has been pointed out that this should not affect what we call patent rights, the rights of a patentee under a valid and existing dominion patent. I do not know that I have any views on the subject, but it seems reasonable that a valid and existing patent should not be called either a merger or a trust or a monopoly which would control that particular trade. I have been asked to bring that to the attention of the committee, and I suggest that the clause might be amended by something like the following at the end of clause 4:
But this section shall not apply to the enjoyment of patent rights under valid and subsisting letters patent issued under the patent act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there not a distinct danger of monopoly under patents? Better leave the section as it is.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not going to urge it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Section 15 repealed.
Hugh Guthrie: In repealing section 15 of the act it is necessary to submit a new section in conformity with the provisions of the section in the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. The new section is as follows:
15. On the application of any person to the commission to recommend the approval of an agreement or proposed agreement for the control and regulation of prices and production pursuant to the provisions of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, 1935, the commission shall have authority to investigate all matters relating to such agreement or proposed agreement as in the case of any other investigation under this act, and all the provisions of this act shall mutatis mutandis apply as in the case of any other investigation under this act.
Power is provided under the trade and industry commission act to that effect, and this is to comply with that provision. I would therefore move that section 9 be amended to read as follows:
9. Section fifteen of this act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
Then will follow the section I have read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That has reference to the provision made the other day in the trade and industry commission bill to the effect that the governor in council would not give approval until after an investigation was held.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Provisions of Inquiries Act applicable.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Varcoe of the law department has just, pointed out that in line 14 there are some words that should come out. The words are "including the powers which are thereby authorized to be conferred by the commission issued in the case." He says these words are entirely unnecessary, and that it will clarify the section very much to strike them out. I therefore move that they be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 13 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
On section 27-Section 41 repealed.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I pointed out the other day, when we were considering the trade and industry commission bill, that the
Combines Investigation Act

measure -does not come -into force until next October. The old combines act being repealed by this bill, will expire when the present session of parliament is over unless some provision is made to continue it until October. Should there not foe a section put in this act which will continue the old combines act until October 1 next?


Hugh Guthrie: Would it not be sufficient if this act did not come into force until October 1? Then it will not repeal the other act until it comes into force. I have a clause noted here as section 28, providing that the act shall not come into force until October 1, 1935.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will be all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that the following be added as section 28:
28. This act shall not come into force until the first day of October, 1935.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the preamble.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just one other point to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister. In the event of the validity of the act appointing a trade and industry commission being questioned and it being found that the act in any particular is ultra vires, then there would be no combines investigation act in force at all. I was going to ask the government if it had considered the advisability of inserting some clause providing that in the event of the validity of the trade and industry commission act being questioned and that measure being found invalid, the old combines act might be forthwith revived.


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid a clause of that kind would be considered a confession of weakness on the part of the government. I may say that in the view of the government the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act is constitutional; all the legal opinion we have been able to get on it has been to the effect that it is intra vires. I think under those circumstances I would risk this one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that now the government are paying more attention to the constitutional aspect of measures than formerly. Possibly this may get through.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 73, to amend the criminal code-Mr. Guthrie -Mr. Moran-d in the chair.
On section 4-Proviso.
Mr. .GUTHRIE:	I would ask that we
revert to section 4 which I believe has already been- passed'.' This clause has to do with fraudulent advertising. It has -been represented that all the mail order houses in Canada have their catalogues in print, and that they will1 be published in the month of July or the beginning of August. It seems th$t these catalogues are published in- orders of a million copies or more. At the present time they are in the iprinters' hands and are almost completed. They have asked) that a provision be added to section 4 stipulating that the section shall not come into force until the first day of January, so that in- their new catalogues they may comply strictly with the letter as well as the spirit of the section. I believe the request is reasonable. There would be an enormous loss if these catalogues were to go out in their present form and a complaint were made despite the fact the section was not before the mail order houses when the catalogues were compiled.
Robert Gardiner: Is that an admission
by the mail order houses that their advertising is now fraudulent?


Hugh Guthrie: No, distinctly not. They state that in their catalogues they assert their goods are sold on guarantee, and they in turn receive a guarantee from the manufacturers of the goods they sell. This section however goes much farther than that. They are content to make good their guarantee in every instance, and as a matter of fact I know they do; they take back goods and refund money. But they do not comply with the new regulations. I move the amendment I have suggested, namely:
That the following words be added at the end of section 4:
"and provided that this section shall not come into force until the first day of January, 1936."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as am-ended agreed1 to.
On section 5-Penalty.
Hugh Guthrie: Section 5 was passed,
but the hon. member for Vancouver-Burra-rd (Mr. Hanbury) has suggested an- amendment which I believe would cure a difficulty which

Criminal Code Amendment
has been experienced1 along the Pacific coast in the logging trade. Representations are made by the Loggers' association of British Columbia. Subsection 4 of section 431 of the criminal code states:
4. Every one who. being a dealer in secondhand goods of any kind, trades or traffics in or has in his possession for sale any boom or other chains, lines or shackles for the use of rafting, storing, fastening or towing lumber or logs and who purchases, trades or traffics in any boom or other chain, line or shackle which has upon it the trade mark duly registered or other mark or name of any person without the written consent of such person-
Is guilty of an offence. It has been held before the courts of British Columbia that initials on saw logs do not constitute a name within that section. I should have thought otherwise, but in order to overcome that difficulty a request has been received from the loggers' association through the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard1 for an amendment to the section to make it clear that initials aTe a distinguishing mark. I therefore move:
That the following be added as section 5a:
That section 4 of section 431 of the criminal code be amended by striking out in lines 6 and 7 thereof the words "trade mark duly registered or other mark or name" and substituting therefor the words "mark, brand, trade mark duly registered, name or initials."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Discrimination in trade.
Hugh Guthrie: I have an amendment
to section 6, suggested by the cooperative unions of Canada who carry on a cooperative business. They say that they should be excluded from the operation of the section, and they have asked for the insertion of the following provision:
That the provisions of this subsection shall not, however, prevent a cooperative society returning to producers or consumers or a cooperative wholesale society returning to its constituent retail members the whole or any part of the net surplus made in its trading operations in proportion to the purchases made or sales of the society.
A great many of these societies operate on the principle of granting a rebate or percentage on purchases. They do not want that to be treated1 as a discount under the provisions of this bill. Personally I think the suggestion is reasonable, and if the committee is content I move as I have indicated.


Thomas Reid: Does that apply to all cooperative organizations?


Hugh Guthrie: In Canada.


Samuel Factor: Would the minister consider the advisability of using the word "organization" instead of "society"? Other cooperative bodies might be called societies.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this is broad
enough to cover them all.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: There is another amendment to the same section, which has been suggested and which I think is reasonable, in regard to the words in paragraph (a) "is a party or privy to, or knowingly assists in, any transaction." It is suggested that it would be better draftsmanship if the language were as follows: "is a party or privy to, or assists in any transaction of sale which discriminates to his knowledge." That language is thought better than to say "knowingly assists in."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, there is
another amendment to the criminal code which has been on the order paper a long time, and I propose if it passes to consolidate it with the bill we have just gone through. I do not know just what the modus operandi is to get at that bill now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Move it as an amendment to this one.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I move that section 1 of Bill No. 5 be inserted as section 13 of Bill No, 73 which we are now considering. Section 1 of Bill No. 5 amends section 325 of the criminal code. This is to clarify what I think was a little mistake in the amendment we made last year in regard to the number of days' racing. It will be remembered that last year we made an amendment to the criminal code which provided that instead of two race meets of seven days each, racing associations might hold one race meet of fourteen days in a single year. Theretofore they had the right to hold two meetings of seven days in each year, and last year we gave them the opportunity of holding one race meeting of fourteen days. Now we must make it clear, I understand, that it should be on consecutive days. We have done that in section 1 of Bill No. 5, and the last part of the clause, from the words "one race meeting" to the end, is new. It reads:

in any one calendar year more than one race meeting, at which there are running races, of
92582- 245

Criminal Code Amendment

more than seven and not exceeding fourteen such days, or two such race meetings having an interval of at least twenty days between them of not more than seven such days each.
Section 1 of Bill No. 5 agreed to (new section 13 of Bill No. 73).


John Alexander Sullivan: I move, Mr. Chairman,
the following amendment to section 1 of Bill No. 5 which has just been adopted, and that is to add in line 15 after the word "races" the following words:
unless one be a steeplechase or hurdle race in which event there may be eight races.


Hugh Guthrie: The effect of the amendment will be this. The committee knows, I suppose, that under the present law seven running races are allowed per day. Some of the racing associations or jockey clubs have requested, I understand, the privilege of running one steeplechase or hurdle race-a jumping race, they call it-in addition to the seven other races they are entitled to run. If this amendment is adopted they will have the right to add one race each day to the seven now allowed, provided it is a steeplechase or a hurdle race.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the minister in favour of that?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no opinion on it. I know nothing about hurdle racing or steeplechasing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think the amendment is inserted in its proper place in the section. Will the chairman please read it again?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: That in line 15 after the word "races" there be added the following words:
unless one be a steeplechase or hurdle race, in which event there may be eight races.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the amendment should be inserted after the word "days" in line fifteen; then add the proviso.


John Alexander Sullivan: I am satisfied. I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 of Bill No. 5 agreed to (new section 14 of Bill No. 73).
{Mr. Guthrie.]
On section 3 of Bill No. 5-Six jurors in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Hugh Guthrie: This section was drawn in accordance with a request that was received from the Attorney General of Alberta. The province of Alberta subsequently withdrew that request and said they preferred to remain under the old territorial law which was passed before Alberta came into confederation and to keep their jury system under that law. Since then the province of Manitoba has made a request that the criminal code be amended and that Manitoba be entitled to have a jury of six as is now the case in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am going to move that section 3 of Bill No. 5, which will be section 15, this present bill, be amended by striking out the word "Alberta" in line 6 and substituting therefor the word "Manitoba." This amendment is being made in consequence of a request received from the Attorney General of Manitoba.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the word "Alberta" still to remain in section 2?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4 of Bill No. 5-who shall be the jury.
Hugh Guthrie: The same amendment will have to be made in this section in line 11 and I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister considered the reprinting of this bill? There have been a number of amendments made.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps that is a good idea, although I do not like to delay the matter. If the committee desires, it can be reprinted.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. GUTHRIE moved the third reading of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before the bill passes its third reading I should like to repeat the objections I raised to sections 5 and 6. These objections as to the validity of these sections have been strengthened by the views expressed by eminent counsel.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Rhodes



Hugh Guthrie: That government order 28 with regard to Bill No. 5, an act to amend the criminal code, be discharged and that the said bill be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to and bill withdrawn. SUPPLY



MISCELLANEOUS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the office of the salvage officer, including L. H. Beer at $4,500, $10,622.
Ernest Lapointe: I want to repeat the protest I made the other day against the inclusion of the name of a person in a vote in order to escape the regulations of the civil service commission.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been that way for a long time.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a bad custom.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for report on cultural conditions in Canada (literature, art, drama, education, et cetera), $2,500.
Mr.  J. S. WOODS W ORTH@Winnipeg North Centre: Could we have an explanation of this item?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot explain it so we will have to let it stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can explain it. A report is being prepared for the Prime Minister by an eminent scholar who is making a review of cultural conditions in Canada. It is very largely in the nature of a gratuity.


Mr.  J. S. WOODS W ORTH@Winnipeg North Centre: I have no great objection to that kind of thing, but instead of having an individual item like this, if we are to give gratuities to eminent scholars, it might very well be that we might set up some recognized method of doing it. In many countries they have means of maintaining people of literary ability-you may call their positions sinecures if you will-but as a rule there is some accepted method of giving such assistance. Personally I should like to see something of that kind done rather than have this haphazard practice continue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When may we expect the supplementary estimates-tomorrow?
92582-245J


Hugh Guthrie: I am hopeful, but it is possible that it will not be until Monday.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, June 21, 1935