1937-04-01

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to present the report of the joint librarians of parliament.



CANADA-GERMANY TRADE AGREEMENT TABLING OP DOCUMENTS

Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I table herewith copies of the following documents:
1.	Provisional trade agreement between Canada and Germany,, signed at Ottawa October 22, 1936.
2.	Payments agreement between Canada and Germany, signed at Ottawa, October 22, 1936.
3.	Exchange of notes dated October 22, 1936, concerning the application as from November 15, 1936, of the provisions of the provisional trade agreement between Canada and Germany relating to the customs treatment of goods.
4.	An exchange of notes with a representative of the German government, dated October 22, 1936, concerning the intention of the government of Canada to invite parliament to pass legislation necessary to give the governor in council authority to fix the rate of exchange for any currency in computing the value for duty of goods imported into

Judges Act Amendment

Canada from any place or country the currency of which is appreciated in terms of the Canadian dollar.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Are these documents printed?


William Daum Euler: No.



INTRODUCTION OP BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 89. respecting a certain provisional trade agreement between Canada and Germany.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 86, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Uruguay.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 87, to amend the Judges Act (privy council appeals).
He said: This bill adds a clause to the Judges Act. The judges appointed under this act are federal judicial officers and are bound by the provisions of the act. The bill provides that all such judges, whether appointed or to be appointed, shall in their decisions be bound by the decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council, or if a matter before them does not go that far, by the court of final adjudication. It is based on the principle that under our constitution, by British law the courts are subservient to the legislature, and that parliament makes the law and judges interpret it. The bill provides that this is to be the law for Canada, notwithstanding any law, custom, usage or doctrine of law to the contrary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 88, respecting Department of Transport stores.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide the Department of Transport

with facilities for the consolidation of stores and stores depots and a simplified stores and purchasing control similar in effect to the facilities provided for the king's printer under section 3S of the Public Printing and Stationery Act as amended by chapter 5, statutes of 1928. At the present time the Department of Transport have some sixty stores depots in Canada, of which as many as three are in the same city. In a single stores depot it is necessary to keep as many as three or four separate stocks. The net result is that, with purchases of some three million dollars per annum, our stores to-day have an inventory of a million and a half dollars, which of course is far in excess of the proper amount. The passage of this bill will simplify the bookkeeping, considerably reduce the staff required to attend to these stores, and make for a much more efficient management.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HALL:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation been requested by the mayor of the city of Edmonton to investigate alleged broadcast of misleading or false election returns, over radio station CJCA on the night of the last Edmonton civic election?
2.	If so, has the investigation been made?
3.	What are the findings?
4.	If the investigation has not been made, why not?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Request forwarded to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the office of the Minister of Transport.
2.	Yes.
3.	Preliminary returns broadcast by radio station CJCA not obtained from official source.
4.	Answered by No. 1.



TARIFF RULINGS UNDER &quot;NOT MADE IN CANADA&quot; PROVISION

Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Since January 1, 1930, how many applications for tariff rulings have been made under the " Not made in Canada " rule by the Aluminium Company of Canada, year by year?
2.	Since January 1, 1930, have any payments in the nature of rebate been made to the Aluminium Company of Canada? If so, what were the dates, amounts, and reasons for same?

Questions
3.	Since January 1, 1930, how many applications for tariff rulings have been made under the "Not made in Canada" rule by the Page-Hersey Company, year by year?
4.	Since January 1, 1930, have any payments in the nature of rebate been made to the Page-Hersey Company? If so, what were the dates, amounts, and reasons for same?


Mr. ILSLEY:: For the reasons I gave the other day I would ask that this question be dropped.
Question dropped.



WAR PENSIONERS' TAXATION

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What is the amount of revenue the government derived from taxing pensions of veterans of the great war during the year 1930?
2.	Has the government ever considered putting such pensions on a tax free basis?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Information not available.
2.	Pensions were tax free up to May 22, 1933, section 3 of chapter 41, 23-24 George V repealed the tax free provision.



VALUE OF CANADIAN MAPLE PRODUCTS AND EXPORTS, 1935-36

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the total value of maple products in Canada: (a) during 1935; (b) during 1936?
2.	What was the value of our exports of maple products to the United States of America:
(a)	in 1935; (b) in 1936?


William Daum Euler: (a)	during	1935	
$3,522,420(b)	during	1936	
3,713,781
Maple sugar-
1935	 $ 217,976
1936		 1,289,776
Maple syrup-
1935"	 $ 210,083
1936	 20,461



CORONATION DAY OBSERVANCE

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What arrangements are being made by the government for a suitable observance of Coronation day in Canada?
2.	Will it be a public holiday, and have any requests been made to the municipalities and boards of education to get ready and arrange for a national celebration in Canada?
3.	Will government offices, banks and other business organizations be requested to close?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. A proclamation was issued 19th March, 1937, and published in " The Canada Gazette " March 27, 1937 (page 2446) appointing Wednesday, May 12, 1937, to be observed as a day of general thanksgiving. The proclama-31111-152}
tion also requests religious services either on May 12, or on the preceding Sunday, May 9. The proclamation makes May 12, a public holiday within the meaning of the Interpretation Act, the Bills of Exchange Act and the Civil Service Act. The government notified the provincial governments of the intention to proclaim May 12 as a public holiday and suggested that the provincial governments might advise the municipalities that the celebration in each community be organized as may be most appropriate to local conditions. This is in accordance with practice followed on the occasions of the coronations of King Edward VII (1902) and King George V (1911) and the silver jubilee of King George V (1935). The defence forces have been requested to cooperate with local authorities in celebrations so far as may be practicable. Salutes will be fired on Coronation day at the regular saluting stations and at all provincial capitals. Arrangements will be made for appropriate decoration of public buildings.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Since the proclamation makes May 12 a public holiday within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act and the Civil Service Act, it will be a bank and civil service holiday and no doubt will be generally observed throughout Canada.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	How many dredges will the federal government operate in the St. Lawrence waters during the next season of navigation?
2.	What are their names or numbers?


Mr. RINFRET:: Tabled herewith. HALIBUT FISHERY



AMENDMENTS TO CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to confirm and sanction a certain convention between Canada and the United States of America for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, signed at Ottawa on the 29th day of January, 1937, and to provide for the carrying out of the provisions thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into jommittee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Halibut Fishery
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: As the house is aware, a halibut convention between the United States and Canada was agreed to in 1923. That convention was replaced subsequently by a new convention in 1930. The present convention is largely a reenactment of the provisions of the convention of 1930, with some slight changes in phraseology and two important amendments which relate more particularly to procedure. The procedure under the 1930 convention was discovered to permit of advantages being gained by dishonest fishermen to the detriment of fishermen who were honestly complying with all regulations. The commission itself recommended the amendments to overcome this handicap and suggested to both governments that it would be preferable to frame a new convention rather than simply to enact amendments to the existing convention. The few alterations in the new convention which relate to drafting do not in any way affect the principle. I might give in more concrete form an exact statement of the two amendments now proposed.
As I have said, the experience gained by the International Fisheries Commission during the years since the 1930 convention came into force has disclosed certain defects in the existing procedure, and in their report to the two governments of January, 1936 the commission made specific recommendations for new provisions to remedy these defects. For this purpose the commission submitted a draft of a new convention. It was considered that a complete new document, replacing the existing one and incorporating the new amendments, would prove a more convenient procedure than the conclusion of a supplementary convention. After careful consideration the two governments decided to adopt the commission's recommendations, and accordingly they signed at Ottawa, on January 29 last, the new convention which is set out in the schedule to the bill.
As recommended by the commission this 1937 convention will, if ratified, supplant the existing convention of 1930. This follows the procedure of 1930, when the 1923 convention was completely replaced. The 1937 convention incorporates, however, all the provisions of the 1930 convention except to the extent of the few amendments which were recommended by the commission.
It may be noted here that the commission, upon consulting the fishing fleets concerned, found that they largely urged the revision; indeed the changes originated with the fishing fleets as being desirable to facilitate their operations and the enforcement of the law.
The amendments do not establish any new principle. Their purpose is, in two main par-

ticulars where the commission had found results somewhat unsatisfactory, to improve the carrying out of the original underlying purpose, namely, the preservation and extension of this great fishery. In other words, they may be regarded as amendments of administrative procedure.
The first main amendment concerns the circumstance that during the closed halibut season fishermen may, in halibut areas, fish for other species of fish and that in so doing they may incidentally catch some halibut. Under the existing convention halibut caught incidentally in this manner may be retained and used for food for the crew of the fishing vessel; but any portion not so used must be landed and turned over to the proper officers of the two governments, who sell them to the highest bidder and pay the proceeds into the respective public treasuries. The commission found that, since fishermen object to throwing away good halibut caught in this manner- which is in fact a waste of good fish-there has been considerable violation of the law. It also appears that fishing for less valuable varieties of deep sea fish, such as black cod and red cod, would likely be encouraged if regulations could be made to permit the fishermen under certain conditions to retain such halibut as may be caught incidentally. The commission, in their report, sum this aspect up by stating that:
The existing provisions are therefore, in effect, penalties on the honest fisherman without restraining the dishonest, and are productive of wastage of needed food, when there is no good reason why such small quantities of halibut, probably not exceeding 150,000 pounds for the whole fleet, might not be made legitimate, certainly during the season when halibut is being taken on other parts of the coast.
Accordingly, as recommended by the commission, the retention by the fishermen of halibut incidentally caught is being made lawful, subject to such limitations and prohibitions as the commission may prescribe with the approval of the two governments. The new wording in this respect will be found at the end of the second paragraph of article I of the new convention.
The second main amendment concerns a practical detail as to the method of fixing the limits of the closed season. The convention in its general scheme lays down a certain closed season-from November 1 to February 15-but gives the commission power, subject to approval by the two governments, to suspend or change this season. Under the existing convention, however, it is possible only to fix the date when halibut fishing must cease in any year. The result is that a vessel may be out on the fishing bank with only a

Lord's Day Act
part of its normal load taken when the closure date arrives. If fishing is stopped then, the voyage will entail a loss to the fishermen, while if the vessel remains to fill up, a violation of the law occurs. Halibut vessels must leave port well in advance of closure in order to reach the fishing grounds, and after ceasing to fish they may take a week or more in returning to port. The commission, after pointing out that it is difficult to detect law violations by patrol along a broken coast of over two thousand miles, sum up their opinion on this aspect as follows:
The present condition is again one that penalizes the honest fisherman when there is no need. There is again no reason why a full, normal last trip cannot be allowed the honest fisherman as well as the man who breaks the law to get it. This can be done by setting a date for last departure for fishing in any area which is to be closed. As at present, this date can be forecast approximately and warning given in order that all may have equal opportunity to adapt their movements to it, but the setting of such a date would allow a normal trip for all vessels which have been in time to depart.
Accordingly, as thus recommended, the new convention, instead of authorizing the commission to fix a date for the cessation of fishing, authorizes it periodically to fix a date for the last departure of fishing vessels for any fishing area concerned.
That summarizes I think the effect of amendments to the existing convention. As there is a bill founded on this resolution it may be that further discussion can best be deferred until the bill itself is before the committee.


Mr. NEILL:: I have not the halibut treaty of 1930 under my hand, but I have that of 1923. I see that the Department of State at Washington made it an understanding for the ratification of that treaty that none of the nationals and inhabitants or vessels or boats of any other part of Great Britain shall engage in halibut fishing contrary to any of the provisions in the treaty. I understand that was accepted by Great Britain. I understand that the British ambassador also signed it. I do not know what took place in 1930. but I rather think that provision was left out. Therefore I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be advisable to obtain the consent of Great Britain to this treaty in order to prevent a contingency which has arisen since, of a British ship, a mother ship carrying fishing boats, etc., going around to our Pacific coast waters and engaging extensively in halibut fishing, not being subject to this treaty at all. If all vessels under the British flag are allowed to fish there, this treaty would go by the board,
because they of course would be subject to no restriction whatever. I have no doubt the Prime Minister has considered that. I should like to ask whether he has it in his mind to have the consent of Britain to that feature of this treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find that the bill itself contains a clause to meet what he has in mind. The clause will perhaps be of wider application than simply to Great Britain. The endeavour has been to prevent ships of any country other than Canada and the United States taking advantage of a situation that arises through Canada and the United States in an effort to preserve and extend the fisheries being restricted by the provisions of a convention and others not being governed thereby. The clause has received very careful consideration, and will I imagine meet what my hon. friend has in mind.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 90, respecting a certain convention between Canada and the United States of America for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, signed at Ottawa on the 29th day of January, 1937.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LORD'S DAY ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I gave to the Minister of Justice notice of this question. It relates to the enforcement of the Lord's Day Act in the cities and towns, in relation to drug stores, where the police are stopping the sale of cigarettes, tobacco, cigars and many small articles which are more or less necessary on Sunday. This act was passed in 1845 and is not in accordance with modern conditions. Is it not advisable that either during the recess of parliament or in a criminal code amendment there be a revision and reconstruction and consolidation of this statute? As it is now we may not swim or fish on Sunday, because the act of 1845 is still in effect, and the Toronto police magistrates say while it is there these things may not be done on Sunday. I am asking that the Minister of Justice be kind enough to consolidate and revise that statute and bring it up to date.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The suggestion of my hon. friend will be very carefully considered. I may say that from other sources also I have been asked that certain amendments be made to the Lord's Day Act. There is a bill on the order
Supreme Court Act

paper in the name of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) which would stiffen the provisions of the act and provide for heavier penalties. I am afraid, however, that this bill will not be considered this session because the place it occupies on the order paper will not permit it to be reached. But during the recess of parliament I shall certainly do what my hon. friend suggests- consider all the representations that are being made by my friend himself and by others, and the question will come up for decision at the next session of parliament.


Thomas Langton Church: That is all very well so far as it goes, but the provinces have jurisdiction also and the enforcement of the law is with them. The magistrates and police commissioners say that as long as this statute is as it is, they have to convict. It is making a farce of the law. An eminent chief justice told me he spent a whole month in Toronto on a Sunday, and if it had not been for me he might have spent two months there.



WAINWRIGHT BUFFALO PARK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). On March 9 the minister tabled sessional paper No. 206 concerning an investigation held at Wainwright in September last. That sessional paper was supposed to contain the evidence given at that investigation. It does contain the report of the commissioner, but does not contain the evidence asked for, and I should like to ask the minister if this evidence can be produced in the very near future.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter. I am not sufficiently familiar with the question my hon. friend has directed to me to answer it at the moment.



GRAND TRUNK PERPETUAL STOCKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I promised to make a statement with regard to the order for return moved for by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr Stevens) relating to perpetual preference stocks of the Grand Trunk Railway.
These questions are to a large extent questions of law requiring the expression of legal opinions for their proper answers. Moreover, answers given to these questions might prejudicially affect the trial of the action pending in the Supreme Court of Ontario between Lovibond and the Canadian National
iMr. E. Lapointe ]
Railway Company. For these reasons in my opinion these answers cannot be furnished. I make this statement on the advice of the Department of Justice.



WAR PENSIONERS' TAXATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), who to-day answered a question which I placed on the order paper. The second part of that question asked if the government had ever considered putting soldier pensions on a tax free basis, and the minister answered that part of the question by stating that such pensions were tax free until May 22, 1933. I was aware of that fact, but what I want to know is whether this government has ever considered putting these pensions back on a tax free basis.


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as I know the matter has not as yet been before the government for consideration.



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 31, 1937, consideration in committee of Bill No. 78, to amend the Supreme Court Act

Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Appeals from other than court of last resort.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this section was allowed to stand through the courtesy of the Minister of Justice to enable me to look into a question that had been brought to my attention by two legal practitioners. The question was whether or not the government had considered the advisability of restoring old section 41 of the Supreme Court Act, by which there was an appeal from a judgment of the court of last resort in the province on a question that had been adjudicated upon by either a tribunal or a person named under a provincial statute, or a municipal authority, which would be under a provincial statute in any event. At one time there was provision for an appeal to the supreme court if the amount involved was more than S10.000, and there were certain limitations placed upon the right of the court to adjudicate upon the question, by sending it back to the court in the province for the purpose of having it dealt with along the lines

Combines Investigation Act
suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the legal principles which should govern in dealing with it. I purposed asking the minister, when this bill was before the house, whether he had considered the advisability of reenacting that section. I had the privilege of speaking with him a short time ago, however, and I gathered that he had considered the matter and concluded not to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: I thank my right hon. friend for what he has said. There is no doubt, as he says, that parliament could reenact or create this right of appeal in such circumstances, but it was considered advisable to repeal that old section. This is a question of policy, and having considered the matter and discussed it, even with the judges of the supreme court, I believe it is better that the section should remain as it is.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 1, 1937, consideration in committee of Bill No. 41, to amend and consolidate the Combines Investigation Act and amending act-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Chairman, section 2 of this bill contains, by way of definition of a combine, all its material enactments with the exception of two or three, and in discussing this section I should like to refer casually at least to the other two or three sections which must be read in connection with it in order to obtain a clear understanding of section 2.
The act purports to provide for the investigation of certain matters by a commissioner appointed by the governor in council, who shall report to the Minister of Labour. It is within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada to enact a statute authorizing an inquiry or investigation into any subject or class of subjects within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada or necessarily incidental to such inquiry. If the subject or class of subjects into which such an inquiry purports to be authorized is not within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, in such case the attendance of witnesses, the giving of oral evidence or the production of papers cannot be compelled by the commission or commissioner conducting the inquiry. Therefore in order to ascertain how far an inquiry and investigation of this kind is within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament it is necessary to consider the subject of the investigation or inquiry.
The acts that are to be investigated are all, in their civil aspects, matters of property and civil right which normally are within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces, but which parliament has declared or is now about to declare to be criminal acts and which, by such declaration of criminality, are brought or are to be brought within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament. The declarations which have already been made by parliament are found in sections 498 and 498A of the criminal code. Section 498 reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than two hundred dollars, or to two years' imprisonment, or, if a corporation, is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and not less than one thousand dollars, who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other person, or with any railway, steamship, steamboat or transportation company,
(a)	to unduly limit the facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce; or
(b)	to restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; or
(c)	to unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity, or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof; or
(d)	to unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity, or in the price of insurance upon person or property.
2. Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
This section was in effect amended by the addition of paragraph A in section 9 of chapter 56 of the statutes of 1935, amending the criminal code. The amendment is as follows:
498A. (1) Every person engaged in trade or commerce or industry is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars or to one month's imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars, who
(a)	is a party or privy to, or assists in. any transaction of sale which discriminates, to his knowledge, against competitors of the purchaser in that any discount, rebate or allowance is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate or allowance available at the time of such transaction to the aforesaid competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like quality and quantity;

Combines Investigation Act
The provisions of this paragraph 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 purchases made from or sales to the society;
(b)	engages in a policy of selling goods in any area of Canada at prices lower than those exacted by such seller elsewhere in Canada, for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor in such part of Canada;
(c)	engages in a policy of selling goods at prices unreasonably low for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.
Sections 498 and 498A of the criminal code have been found by the judicial committee of the privy council to be within the legislative jurisdiction of Canada. I respectfully submit that if any other civil acts, matters or things are now to be declared criminal, such declaration should properly take the form of a criminal enactment by way of amendment to the existing criminal code. The criminal code should contain the material provisions constituting crimes in Canada, and providing the penalties for crimes. Bill No. 41 contains provisions in the nature of criminal enactments which are far more extensive than the provisions of the criminal code. The material provisions of the criminal code are extended by the definitions expressed in paragraph 2 of the bill, the material parts of which are as follows:
2. In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(1) "combine" means
(a) a combination of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having relation to any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce and having or designed to have the effect of
(i)	limiting facilities for manufacturing, producing, transporting, supplying, storing or dealing, or
(ii)	preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production, or
(iii)	fixing a common price or a resale price or a common rental, or
(iv)	enhancing the price, rental or cost of any article, storage or transportation, or
(v)	preventing or lessening competition in or substantially controlling, within any particular area or district or generally, manufacture, production, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply, or
(vi)	otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce;
I suggest that in a consolidation of the existing law, as this act purports to be, if a combine is to be defined in new language it should be defined in language corresponding to the provisions of sections 498 and 498a of the criminal code, and that in fact the provi-

sions in section 2 of the bill are necessary only if it is intended to set up in respect of certain dealings a new criminal code, collateral to and to be administered separately and differently from sections 498 and 498a, which are the substantial enactments.
The bill proceeds in section 2 to define the words " merger, trust or monopoly," and to extend the criminal provisions of the existing act by enlarging these definitions so as to establish new crimes with respect to which the bill will provide penalties. Paragraph (b) of section 2 is as follows:
(b)	a merger, trust or monopoly which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others; . . .
(4) "merger" means the combination resulting from the consolidating or amalgamating of the whole or part of the businesses of any two or more persons, or resulting from the purchase, lease or other acquisition by any person of any control over or interest in the whole or part of the business of any other person;
The new definition is of trust and monopoly, and reads:
(7) "trust" and "monopoly" mean one or more persons who, within any particular area or district or generally,
(a)	substantially control any class or species of business, or
(b)	have such control over the supply or distribution of or the demand for products of any class or species of business as to enable such person or persons to maintain, enhance or substantially modify or control prices of such products.
In the 1935 act, which is the existing law and which this bill proposes to amend, the definition of " combine " as contained in section 1 differed very materially from the definition in the present bill. I quote from the existing act:
(1) "Combine" means a combination having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce, of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having or designed to have the effect of,
(a)	limiting facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing, or
(b)	preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production, or
(c)	fixing a common price or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage or transportation, or
(d)	enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation, or
(e)	preventing or lessening competition in, or substantially controlling within any particular area or district or generally, production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply, or
(f)	otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce, or a merger, trust or monopoly,

Combines Investigation Act
which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.
It will be noticed that the words " merger, trust or monopoly " in clause (f) of section 1 of the existing law, which is now to be repealed, were qualified by the words " having or designed to have the effect of" clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) and they were also qualified by the words " has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interests of the public." In other words, in constituting a crime under the existing act the combination formed or organized must have been designed to have the effect of violating the material provisions of section 498 of the criminal code, and it must have operated or be likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public. There was not only a criminal intent implied in its being designed to have a certain effect which would be a violation of section 498 of the criminal code, but it must also have operated or have been likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public. In the present bill the words " merger, trust or monopoly " are no longer qualified by the clauses of section 2, subsection 1 of the existing act which I have just read. The merger, trust or monopoly, which is declared by this bill to be criminal, is not defined as it is in the existing law, nor are the provisions relating to criminality expressed in the same terms. The definition of " merger " is also changed substantially in subsection 4 of section 2.


Mr. THORSON:: Will the hon. member elaborate further?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will permit me to proceed; we will have the whole forenoon for elaboration. Subsection 4 of section 2 of the existing act provides:
(4) "Merger, trust or monopoly" means one or more persons
(a)	who has or have purchased, leased or otherwise acquired any control over or interest in the whole or part of the business of another; or
(b)	%vho either substantially or completely control, throughout any particular area or district in Canada or throughout Canada the class or species of business in which he is or they are engaged;
and extends and applies only to the business of manufacturing, producing, transporting, purchasing, supplying, storing or dealing in commodities which may be the subject of trade or commerce: Provided that this subsection shall not be construed or applied so as to limit or impair any right or interest derived under the Patent Act, 1935, or under any other statute of Canada.
The words which limit the extension and application of this definition and which appear in the existing act, are eliminated from the present bill, as is the provision that subsection 4 shall not limit or impair any right or interest derived under the Patent Act, 1935. To the last mentioned elimination I shall refer later.
The definitions of " trust " and " monopoly " in subsection 7 of section 2 are changed materially by the addition of paragraph (b). The subsection in the present bill provides:
(7) "trust" and "monopoly" mean one or more persons who, within any particular area or district or generally,
(a)	substantially control any class or species of business, or
(b)	have such control over the supply or distribution of or the demand for products of any class or species of business as to enable such person or persons to maintain, enhance or substantially modify or control prices of such products.
In my judgment 'that change is not in accord with sound public policy. Is the producer a criminal because he alone has scientific knowledge or practical experience to enable him to produce a certain commodity, and because he alone is qualified to produce that commodity? Should he be stigmatized in a statute of this kind with criminality?


Mr. ROGERS:: Is this not solely a definition? Is my hon. friend not dealing at this time with the definition of " trust " and " monopoly "?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, and this bill is to extend crime by definition-that is exactly what it does.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only if the operation is against the public interest.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We will assume, for example, that one or more persons own or control a factory for producing and refining sugar from beets which are produced by farmers in the district in which the factory is located, and that the factory so located is the sole market for sugar beets in that district. This factory was admittedly designed to operate; but it was never designed to operate and never has operated to the detriment or against the interests of the public, whether producers of beets, or consumers of sugar, or any other persons whomsoever. Yet, I suggest, if it is conceived that this factory is likely at some future time to operate against the interests of the public, whether consumers of beet sugar or producers of sugar beets, that mere likelihood constitutes the factory a monopoly within the meaning of this clause, and its owners, who are privy to the establishment of the factory, are liable to a fine of $25,000 and imprison-
Combines Investigation Act

ment for two years or to both fine and imprisonment under the penalty clauses of this act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not because it is a monopoly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly, because it is a monopoly, and so defined as a combine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there not the further circumstance that the monopoly must be shown to operate to the detriment of the public?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No. That is one of the contentions I am making; that is not necessary under this bill. I will risk considerable on that assertion. Each and every owner of a patent right by reason of the exclusive nature of that right is liable to indictment under the definition given in this section 2, subsection 7, clause (b) of this bill.
Section 45 of the Patent Act, 1935, provides:
45. Every patent granted under this act shall contain the title or name of the invention, with a reference to the specification, and shall, subject to the conditions in this act prescribed, grant to the patentee and his legal representatives for the term therein mentioned, from the granting of the same, the exclusive right, privilege and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used the said invention, subject to adjudication in respect thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction.
That is, subject to adjudication as to the validity of his patent. Each patentee is granted by the law of this land, and by the laws of other lands with which we have entered into a convention, and has exclusive rights and privileges as provided by the terms of his patent, similar to the exclusive rights and privileges which are mentioned in our statute. Yet section 32, subsection 1 of this bill provides:
32. (1) If the owner or holder of any patent issued under the patent laws of the Dominion of Canada has made use of the exclusive rights and privileges which as such owner or holder he controls so as to contravene the provisions of section thirty-four of this act, such patent shall be liable to be revoked.
I should like to know how it is possible for him to exercise his patent right without infringement of section 34. I will admit that section 34 is confused drafting such as one seldom sees; nevertheless it will require clarification if we are to preserve the exclusive patent right of the individual holder of a patent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And discharge our international obligations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And discharge international obligations.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I might say that that matter has been looked into. An amendment will be offered when we reach that section.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then, subsection 2 of section 32 provides:
(2) If the commissioner reports that a patent has been so made use of, the Minister of Justice may, on the application of the minister, exhibit an information in the Exchequer Court of Canada praying for a judgment revoking the patent; and the court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter and to give judgment revoking the patent, or otherwise, as the evidence before the court may require.
I will not proceed further with the discussion of that clause until the amendment is proposed as suggested. But section 34, which applies to the whole bill, provides:
34. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both fine and imprisonment, or if a corporation to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, who is a party or privy to or knowingly assists in the formation or operation of a combine within the meaning of this act.
What is the meaning of the provision in section 32 of the bill? When will an owner of a patent contravene section 34? Certainly, as the minister has suggested, these two sections require further clarification. I will admit that subsection 3 of section 41 provides that no prosecution under section 34 of this bill can be commenced otherwise than at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada or of the attorney general of a province, but so wide is the application of the provisions of the bill that its terms may be used for an entirely different purpose, namely for purposes of intimidation to effect other indirect purposes. A bill with such wide and extensive application as is given to this bill by the definitions which are to be enacted is an attempt to enable this government to investigate a wide range of subjects which are within the exclusive civil jurisdiction of the provinces and which only becomes subjects of investigation by parliament when those civil rights are made criminal wrongs by declaratory amendments of the criminal law of the country. Therefore either the object is to make civil rights criminal which have never before been deemed to be criminal in the history of our own criminal law, or it is an attempt to introduce into this act certain civil rights which are not criminal, ostensibly for the purpose of permitting an investigation by a commission or commissioner appointed by this government.
In fact, so complicated are the provisions of this bill that in my opinion it should have

Combines Investigation Act
been referred upon its introduction to a special committee of not more than seven or nine members of this house before whom persons interested might have been given an opportunity to be heard, and the committee might have clarified its terms after hearing the witnesses or their counsel. I suggest that it is impracticable to discuss and to amend a complicated measure of this kind in committee of the whole house. It affects every business interest in the country no matter how honourably that business is being conducted. It affects it in the sense of making the owners or official managers of that business criminals, though operating without any criminal intent or without any prejudice to the public interest, if the minister, or the commissioner acting under his direction, conceives that they are likely at some future time so to operate. It seems to me to be in the nature of criminal legislation and might be compared to a psychological examination, by the medical authorities, of all the youth of the country, from which it is concluded that one or more are likely to be guilty of offences in the future. Thereupon they are convicted of crime by the fact of not being quite up to the standard, or, if up to the standard, of being in such mental and phj'sical health that they are likely at some time in the future to commit criminal offences and should therefore, be decapitated at once or be sentenced to imprisonment for all time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If they carry firearms it is a criminal offence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a criminal offence, yes. But here you are providing that business honestly conducted, with respect to which there is no criminal intent, shall be a criminal offence under this statute, to be investigated and punished with the penalties I have indicated.
I, for one, am perfectly willing and anxious to frame laws imposing heavy penalties upon every business which in fact is found to be acting in violation of the law, or every business which is founded with the design or intent of violating the provisions of the law. But I certainly suggest that this bill goes farther than that; it provides for a star chamber investigation under the supervision of the Minister of Labour, an investigation that may be used for ulterior and indirect purposes, which should not be possible. In fact, to express an opinion without any disrespect to the Minister of Labour, I think that, in view of the conditions that now prevail in Canada and the magnitude and ramifications of the several branches which are under his administration, it would have been far better to place the administration of this act where
it belongs, with the Department of Trade and Commerce, because in so far as its object is legitimate it deals with and attempts by criminal law to regulate the domestic trade and commerce of the country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should like to take up in order the several points raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. In doing so I think he will understand that, in dealing with the purely legal questions to which he has referred, I shall speak with deference to his own wide knowledge of that phase of the subject.
As I understand it he questioned first the propriety of our proceeding in the way now proposed, namely, to create a criminal offence by a statute of this parliament and not by an amendment to the criminal code. I have no doubt he will recall that in the historical evolution of anti-combines legislation in Canada, we did at first proceed precisely in this way. In 1SS9 parliament passed an act for the prevention and suppression of combinations formed in restraint of trade. Three years later the present section 498 of the criminal code replaced the act originally passed in 1889. But the real purpose of the combines legislation from the very beginning has been not so much to create a new offence as to provide the means, through investigation, by which the evidence could be determined with respect to the commission of the offence.
In this connection I might very well quote the words of the present Prime Minister as reported at page 988 of Hansard of 1923:
The legislation which the government is introducing proceeds on the theory that the reason why section 498 of the criminal code is of so little effect is not that there are no combinations that are detrimental to the public or that such combinations are rare, but rather that the existence of these combinations, and their method of operation is difficult to discover; that what is needed is effective machinery of investigation which will disclose the existence of combines operating to the detriment of the public, and afford the information whereby proceedings under the criminal code can be made really effective in the case of individuals who are violating its provisions, or who are associated with combines that are operating to the detriment of the public.
That, I take it, is the purpose behind the original legislation with respect to combines, and certainly no change is contemplated in the bill now before the house. As a matter of fact-and of this I believe the hon. member is well aware-when criminal proceedings have been taken in regard to offences under the combines act it has been customary for the information to be laid under both the combines act and section 498 of the criminal code. That procedure I believe, has been followed as a general rule. But the real under-
Combines Investigation Act

lying purpose of the legislation is to provide proper machinery of investigation through which evidence may be obtained upon which the information may be laid for a criminal proceeding.
My hon. friend proceeded next to deal with the definition of a combine in the proposed bill, and as I understood him he drew a distinction between this and a similar provision in the combines act of 1935. I have read the two sections and it does not appear to me that there is the significant distinction which he sought to emphasize. As I recall it, his point was that in the act of 1935 it was necessary to prove that a combination was designed to operate to the public detriment


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Either that it did or was
designed to.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Actually, in both the 1935
act and the present bill, the word "designed" occurs in the definition of a combination. I quote first from the bill now before the committee:
2. (1) (a) a combination of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having relation to any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce and having or designed to have the effect of-
And then follow a number of operations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but that did not
apply, my contention was in respect to a merger, trust or monopoly mentioned in subsection (b).


Norman McLeod Rogers: But even here, as I understand, there is nothing to suggest that there must be design. And it is not found in the act of 1935 Certainly both in the 1935 act and in the present bill the word "designed" is related rather to particular operations, which were so to speak to constitute a combination in the sense given in the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, certain operations which are deemed criminal in the criminal code and are summarized here.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But you proceed in each case ;o the clause which actually creates the offence, md in each case, as I have the act of 1935 oefore me and the bill before me, it appears that an offence is created when either a combination or a merger or a monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others. For that reason I am bound to say that I cannot follow the distinction made by the hon. member between the act of 1935 and the bill which is now before the committee.
[Mr. Rogers.)
Then my hon. friend proceeded to the definitions given in the present bill of monopoly and merger, and as I understood him he sought to leave the impression that the mere fact of a particular type of organization falling within the definition of one of these terms would of itself stamp that organization as of a criminal character. Surely that is not the intent of this section. Surely that is not a proper construction of these provisions; although in saying that I speak once more with great deference to the legal knowledge of my hon. friend. You have here a number of definitions of particular types of business organization. For example if this were confined solely to combinations it might mean that a number of distinct business units, industrial or commercial, could organize and agree among themselves to do certain things which would be criminal either under this act or under section 498 of the criminal code, but that these same identical industrial or commercial units could form themselves into another type of organization, a monopoly or merger, and by that means through the ingenuity of legal counsel, evade the provisions of the act. Surely the purpose of this is rather to prevent just that sort of thing occurring.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the purpose of this to make the organization a criminal organization?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, the purpose rather is to bring it within the ambit of the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what I mean.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But a combination of itself is not declared to be illegal under this bill. It is only when it operates to the public detriment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: AVell, when is it illegal under this bill?


Norman McLeod Rogers: A combination operating to the public detriment, a monopoly operating to the public detriment, a merger operating to the public detriment; all these become criminal only to the extent that they operate to the public detriment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not in this bill. I will risk anything on that. The wording is, " has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment	According to the statement of my hon. friend, a monopoly once formed, if there is any likelihood of its operating to the public detriment, is criminal before it actually does so operate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Only if so determined by the courts, that it is likely to operate to the public detriment. Surely that is a matter to

Combines Investigation Act
be determined by the courts. The act does not say it is criminal before either an investigation under this act or proceedings following upon such investigation have declared that such operations are against the public interest or are likely to operate against the public interest.
In speaking of this phase of the question I should like to emphasize that there are various provisions of the criminal code which declare to be illegal acts which of themselves are perfectly innocent, but which create a reasonable inference that if they are committed they will lead to consequences which it is desirable in the public interest to avoid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is too broad a statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am going to refer to particular sections, and if my statement is too broad perhaps the sections I quote will serve to modify it.
111. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who wilfully causes, by any explosive substance, an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property, whether any injury to person or property is actually caused or not.
I should like to emphasize that phrase, "whether any injury to person or property is actually caused or not."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has no relation to this.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He must at least cause the explosion before he becomes a criminal.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Section 122:
Everyone who, without lawful excuse, points at another person any firearm or air gun, whether loaded or unloaded


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is criminal intimidation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -is guilty of an offence . . .
221. A common nuisance is an unlawful act or omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all His Majesty's subjects.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There it endangers life.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have a number of these here which I might read-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope they have more applicability to the case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -but I do not know that it is necessary to place them on Hansard. But surely these touch upon the point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
We do recognize that there are acts which of themselves are innocent but, due to the special character of those acts, there is a reasonable and probable consequence that if they are committed there will be some further harm to the community. I might even mention something with which we are all familiar, namely the penalties that attach to traffic passing a red light. It does not matter whether the street is clear; if you pass a red light you are doing something which under ordinary circumstances would be harmful to the community.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You are violating an ordinance of the city.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Speaking particularly of that expression "likely to operate," it is not new; it does not appear in this bill for the first time. It was in the board of commerce act; it was in the combines act of 1923 and the combines act of 1935. There is nothing new attempted here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But in the act of 1935 the corresponding words were "having or designed to have the effect."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Let me read, if I may, clause (f) of both acts. First, I will read clause (f) of the act of 1935:
(f) otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce or a merger-
I should correct that. The latter part of this section applies to all preceding clauses, and it is the latter part of the section that really creates the offence. The first part deals with a combination, and then follow these words:
-or a merger, trust or monopoly, which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.
I direct attention to the fact that the word "designed" does not appear anywhere in that clause.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the minister would permit me to interrupt for a moment, this illustrates the difficulty of discussing in a committee of this house a complicated measure such as this. The minister is dealing with the act of 1935. In that act you have section 1 and then you have clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) under that section. Under the other provisions of section 1, having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce, these words appear:
-of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having or designed to have the effect of-
Combines Investigation Act

Those words apply to all the branches of that section.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely that applies only to combinations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But you are defining a merger is a combination.
Mr. ROGERS'. Certainly my understanding of it is that the phrase used by my hon. friend attaches rather to the definition of a combination. Let me read it:
"Combine" means a combination having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce, of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having or designed to have the effect of-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the old definition?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Then follow paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and the first part of (f), "otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce." Then follow these words:
-or a merger, trust or monopoly, which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a combination and,
being a combination, these words "having or designed to have" apply to it. However. I beg my hon. friend's pardon for interrupting.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am informed that there
was a defect in the printing of the act of 1935. and that brings very close together clause (f) and what follows, as relating to the entire section. But surely it is a proper construction of this that the offence is created not by particular design but rather by evidence showing that a combination, as so defined, or a merger, trust or monopoly has in fact operated or is likely to operate to the detriment of the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unfortunately that is not
what it says. I do think this measure should be before a committee. I listened with extreme care to what was said by my colleague from St. Lawrence-St. George and by the minister. No one can take the second section of this bill without realizing that it never should be dealt with and disposed of in this way as it now stands. We had the act before 1935, and the interpretation or definition was entirely different from what it now is. If the minister will be good enough to look at his own explanatory notes he will find that there he gives the definition of a combine as it was in the old statute. That definition in the old statute is clear and plain. Just let us look at it. It defines the word "combine" to start
[Mr. Cahan.J
with. In this statute the word "combine" means a combination; that is the first part. Then, having relation to any commodity which may be the subject of trade or commerce; that is the subject matter with respect to which the combination must exist. Then it states how many people must combine; two or more persons, by way of actual or tacit contract. That met the sort of case that developed in the United States, where there was nothing in writing but just an understanding or agreement, as they called it. Then follow the words "agreement or arrangement," but they all refer to the words "having or designed to have the effect of."
Let us keep those words in mind. Under the old agreement they had to have the effect or they must be designed to have that effect; in other words the court, in construing the facts before it, might not have the whole thing in the one document, but by taking everything together, acts and documents, it might conclude that they were designed to have the effect.
There on the one hand they must have the effect or on the other hand they must be designed to have the effect, and what must they have the effect of doing or be designed to have the effect of doing? That is the next question, the relevant question, the important question, the gravamen of the whole. Under paragraph (a) they must either limit or be designed to limit facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing in a commodity of trade or commerce. That is the subject matter we must keep in mind. Or, under paragraph (b), they must have or be designed to have the effect of preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production of a commodity of trade or commerce. Or, under paragraph (c) they must have or be designed to have the effect of fixing a common price or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage or transportation of a commodity of trade or commerce. Or, under paragraph (d) they must have or be designed to have the effect of enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation. Or, under paragraph (e) they must have or be designed to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition in or substantially controlling within any particular area or district or generally, production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply, or be designed to have the effect of otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce.


Mr. FACTOR:: Stop there.

Combines Investigation Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; it must have the effect or be designed to have the effect of a merger or monopoly; otherwise it is senseless.


Samuel Factor: This is a separate paragraph.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all; the words are definite, and they are these: "having or designed to have the effect of a merger, trust or monopoly, which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others."


Samuel Factor: Does not that all mean that a combine means a combination or merger?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because it is governed by the words contained in the subject; no one in court would argue it for five minutes. What are the governing words?-"arrangement. . . having or designed to have the effect of. . . a merger, trust or monopoly." All you have to do is to look at the definition, and then we will have it settled.
The draftsman has said that this is an amendment and consolidation of the two acts, but when he comes to the second section he says: "This is section 2 (1) of the existing act, further divided into paragraphs for convenience in reading. The words in the clauses vertically lined have been transposed." And in the transposition w'e have the result to which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George referred. That is the result of this transposition. "Unless the context otherwise requires," according to the section now before the committee, the word "combine" means- well, what does it mean? It means (a) divided into (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). That may make convenience in reading; but if anything is calculated to make confusion it would be to take the paragraphs under the letter (a) and divide it into (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). That is what you call simplicity and clarity, but in court lawyers would have to say paragraph (i) clause (a)-no, it is not even that: it is clause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 2. That is the clarification and simplicity of it. That is the trouble with this act as it is now designed.
The word "combine" is defined and, mark you, what is the definition of "combine." It is "a combination of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having relation to any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce and having or designed to have the effect of" -and there is where the word "designed" comes in again-"having or designed to have the effect of" (i), (ii), (iii),
(iv) and (v). Then we come to (vi), which refers to restraining or injuring trade or commerce.
Then (b) is a subdivision, not of (a) but of the definition of the word "combine," as it is now arranged.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And as so declared it is at variance with the old statute.


Samuel Factor: The same as the other statute, except that it is clarified in the transposition of the words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member's mind must be more susceptible to clarification than mine. I suppose it is, because of his wide experience in the matter.


Samuel Factor: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is this, that when you suggest that the definition is clarified, you could not even cite the new section, as you could before. If you had to argue it before a judge, how would you do it? Let us look at the old section, under the word "definitions." We find paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Now you get another (b). Mark you, that is what a combine means. Combine means (b), not as stated here; combine means "(b), a merger, trust or monopoly."


Mr. DUNNING:: As well as (a).


Richard Bedford Bennett: As well as all this in (a); that is what it says.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The right hon. gentleman has suggested that a combine means all in (b) and (a).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, all of this in (a).


Norman McLeod Rogers: But surely the clauses refer-


Ernest Lapointe: Plus (b).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But under (a) are the various operations of a group of units which would bring them within the definition of a combine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the word "combine" is arbitrarily defined by the statute. A combine means (a) a combination "of two or more persons by way of actual or tacit contract, agreement or arrangement having relation to any article or commodity which may be a subject of trade or commerce and having or designed to have the effect of"-and then follow (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi).


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Violations of criminal statutes.

Combines Investigation Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, violations of criminal statutes. "Designed" is the whole point there. That is, it is designed to have the effect, and so on. The difference between "effect" and "designed to have the effect" is this:	If
from the evidence it is clear to the court that the effect of it is to be seen in the result, that is the end of it. But if the result has not yet accrued and the design is there, there is still guilt.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But that does not create an offence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. You come to the word "combine" in (a) and the subdivisions of (a). But combine also means something else; it means "a merger, trust or monopoly."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it says "which combination"-now, that is inaccurate drafting. It should be "which combine, merger, trust or monopoly" because the word 1 combination has not been used heretofore with respect to it, except in (a). It says that a combination of two or more persons-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Surely the word
"combination" can be used in two connections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not exclusively to be confined to one. It seems to me the leader of the opposition is only tending to make this matter much more complicated than it really is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is entitled to his opinion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I am delighted to have it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely. I believe we are supposed to be considering this matter, and since a number of other speakers have been checked, I fancy that although some of us may not be lawyers, at least we can understand the English language.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will now proceed with the discussion on the point. The next definition of " combine " is " (b) a merger, trust or monopoly; which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others." Now, keep in mind that these words should be made applicable, as my colleague reminds me, to (a), if they are to have any meaning at all. But as it stands now, they do not. That is the difficulty he pointed out in

jtis remarks. As they stand now (b) is " a merger, trust or monopoly; which combination, merger trust or monopoly has operated " and so on. If that makes it as clear as it is written in the statute at present, then I cannot understand the language. It combines at the present time, under inappropriate heads, what was clearly stated in the act which was put through the house by the present Prime Minister. This may be an improvement; the gentleman responsible for it says it is, but I cannot see it.
Now let us go a step farther in the matter. That is how you define a combine, under this measure. Under the old statute the situation was entirely different. We then get the definition of the word " commissioner " and of the word " corporation." Then we come to the definition of the word " merger." After we have declared that a combine is a merger-keep in your mind that section 1 (b) says a combine means a merger, trust or monopoly-in subsection 4 we have " merger " defined. The principal word " combination " in that definition is the word which is used in paragraph (a). There is a confusion in the use of words. Whether or not an hon. member be a lawyer, I think he will be confused with the use of the words in paragraph (b) and subsection 4. He will see that the word " combination " is the governing word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The governing word is "combine."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the word being defined. Subsection 4 gives the definition of a merger as a combination resulting from the consolidating or amalgamating of the whole or part of the businesses of any two or more persons, or resulting from the purchase, lease or other acquisition by any person of any control over or interest in the whole or part of the business of any other person. That definition must be read into paragraph (b) which follows as a part of subsection 1. I do not think it makes sense when it is put that way. That is all I have to say as to that.
Then you come to the definition of "trust" and "monopoly," which is given in subsection 7, as meaning one or more persons who, within any particular area or district or generally, substantially control any class or species of business, or have such control over the supply or distribution of or the demand for products of any class or species of business as to enable such person or persons to maintain, enhance or substantially modify or control prices of such products. This definition of "trust" and "monopoly" is then applied to paragraph (b) in the light of the attempt to define the word "combine." It is wholly misunderstandable,

Combines Investigation Act
despite what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has said. There can be no such thing.
I shall not discuss the question of patent rights, as the minister says he intends to deal with that by amendment. I am glad that is so, because it certainly would put us in a most difficult position if he did not do so. We are parties to an international convention which confers upon a patentee the exclusive right to do certain things. This provision provides that by so doing he would be violating the law, which, of course, cannot be the intention of parliament in dealing with this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To see if I understand what my right hon. friend has in mind, is it that it would remove the obscurity if the words 'combination, merger, trust or monopoly" in line 29 were removed? The section would then read:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,
(1) "combine" means
(a)	a merger, trust or monopoly;
(b)	which has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I had in mind. Whether that change would be sufficient, I am not quite sure, but it looks as though it would.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the taking out of those words would clarify the matter. Is not the other matter to which my right hon. friend is directing special attention the use of the words "likely to" rather than "designed to."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They should both go together.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The words "designed to" appear in paragraph (a) and refer to all that follows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In line 12.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then that the words "likely to operate" in paragraph (b) be changed to "designed to operate."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that would help, but I cannot say how far it would go.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Section 2 (a) deals with a combination having or designed to have the effect of doing certain things which are declared by the criminal code to be criminal. There must be an agreement between two or more persons by means of a tacit contract, agreement or arrangement designed to have the effect of a breach of the criminal law. Either when introducing this measure or some time to-day the Minister of Labour stated that the words "merger, trust, or monopoly"
were introduced because it had been found that two or more persons, without making such a contract, agreement or arrangement as indicated in (a), by forming a merger, trust or monopoly might effect the same end. But it must be the merger, trust or monopoly which makes the breach or is intended or designed to make the breaches of the criminal law referred to under the Roman headings (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi).


Norman McLeod Rogers: Are those breaches of the criminal law?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have made them
breaches of the criminal law in section 498. As my hon. friend has said, the whole basis of this act is investigation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under 49S it is a criminal offence only when it has the effect of unduly lessening competition. There is nothing here which of itself creates a criminal offence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But you make them criminal offences. You say designed to have the effect of preventing, fixing, enhancing and otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That establishes it as a combination.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then you provide by section 34:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both fine and imprisonment, or if a corporation to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, who is a party or privy to or knowingly assists in the formation or operation of a combine within the meaning of this act.
You make these things criminal offences, and you make the organization of a trust of any kind or the organization of a monopoly, so-called, criminal offences, but they can only be criminal in essence and effect when they are designed to operate or are operated in breach of certain provisions in Roman numerals which you include in paragraph (a) of subsection 1.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I am disposed to be in agreement with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in his objections to the construction of clause 2, and I venture to make a suggestion which may preserve the grammatical sequences and probably put the matter right. It is that in subclause (b) the line " a merger, trust or monopoly " might read "a combination, merger, trust or monopoly";



Combines Investigation Act
then follows " which combination, merger, trust or monopoly," and so on. It seems to me that that will clarify the whole thing and preserve the idea, that was in the mind of the draftsman of the paragraph.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion. It will be remembered that this morning a number of objections were taken to the wording of this clause. Naturally we are anxious to make progress to-day with the bill. I suggest that clause 2 might stand while the objections mentioned this morning are being given consideration by the law officers of the crown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is reasonable, but perhaps one or two other objections had better be stated so that they may be considered at the same time.
The suggestion made by my colleague that a bill of this kind would be better administered by the Department of Trade and Commerce is a sound one. It has been made before, of course. The Department of Trade and Commerce touches the whole commercial fabric of the country as the Department of Labour does not. I understand how the matter came in the first instance to the Department of Labour, but it seems to me it would be better in the Department of Trade and Commerce.
It seems to me that the suggestion made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to delete the words "combination, merger, trust or monopoly " in the third line from the bottom and to carry it forward in the way he indicated would certainly greatly improve it. The First Minister gathered the point I was trying to make, although I am afraid I did it very abstrusely. On the point of construction, if you consider the definition in subclause 4 in the light of the rest of it, the rearrangement of the clauses would seem to be desirable.
One other point. When the bill came down I mentioned that subsection 7 would be capable of grave abuse; it gives the meaning of " trust " and " monopoly " to one or more persons who within a particular area substantially control any class or species of business. That might mean a lumber yard. As a matter of faet one case of that kind did arise. It might mean a bank, or any other particular Class or kind of business that one person had in the community. And when you begin to talk about controlling it, in view of the fact that nobody else is there, and that one person does mean control, surely some words must be necessary for the purpose of preventing abuses. You can easily get people to allege, when there is only one business in a community, and that, probably, not making
F.Mr. J. S. Taylor.]
any money, that it is highly desirable that that business should not operate alone, that there should be two or more businesses for the purpose of meeting the wishes of some who cannot receive at the hands of the one business accommodation to which they are not entitled. The oases I could give the committee on that point are, I think, voluminous.
I looked casually at the suggestion with respect to patents. I put this to the committee, and I think the Prime Minister will realize in the light of his own experience how important it is. When we grant a patent we do so in accordance with a commitment which this country made at an international convention. Practically all the more important countries were parties to that convention. In our relevant control act we have provided that if a patentee does not commence operations within a given time he runs the'risk of losing his patent. I am not now going into details, but putting the matter in a general way. That being the general international arrangement which we have accepted, to make it possible that a man should lose his patent because he exercises exclusive control under his patent is the very negation of the idea of the patent itself. The whole theory of patent is that he shall have exclusive control; the negation of it is that he may lose it because he exercises that exclusive control, and this bill contemplates his losing it if he does exercise it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Against the public interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but every time a
man gets a return on his investment in a patent there are many who say that it is against the public interest. The other day I bought for twenty-five cents a small article -I will not mention what it is, because it is patented. As a matter of fact it represents an investment, I should think, of about two cents. You can argue that it is against the public interest that a man should make a profit of twenty-three cents on an investment of two cents. Nevertheless it will be remembered that the privy council, dealing with the question of express rates on the bridge across the Niagara, where certain tolls were fixed which appeared to be out of all proportion to the return on the money invested, said that there are some services which must be considered in another way altogether; it is the character of the service rendered having regard to the effect it has upon the general conditions of living, and all that sort of thing. There are patents and patents around about us everywhere, and the use of

Combines Investigation Act
them creates benefits out of all proportion to the small sum we pay for the articles. But, people will say, it is against the public interest that a man should pay twenty-five cents for something which can be manufactured at a cost of only two cents. For instance, hon. members probably know the circumstances under which Gillette blades first came on the market and how that patent was first presented to the public, the prices that were charged and the obstacles the company had to overcome. The actual cost of production of that article bore no relation to the price which had to be paid for it, and of course there were people who contended that it was not in the public interest that they should pay so high a price. Putting the problem on that ground, it involves a difficulty; but when one remembers that we have an international code dealing with patents, it seems to me that we are certainly striking a blow at the integrity of our country with respect to these matters, because we did become a party to the convention. It was not the late government that did it, but the previous government. Where was the convention held? The Hague?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The last one was at the Hague in November, 1925.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that covers the whole field. To make this the subject matter of a possible violation of the law of combines is to negative the very idea of a patent.
Mr MACKENZIE KING; May I ask my right hon. friend a question on this patent matter? My recollection is not very clear, because what I am referring to now goes back some thirty years. But as I remember the matter, in the case of the United Shoe Machinery Company, which held a patent for certain machinery used in the making of shoes-
Mr. BENNETT; Goodyear Welts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -it was discovered that the company would not sell that particular device to any concerns unless they bought other machinery from the same company. Now would my right hon. friend say-
Mr. CAHAN; Under our present patent law that would be impossible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the case at the time the action was brought against that company, because they were abusing their patent in that way.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We have amended our patent law to overcome that, absolutely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The case was investigated under the original combines act.
It was found that the combines act served to remedy the condition complained of. It may be that out of the remedy at that time the patent law itself has been improved and the possibility of a further like condition removed. But what I was asking the leader of the opposition was whether in his opinion, in an instance of that kind, there was a right use of the patent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can answer that at once; it would not be. The right hon. gentleman is dealing with facts within his own knowledge, and I recall the Goodyear Welt case, which ultimately went to the supreme court of the United States. I would answer the question at once in the negative; I would not consider it proper that a patent should be utilized for the purpose indicated; but our law has already remedied that situation. We have made the necessary improvements by reason of the action that was taken, and there is a general recognition of that fact to-day.
While the convention does not go into details it does deal with what I might call the general acceptance of patents throughout the civilized world. We passed our statute in 1935. The Prime Minister will no doubt recall that when that act was before the house a long argument took place on the question of patents not being used by the owners. The relevant sections of our statute, which are found in the patent acts of all countries, ensure that patented goods will be manufactured in this country; and there are also provisions to deal with any case in which the consumer is being rooked, to use the ordinary colloquial language of the day. The patent can then be cancelled under conditions provided for in the statute itself. The difficulty to which the Prime Minister refers was at one time a real one but it no longer exists, having been already met by legislation. I do think that to insert in the combines act a provision dealing with the patent situation is, to say the least, anomalous and creates a state of affairs which, in my opinion, cannot but be injurious to our own position and the development of our industrial life.


Mr. GLEN:: Could the monopoly established by a patent continue to exist if the owner, in conjunction with someone else also owning a patent, operated it to the detriment of the public interest?


Richard Bedford Bennett: All patents operate to the detriment of the public interest-


James Allison Glen: I mean, so as to bring it under the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then you have a conspiracy, and that is covered by the criminal

Combines Investigation Act
code as it stands. There is no punishment because one of the parties to the conspiracy happens to be a patentee; the punishment ensues because he happens to be conspiring to something that is illegal. But I am talking about a particular person, a patentee, who has secured from the Dominion of Canada and all other nations that are parties to the Hague convention a patent which gives him the exclusive right to produce a given commodity for a given period of time. The limitation as to time is the safeguard of the public on the one hand, and the limitation of time within which he shall begin production is the public's safeguard on the other. In other words it ensures that the public shall get the benefit of the invention within a limited time, and, secondly, that the public shall not be oppressed in respect of price beyond a given period. That is to say, the idea is no longer an idea that can find expression solely through one particular means, but one that anybody can use.


James Allison Glen: Suppose the owner of a patent, in conjunction with the owner of another patent of a similar type, carried on some particular business; would he not have destroyed the monopoly created by the grant of the patent and have become subject to the provisions of the combines act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the statute, any third party interested in such a case may secure a licence to use the patent at a royalty to be determined by the commissioner. If my hon. friend will look at the Patent Act of 1935 he will see that sections 65 and 66 deal with the exclusive right.


James Allison Glen: My hon. friend has not got my point. When a man is operating under a patent and someone else has also a patent of a similar kind and they combine to operate both patents, each having an interest in his own, but one patent supplementing the other, is not that a combination under the provisions of this act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is punishable, not because they are patentees, but because they have combined. That, however, is beside the question at the moment.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I listened with interest this morning to the discussion of the definition section. With regard to the expression "likely to operate" I would point out that it has been in our law since 1919. It was in the Board of Commerce Act of that year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which was held invalid.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Yes; and it has been in the Combines Investigation Act since 1923. The term has been in our law since that time.

In the session of 1935 Bill No. 79 came before the house, and that bill contained the same expression, "likely to operate" to the detriment or against the interest of the public. That bill passed the house on June 20 and went to the senate. The senate made an amendment, substituting for the words "likely to operate" the words "designed to operate." When that amendment came back from the senate the House of Commons adopted a motion of non-concurrence in the amendment, pointing out that the expression "designed to operate" would make it very difficult to do anything with the statute for the reason that intention would have to be proved and that it would be hard to prove any such intention. That motion of non-concurrence was intimated to the senate and the senate did not insist upon its amendment, with the result that the phrase "likely to operate" was restored to the law. In other words, that phrase has been a part of the Combines Investigation Act ever since 1923. Why then should hon. members opposite at this stage seek to change -that part of the act?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: I wish to say a word or two on this question as it may be affected by the interpretation clause. All that has been said regarding the wording of the Patent Act and the protection of the public, with respect to patents, against failure to manufacture, appeal to the commissioner, and so on, is perfectly sound and I quite agree with it. But there is another phase of the question which I think has not been present in the minds of the committee, at least this afternoon. There is for instance one group in this country, the electrical group, comprising I think five large firms, who manufacture a great variety of electrical equipment and own hundreds of patents. These firms have combined-I am not saying illegally at present; they have one firm of solicitors which acts for the associated firms, and when a merchant attempts to bring goods in from outside on which they have patents in Canada they invoke the terms of the patent act and contend that such goods are illegally offered for sale in this country. The firm of lawyers representing these five large electrical firms will notify such an importer, and there have been cases in which actual action has been taken against the importer. The theory of course is that the patent act grants to the owner of the patent the right to manufacture and distribute those goods. But this patent law is the outcome of an international agreement to which we are parties. This international agreement provides that the goods may be manufactured in the various countries where the patents are registered. Assume

Combines Investigation Act
that certain electrical equipment, say a lamp globe, is manufactured legally and properly in the United States under the patent, paying a royalty to the owners of the patent in the United States. My contention is that there ought to be nothing in the patent law which would prevent anyone from bringing those goods in from the United States, provided the patent laws of the United States have been complied with and the required royalty been paid. But that cannot be done; is prevented. The patent therefore tends to operate as a super-tariff against the importation of the goods. The facts can be easily ascertained; there are records of cases in the courts, and I have a file giving many illustrations. Such simple things as ordinary electric light bulbs can be brought into this country, all the rules regarding payment of royalty complied with, and the duty paid, and they can be offered for sale in Canada at twenty, thirty, forty and sometimes as much as fifty per cent below the price charged by the owners of the patent in Canada. In such cases it is obvious that the owners of the patent here, are using, or usurping I might say, their powers under the patent act in order to impose a restrictive duty against the importation of these goods. Assuming this statement of the position is correct, and I submit it can be demonstrated, I say there should be some power such as this law might give which would enable the proper department of the government and the officers of the crown to examine into the matter and see whether or not those who control these patents in Canada are committing an offence likely to operate to the detriment of and against the interests of the public, as described in this bill. My contention is that we ought to have some law which would make that practice impossible. That is one of the reasons why I welcomed the Board of Commerce Act, I think it was called, which is still on the statute books, because under that act we were supposed to set up a board before which merchants who might think they had been badly treated could appear and have their complaint heard. I sincerely hope that the government will not overlook the bringing of that board into active operation at the earliest possible date. But I submit that, inasmuch as such a condition may arise, and indeed exists to-day, it is highly desirable that there should be provisions in this law which would enable those who administer it to act in case such a matter is brought to their attention. I want it to be perfectly clear that in saying that I am not criticizing the general provisions of the patent act, which, properly interpreted, I think are just and fair. It is these abuses that I have mentioned
that I seek to stop. I am not a lawyer; I do not presume to pass any opinion on the law, but I say that the practice now in vogue under the provisions of the patent act is an abuse
of privilege and operates ito the detriment of the public. Therefore I suggest that before this provision is abandoned or changed that situation should be considered.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that this clause is to stand.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the meantime the minister might consider dealing with the provision in section 65, subsection (2) clause (c) of the Patent Act, 1935, which declares it to be an abuse of the patent rights if the demand for the patented article in Canada is not being met to an adequate extent and on reasonable terms. If there is an abuse, not only has the commissioner the right to intervene, but my memory is that the attorney general has the right of intervention in certain cases in order to have the patent declared void by the Exchequer Court.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then section 2 will stand for the time being.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well for the minister to keep in mind the proviso that was inserted when these bills were submitted to counsel, as well as to the law officers of the crown in 1935:
Provided that this subsection shall not be construed or applied so as to limit or impair any right or interest derived under the patent act, 1935, or under any other statute of Canada.
That was put in there deliberately on the advice of counsel to whom these bills were referred. Answering the question of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) I am quite aware of the fact that the senate made the change along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister this morning, and for the simple and obvious reason that we were endeavouring to maintain the act just as it stood, except that it should be dealt with by a commission rather than a commissioner. That was the real reason behind it. If the hon. gentleman will look at the Combines Investigation Act as it was passed, he will find that in every instance we endeavoured to maintain the sections as they stood for the purpose of preventing purely political attacks, it having been alleged that we had endeavoured to weaken the provisions of the combines act when we provided that a commission should deal with them and not a commissioner. Some ten or fifteen changes were made by the senate, to one of which reference has been made. I had not remembered it until this morning, when I saw the
Combines Investigation Act

word " designed " again, and when it was mentioned by the hon. gentleman I recalled the circumstances.
Section stands.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Trade unions not affected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt that the minister has received certain representations which were mimeographed and sent out; all the members of the house have received them. There were no signatures attached but I assume they came from the same source. It did seem to me that there was something in the point made with respect to section 4. We have provided for fair treatment by what we call fair trade practices. Should there be objection to a combination of employers for the purpose of maintaining fair trade practices, any more than there is to workmen combining for their own reasonable protection? That, it seems to me, is not unreasonable. That point was contained in the memorandum sent to all the members of the house by one of the chambers of commerce or boards of trade. The amendment suggested, which would include combinations of employers for the reasonable prevention of unfair trade practices, seems to be reasonable. We have by statute provided against unfair practices, and certainly it is desirable that employers should unite for a common understanding in this regard just as much as it is desirable that workmen should be permitted to form combinations for their own protection. In the one instance the purpose is to ensure uniformity of fair trade practices and in the other case it is for the protection of the workmen. Is that not just and right? It struck me that the board of trade or chamber of commerce that made the suggestion had arrived at a sound conclusion, and I am asking the minister whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment to section 4 looking to that end, that is, providing that employers might combine for the purpose of preventing unfair trade practices. We have the law as it now stands, which the privy council said was sound, under which we have made it a criminal offence to do some of these things, and surely it is desirable that both employers and employees should be permitted to form a combination. As a matter of fact that is the case at the present time; there are combinations for the purpose of preventing unfair practices. We know that one such combination went to the courts of this country some years ago on the question whether or not it was a valid exercise of their power when they tried to fine some of their members who did not comply

with the provisions of the law. I merely ask the minister whether or not he would be prepared to consider such an amendment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not feel that an amendment of that kind ought to be accepted. This section is inserted for the protection of employees in their capacity as employees. It does seem to me that the amendment suggested by the leader of the opposition goes beyond that. It does not consider employers in their capacity as employers of labour but rather in relation to the whole business of the production and sale of their commodities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, unfair practices have to do with wages and all that sort of thing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But unfair trade practices,
as I understand it, do not relate or in the past have not related to the matter of wages but rather to matters of prices and business practices. This section has been inserted, as my right hon. friend is aware, from the beginning in order to prevent trade unions from coming under the normal prohibitions with respect to restraint of trade.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Commissioner.
Thomas Langton Church: I have been in parliament a few years, and from my experience I have very little confidence in this whole act. I remember when one of the predecessors of the present minister was dealing with the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. I told him the whole act was ultra vires and be said it was not. Well, that act went to the privy council and the whole thing was upset.
Just see the roundabout way in which we are going to attack the combines. As far as we have gone in this bill it is all built around sections 496, 497 and 498 of the criminal code, which was the law for many years and under which many decisions and judgments were rendered. As I see it, under this act the combines will continue to flourish like the green bay tree, as they have in the past, with this sort of administration. A commissioner is to be appointed. We have had a commissioner for a long time now, and many complaints have been laid before him in regard to the milk combine, the coal combine, the bread combine and many others. What did this investigator do? All his reports went back to the minister, and you will notice that the same provision is made here. The governor in council may appoint an officer to be known as a commissioner of the combines act, and then the act sets out the details of his administration, his appoint-

Combines Investigation Act
ment, his duties and so forth. You see that he is to report to the minister. Canada will never get anywhere in attacking combines as long as this administration is in the hands of a political department, because that is all the Department of Labour is to-day. It is not a judicial department; the commissioner is not independent. He has to report to a political minister, and we heard some- . thing about what this particular minister said last night at Pembroke. Certain similar legislation which was passed by the late government, and which is to some extent copied in this section, be farmed counterfeit legislation. What kind of judicial body is this going to be, when a responsible minister of the crown makes such remarks as that? What investigating powers will the commissioner have? I have nothing but the utmost regard for Mr. McGregor, but what can he do?
Why do we -not attack this problem as it has been attacked in the United States, which provided the model for some parts of this act? The government have tried to revamp this section in accordance with the recent decisions of the privy council. I can tell you that this section was before the senate last year; there was a little difference of opinion, and they reported it back with amendments. The Prime Minister did not see fit to accept those amendments, and as as a result nothing was done, though I thought the two houses *might have got together with regard to this administration by the commissioner, and his powers. For the last twelve months they "have fallen back on the old legislation, the Inquiries Act, under which three or four investigations have been held. What has been -the result? In the coal case Mr. McGregor reported a whitewash. Then they had a commission conducted by Mr. Tory-Tory in name only, so far as I know

who never mentioned the consumers in his report. During the recess of parliament he was supposed to investigate the cause of the increase in the price of coal from $5.50 in 1905 to $14 or $15 to-day. What can the proposed commissioner, Mr. McGregor, do? I have laid complaints before this very gentleman and before his predecessor, when Mr. Murdock was the minister. I complained about the combines in respect of coal, milk, bread and other things, and what was done? They sent a man to Toronto and some sort of investigation was held. I went to see the judge presiding at the York county assizes when there was a .scarcity of milk and the health officer was complaining about the way infants were dying off. The judge consulted with the crown officer representing the province, and then .said that in view of this act, which we are now
amending, he believed the whole question of administration had been taken out of the old law under the criminal code.
I have very little faith in this bill. I was head of the municipality of Toronto for some years, and I had a good deal to do with such administration as is proposed under this measure. I have no faith left in it. The other day the Minister of Justice was complaining about communism. Communism would not exist in this country if we broke up these combines. I can tell the Minister of Labour now that the money spent by the late government in connection with the price spreads inquiry was money spent to the very best advantage in the interests of this country. It showed the rotten state of affairs in Canada and the things these big interests have done. These interests were summoned before the commissioner and they refused to give evidence. They read all the cases, and they argued for days about the conflict of power and jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial governments. We will never get anywhere so long as we have this multiplicity of commissioners and commissions trying to attack a problem they do not know anything about.
I can tell you this, that these combines will affect confederation if they go much farther.
I have referred to some dealings I have had with the Department of Labour regarding combines and with the commissioner. It is now proposed to appoint a commissioner in place of proceedings under the criminal code before a judge presiding at an assize 00104; who could deal with offences against the criminal code. We know that Judge Landis fined the Standard Oil Company $50,000,000, and was going to put some of them in gaol. I only wish the commissioner or the Minister of Labour would bring to the bar of the house some of these people who have been treating our statutes as scraps of paper.
In my opinion, after a careful study of the act of 1935. I believe that with the exception of a few words here and there it is almost perfect. Further, in my opinion the social legislation introduced in that year will in years to come redound to the credit of the present leader of the opposition. He and his minister of labour, Mr. Gordon, were the first people to attack the problem in a sensible way.
I should have liked to say more, but will not detain the committee. I predict the law courts will upset the act and that its administration will be a glorious fiasco and trusts and combines will still flourish like the green bay tree. The price spreads commission showed them up. There has not been a word said since. The Minister of Labour is com-

Combines Investigation Act
plaining about the provinces. He wants to leave things to the provinces. I will tell him that some three or four provinces are bankrupt and cannot give a cent to help legislation. How can they contribute, as he suggests? What is there to prevent him bringing the combines into the law courts? Why does not the minister wield the big stick, summon these people to the Carleton assize court, and try out the legislation? What has the minister done about child labour and sweat shops? Not a thing. What has been done about the Purvis commission? A man was sent there, and he was told to mind his own business. This roundabout way of doing things is just like something to which I referred the other night. I would advise the commissioner to lay a bill of indictment against Mr. Purvis and his industry. They are the biggest trust or combine on the North American continent, and nothing is done about it. No wonder we have communism in Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to say one or two words on this section. Unfortunately I have to attend a committee which meets while the house is sitting, and I shall be here only a minute or two more. I am not going into a detailed analysis, but in my opinion this is a retrograde move. May I say with the greatest politeness and kindness to the Prime Minister that I have a full appreciation of the merits of the act as it was originally designed by him. I believe he deserves all the credit he wishes to take in that connection. But a long period of time has elapsed since. Business conditions and business methods to-day are entirely different from what they were twenty-five, twenty or even ten years ago. There has been a metamorphosis in the methods of doing business not only in Canada but throughout the world. Originally the act was designed for certain purposes; we are now returning to its original form, and though some of the amendments may be improvements, it does not measure up to present day requirements. I believe that parliament took a forward step when in 1935 it placed the administration of the act under a board of trade and industry. I think it was a mistake to assign those duties to the tariff board, but that is something which could easily be corrected.
If a board of trade and industry were erected in Canada I believe it would be a most progressive, effective and useful means of dealing with modern business problems. For my own information I have made a study of the court of commerce of France. Many hon. members will be familiar with that court, and will recall that about three hundred years have passed since it was set up. Now, after a long time, it has developed into a definitely

established method of dealing with commercial disputes. The records indicated to me that in France commercial disputes of all kinds would be taken to the court of commerce and there, with less formality than would be required in the regular law courts, decisions would be promptly arrived at.
I had hoped that when we established a board of trade and industry it would have gradually developed a practice and would have established certain decisions and courses of action which would serve as a guide along decent and proper lines for the large businesses in Canada. The present bill takes the powers away from the board and returns them to a commissioner. I am not in any sense reflecting upon any commissioner or any person; rather I am referring to the system. We could have had a commissioner, a secretary or some other officer to handle the bill and to deal with administration. I must say however that the establishment of the trade and industry board was one of the wisest things parliament ever did. It was a progressive, up-to-date and modem move, and an effort to meet the requirements of modern commerce.
Another point is this: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and I hope the Minister of Labour-with his knowledge of economics, although he has not been long in practice as a minister-must know the difficulty which in all these years the federal government has had in securing effective action against combines which have been fairly well established as such, because nothing could be declared to be a combine until the ultimate end of the legal proceedings had been arrived at. In many cases there was a conviction in the hearts of the people, and, I would say, in the minds of ministers and government officials, that a combine of an injurious character did exist, but the difficulty always was to get a conviction under the criminal code, through the courts. First, there was a private investigation, then possibly a public commission investigation, and then there would be an approach to the attorney general of a province to obtain his leave or to turn the matter over to him for prosecution. That is a long, tedious procedure. If we could bring a case quickly before a court of commerce we would get action.
There is another phase of the matter to which I should like to direct attention. So long as we have this controversy between federal and provincial jurisdiction, to which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred, we shall have interminable delays in cases which naturally would fall under this law. If a matter were brought before a court

Combines Investigation Act
of commerce, in public hearing, the publicity connected with the public examination of the cold facts would perhaps have more effective results than even a decision in a law court, which may be carried through the various courts to the privy council, a procedure which sometimes occupies several years before it is brought to a conclusion; whereas in the other case almost immediate results would be achieved.
I may say to the Prime Minister that I am not at all desirous of reflecting upon the excellence of his work during past years in connection with this class of legislation, but I think that by again putting this matter under the administration of a commissioner we are taking a retrograde step which will not in any sense meet the demands of modern business or effectively control the intricate and very often far-reaching problems which are prevalent in the commercial and industrial world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why does the minister find it necessary to make a change in the existing condition? The statute passed in 1935 placed the administration of the act in the hands of a commission. The Dominion Trade and Industry Commission was appointed in accordance with the recommendations made to this parliament by the price spreads committee. The administration of the combines act was placed in the hands of this commission, and appropriate amendments were made to the legislation. This commission has done some good work. Since I came back to Canada I have found evidence of communications which have been made to the commission. I find that numerous inquiries have been made about various matters and steps taken which brought about the proper adjustment of more cases than one. Why should not the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission continue to function in the manner provided for by the statute, without the creation of a new and expensive board?
The former commissioner is still acting and we would have the benefit of a trained legal mind. The minister knows as well as I that as business has progressed the main complaint to-day is against unfair competition. This is one of the matters engaging the attention of economists everywhere. How can we overcome unfair competition as distinguished from a combine pure and simple? Why is it necessary to set up a body separate and distinct from this other organization in connection with which you would have the benefit of a highly trained legal mind as against an untrained mind whose curiosity and desire to ferret out things for any purpose becomes no longer a merit but a fault? After all, this country must compete with all countries of the world if it is to maintain its export
business. We have to maintain a decent standard of living and by the supervision now provided by the statute to which I have just referred we have endeavoured to prevent what might be called cut-throat competition which might result in the creation of a monopoly far worse than any possible combine. This has been one of the most marked changes during the last fifteen years.
I suppose the minister has read what Adams described so clearly as the cause of our present condition. He referred to the creation of corporations, holding companies and matters of that sort. But leaving that out for the moment, you have the fact that cut-throat competition is an evil which nations are endeavouring to combat. This must be done to prevent a monopoly being created in a single business. Without going into details, which might be regarded as unfair, I think it can be said that we have had cut-throat competition in this country which resulted in the establishment of monopolies. The minister has been a student of these things and he must know to what I refer. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to some of them. If the minister wants to know just who they are I can give him a list.


Mr. DUPUIS:: We should like to have a list from the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think I will gratify my hon. friend's curiosity.


Vincent Dupuis: We want to see how it compares with ours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he will take the trouble to look up the books himself, he can find out who they are. They were referred to in this house on one occasion many years ago. A change has been brought about by unfair methods of competition. One only needs to read the economic history of the United States to discover how powerful enterprises have acted in different communities. We may have three people in business in a community and a large enterprise wants to buy them out. They offer very good prices, sometimes more than the business is worth. However, sometimes the proprietors reply that they do not want to sell, that it is a family business. They are told that the corporation is coming in anyway and if the unfortunate people do not sell they are squeezed out of existence. That is the condition with which we are faced to-day. That cannot be called a combine because there is only one company in the business. Through the elimination of competition they have become a monopoly. They have not increased prices in every case, but their profits have been increased through the elimination of wasteful competition.

Combines Investigation Act
What is the tendency in this country today? Unfortunately when people see that one business is making money they all want to get into it in order to make some too. That is what happened in connection with our pulp and paper business. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was receiver for one of these enterprises and he knows what happened. It was wasteful competition, it was the trading off of an old dollar for a new one sometimes not worth a hundred cents. That is the condition we have to meet. We endeavoured to meet it with the 1935 combines act but it was not designed to deal with that phase of the question at all. It cannot deal with it in the very nature of things because it is not a combine. I know of industries in this country which are not combines, but which have monopolies of their particular business. They have obtained that monopoly through buying out their competitors or forcing them out of business. They offered a price and if it was not accepted the competitor was put out of business. That is the situation with which we are confronted.
We must prevent these things if we do not want a lower standard of living and reduced wages. But to do so it is not necessary to set up this costly machinery. The necessary authority had been placed in the hands of the tariff board under the previous act. Continue with the same investigator if you will, only give some supervision. He is now without supervision and is free to pursue his own course. He has a mind untrained in law, but he is empowered to make investigations that will harass and not help business. If you carry out some of the provisions of this bill that is what will happen. I do not think that is the intention of the government, but that is what will result.
Some of the sections of this bill go farther than we have ever gone before; they make a judge out of a man who is not a lawyer. This is not the first time a judge has been made out of a man who knew no law, but it is the first time we have made a judge out of one who is not a lawyer. I think it was James who made the observation that you could easily get twelve judges to agree, but you could not get twelve lawyers to agree. That is what is happening here. The minister should give us some reason why he finds it necessary to take the administration of this act out of the hands of the commission and appoint a commissioner and invest him with the authority that is proposed. The reason the president of the privy council was made administrator of the act was that it was felt to be a matter of high policy that the Prime Minister, who in this country is usually the

president of the council, should have before him at all times knowledge of what was being done that so vitally affects the economic policy and life of the country. But if you are not to have the president of the council, then it does seem to me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose one job is to keep in touch with trade and commerce, should administer the act. What I am asking for at the moment is some explanation as to why we should not utilize the tariff board, so as not to involve additional expense until such time as its duties become so great as to necessitate an additional commission. Why not let them carry on the work instead of setting up the costly machinery of another branch of government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The question of the administration of the combines act was dealt with when the bill was before the house on second reading.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Very slightly.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps the leader of the
opposition will feel that it was not dealt with adequately. At the same time I think there is some cogency in the reasons given at that time for the change contemplated in this bill. Under the trade and industry commission act, the combines act was placed directly under that commission, and the members for the time being of the tariff board of Canada were declared to be the members of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission. The result was to place an additional duty, and, as I think all hon. members will agree, an important additional duty, upon the tariff board. According to my reading of the debate at that time, it was contemplated even then that the additional duties imposed upon the tariff board would in the nature of things require some additional staff, and that some separation of functions would be necessary if the work were to be performed efficiently. At the present time what we are doing is detaching from what is already an overburdened tariff board a function which at any rate does not relate of necessity to the tariff board as such. I would not say for a moment that the present members of the tariff board, or at any rate the chairman, are not competent to deal with the questions raised in the administration of the combines act. On the contrary I feel confident that the chairman of the tariff board would approach such a duty with every fairness and with great ability. But I think it must be agreed that the administration of a combines act does not of necessity have anything in common with the work of a tariff board.

Combines Investigation Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why not constitute a new
board under the act, chapter 59 of 1935?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was called the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission. The members


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Were declared to be the
members of the tariff board.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was a temporary
provision.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It may have been temporary, but at any rate there has been no change up to this time, and there was no undertaking, as I understand it, that the work would be given to another commission.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think at the time there was a general feeling, which was expressed at this session by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), that we were setting up too many commissions and that it would be better to combine the work of the two. At all events what we are doing now is ensuring that the administration of the combines act will receive the undivided attention of one commissioner, or, if the work should require it at some later date, a commission of possibly three members. Here again I give no undertaking, and obviously cannot; but to enlarge the commission to three at some future time if the work demands it would seem to be the obvious course to follow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the commission has been with the other commission ever since, administering this act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is not really administering the act, if I may say so; because while some questions arose as to the legality of the trade and industry act, the combines act has not been administered by that commission. I think that undoubtedly the tariff board, in assuming that additional function, has found itself severely handicapped. There has been no effective administration of the combines act in the past year and a half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And no director of prosecutions has been named.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No director of prosecutions has been named. That of course touches a point that goes beyond the administration of the Combines Investigation Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it touches the whole matter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I think there is very much to be said for so arranging the administration of the combines act that it will come under the continuous supervision of one man or one group of men, and certainly, if combines exist to the extent suggested by some hon. members, there is every reason why the administration of the combines act, apart entirely from the other duties imposed upon the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission, should be administered by one commissioner. There is much to be said, I think, for some continuity in the working out of the provisions of this act. In times past, and I am speaking now of the period before the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission was set up, the actual investigations apart from preliminary inquiries were conducted by ad hoc commissions. The result was that the country was put to the very considerable expense of appointing ad hoc commissioners, and there was none of that continuity of experience which is valuable in carrying on this act.
Perhaps I ought to say something about the transfer to the Department of Labour. Certainly this does not imply an appropriation by the Department of Labour of a field that was not once its own.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not suggested that that is so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I quite agree. It is a question rather of a return to the Department of Labour after a temporary transfer to the president of the privy council for the reasons suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I would however like to express my own view that there is much to be said in favour of having the administration by the Department of Labour as against the Department of Trade and Commerce. After all the Department of Trade and Commerce is set up primarily in order to provide facilities for the industries and commercial firms of this country-and properly so. But I question if it would be wise to have the administration of this act designed to prevent abuses among industries and commercial firms placed in the department which at the same time had, and was intended to have, a very intimate and close relationship with those firms. I submit again that there are strong reasons why the administration of the combines act should be placed under a separate commissioner, and I believe there are good reasons, which perhaps will not be considered as such by hon. members opposite, why the administration of the Combines Act should be placed in the Department of Labour rather than in the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows it had no personal reference.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, quite.
Combines Investigation Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish to make one remark in connection with this discussion, and that is that the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, which was chapter 59 of the statutes of 1935, has been declared by the judicial committee, with the one exception of section 14 which was not referred to it, to be intra vires of the parliament of Canada; and section 14, which had been held by the Supreme Court of Canada to be ultra vires, did not come within the reference made to the judicial committee. But there was a significant suggestion by his lordship in delivering the opinion of the committee, that if it had come before the committee the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada might not have been upheld. So that it is the intention of the government, apparently, to maintain an administration of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act of 1935, because in the bill which we have before us only sections 13 and 14 of its provisions are repealed, section 13 of that act being the provision which charged the commission with the administration of the Combines Investigation Act. It is significant, therefore, that the government have undoubtedly decided, in repealing two sections of that act, to retain the act as it now stands, with these exceptions; and if the government has decided to retain the act and to administer it with the exception of these two sections, then there is no reason why one body of commissioners should not administer both acts-no reason in the world. There is nothing in conflict between the administration of the combines act and the administration of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. What the minister is doing now is to set up an extra commission assisted by numerous assistant commissioners and provided with counsel, a whole bureau which is unnecessary if the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission is to be retained.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But additional personnel was contemplated.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The government have decided that members of the tariff board should not be the personnel of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission. But they were temporarily appointed, and in the meantime the act was submitted by reference to the court to ascertain its validity. It has been declared valid in every section except one, and by repealing that section the government impliedly admit that they will continue the administration of this new act of 1935. Why not, then, change the personnel of the commission, if that is desired, but maintain the act and include in it the administration of the combines act? That would place it outside both the Department of Labour and the

Department of Trade and Commerce. As between the two, frankly I prefer the Department of Trade and Commerce. I do not think that the Minister of Labour ex officio is necessarily the person to have charge of the administration of the combines act. But by changing the personnel of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission and leaving with that commission the administration of the combines act, you do procure what is so essential to business in Canada, confidence in the stability and integrity of the administration of these acts. At the present time the government are appealing to industry to give employment to the unemployed; they are appealing to every class of industry to extend its operations in order to provide additional employment. If that is so, if the government are dependent upon industry to give employment to the unemployed, then industry must have a certain peace of mind in order to extend its operations and comply with the demands of the Minister of Labour in that respect. I believe that no better effort could be made in that direction, no more efficient effort, than by placing the administration of the combines act under a thoroughly competent and independent board such as is provided by the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, so that there may be complete reliance upon its impartial, judicial and legal administration of that act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The leader of the opposition has emphasized very strongly the benefit that would accrue if the administration of this aot were under a trained legal mind. I wonder whether it has ever occurred to him that possibly it might be a great advantage to have it under a commissioner who has not a trained legal mind. The leader of the opposition speaks as if all judges were united on matters of law even if lawyers are not. But I submit that almost every judicial decision, even in the highest courts, shows that judges differ very materially even in what are strictly matters of law. If I understand the situation rightly, the president of the United States is doing his best to get away from the dominance of trained legal minds in the supreme court. The Minister of Justice shakes his head. Well, I shall have to take the attitude that some have already taken in this debate, that of course I am not referring to any individual.


Ernest Lapointe: He wants an addition of legal minds there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is an old saying, " Blessed is he that bloweth his own horn, for verily it shall be blown."

Combines Investigation Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a misquotation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it? Some of us apparently have to sit under the continual blowing of the horns of those who belong to the legal profession.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The quotation is, " He that bloweth not his own horn, for him shall no horn be blown."


James Shaver Woodsworth: Possibly that is the reason for the activity of the lawyers in the house. Seriously, while undoubtedly there are benefits from a legal training there are also some things about legal training that make it very difficult for those who have had that training to realize new needs as they arise and to interpret some of the old principles as they relate to modern developments. We have, for example, the modern development of the corporation. The corporation is a purely artificial body created by law. It has nothing of human characteristics about it. As we often say, it has no soul; and yet we endow it with a certain immortality. It can live on and on even if the members who originally composed it have died. There seems to have been a beneficent provision in nature whereby individuals, once they have reached a certain age, pass off the scene and allow others to come along. Not so with corporations. So again and again we find corporations persisting when their usefulness has passed, and able to exploit the community because of the different circumstances that have arisen. These corporations are given privileges along a great many lines which would not be accorded even to individuals. We had an example in one or two of the statements made this morning.
What about "intent"? We insist that there must be intent to do so and so, and we get into prolonged casuistical discussions as to exactly wherein lies intent. Using an illustration that occurred to me before the Minister of Labour spoke, if a man carries concealed weapons, he is, I understand, thereby committing a crime. If someone is killed, the carrying of weapons may be used to show intent; but in any case simply to carry concealed weapons is a crime. But we apply no such simple procedure as that when it comes to corporations; that is another matter altogether.
Again the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) spoke of not making crimes where crimes did not exist. But surely with the coming of the automobile there have to be new crimes constituted because there is a new source of danger to human life and welfare, and what would not have been a crime on the road fifty years ago may become a crime with the modern automobile. I can
readily understand how one with a trained legal mind will persist in thinking in terms of the horse and buggy age fifty years after the horse and buggy have ceased to exist; that is a danger to which the trained legal mind is subject. Combines give an opportunity for new crimes; they may themselves be crimes.
Again, we are told that we should not have investigations of private affairs, of a corporation's affairs. I suppose that goes back to the idea that a man's business was his own individual affair. But to-day can anyone really believe that business carried on by corporations is in any sense a personal affair? It is a matter that should be of interest to the public at large. I think it was when Woodrow Wilson ran his first presidential campaign that he gathered his speeches together into a book called The New Freedom. In that book there was an illustration that I remember. He said that in the old days it was not considered right, on the principle that a man's home was his castle, that anyone should be allowed to enter it without his consent. That is all very well. Then in the age of great corporations it is said, by analogy, that no one must as it were enter their premises-no one must be given the right to investigate what goes on in the corporation. Woodrow Wilson suggested the illustration of a great apartment block. In the United States, authorities were still considering the apartment block to belong to the owner simply because, though it might contain fifty homes, they were all under the one roof. In England, he said, they were adopting a wiser attitude. There the authorities took the position that although these fifty homes were under the one roof, each apartment was in reality a unit by itself. The corridors, on the other hand, the lighting and everything of that kind concerned the public, because the corridors corresponded more or less to the streets; and the corridors ought to be taken care of, lighted, kept sanitary, and policed just as a street. So Mr. Wilson said that we ought to have at all times the fullest publicity with respect to the business of great corporations. I heartily agree with that. But now, all these years afterwards, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George still keeps to the old position and the old fiction. If I may say so I think this is very largely because of his legal training. He thinks that the public ought not to be permitted to enter the sacred portals of corporation offices.
Whether or not this bill is the best way of accomplishing the end in view, I think something more will have to be done than has so far been done to check the exploitation which has been carried on by these great
Combines Investigation Met

monopolies and trusts and mergers. The price spreads commission report, and the evidence published more recently in the daily papers of the hearings of the textile commission, make the people of this country generally realize that there should be some way of protecting the public.
Personally I think this legislation is a characteristic Liberal way of doing it-


Ernest Lapointe: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure that a
good Liberal like my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) should take that as a compliment. I can conceive that, if the competitive system is a good thing, we must in some way seek to avoid unfair competition. But it strikes me that the Minister of Labour will find it very difficult in practice to decide where fair competition ends and unfair competition begins. As the committee know, from our standpoint it is next to impossible to do this, and we believe that the competitive system must ultimately give way to a cooperative system. But I suppose we cannot hope for a change in the present system so long as the Liberals are in the saddle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is giving an entirely wrong interpretation of Liberalism. Liberalism is not necessarily identified with the competitive system.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought it was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is mistaken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have heard in this house for sixteen years what Liberalism was, and I gathered the idea that it is very closely tied up with the competitive system. I am glad that apparently Liberalism is changing in that respect. This encourages us in this corner to renew our efforts in the days to come.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It is getting worse.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But in the meantime I simply say that I believe that legislation of this kind is distinctly in the right direction, if for no other reason than that it may show how difficult it is to administer in a society founded upon a competitive system.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In a Liberal direction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very well then, we will hope that Liberalism and socialism will not ultimately be so far apart. I have always taken the view that if you travel far enough in one direction, say eastward, you are bound to reach its extreme-you come to the west.

As to the protection of the public, while in theory it might be possible to maintain an absolutely neutral and unprejudiced position, in practice we have to remember that these great corporations have huge funds at their disposal; they are well organized, compact, and engage the ablest counsel in the country to plead their case; whereas on the other hand the consumer or the labouring man who rvorks for the great corporation is comparatively unorganized and without any very great resources. Some special effort ought to be made-shall I say by a Liberal government?-to see that the interests of the unorganized public are very specially safeguarded.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I am sure the government are well aware of the very general complaint throughout the country that we have too much governmental machinery; that there is duplication, overlapping and waste; and that from time to time additional and unnecessary commissions are created in connection with the carrying on of government both in the provincial and the federal field.
Under the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act passed in 1935 the duty of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act was imposed upon the tariff board, an organization already in existence, with a trained and competent staff, and one which in the course of the discharge of its duties acquires a vast fund of knowledge relating to trade and industry in all its branches, including the effect of the tariff upon business.
There are those, of course, who contend that the tariff is responsible for many of these combinations. I submit that it would be hard to find a more competent organization than the tariff board, an organization better equipped, with a better background or with a greater command of information of the very sort that would be useful under this act. On the ground of expense alone I submit that we are making a mistake when, under this section, we contemplate the setting up of what appears to be a duplicate organization, with a duplicate staff, for the discharge of duties which I think might be well and properly discharged by this existing organization.
Perhaps that is putting it on the lowest ground, that of economy, which of course is important even at this time. I do urge upon the Minister of Labour, however, that this commission must possess a fund of information and an accumulation of knowledge in connection with the trade and industry of this country that would be very useful in connection with investigations of the character outlined by this act. In addition to saving the

Combines Investigation Act
expense of a duplicate organization, there would be action along parallel lines; there would be no inconsistent action as between an investigator or commissioner under this act and the tariff board. It does seem to me that there should be for this purpose some organization with the standing of the tariff board, an organization more or less set apart, rather than one directly under the control of the minister. Since the tariff board has been put on a permanent basis I am sure that it has established its usefulness, its capacity and its competence to deal with the matters that have been referred to it, and I believe it is winning the confidence and respect of the people of this dominion.
As has been said already, it seems to me that the proposed procedure is a retrograde step, that we are not putting it on a sufficiently high plane; we are not giving the commission that standing and authority which will command the respect of those who are concerned in the administration, of this act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 6-Assistant commissioner.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely section 6 is unnecessary if we are to have a commissioner whose sole duty it will be to look after these matters. Do not let us magnify this office also.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The provision is that an assistant commissioner may be appointed in the manner authorized by law. It may very well happen, for example, that while the commissioner is carrying out one investigation, an application may be made for an investigation of a somewhat urgent character. This would give the requisite authority, to prevent delay under circumstances of that kind. I do not think it goes beyond anything that has been possible under the act at any time. That is to say, under the old combines act it was quite conceivable that you might have two or three commissioners working at the same time on separate investigations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 7-Special commissioners.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think this section should be here. The very purpose stated by the minister, the preservation, that is, of some general system of uniformity and continuity, should preclude the necessity of appointing special commissioners to investigate these matters. We still have the general powers under the Inquiries Act to take action in regard to matters that t'he crown thinks should thus be dealt with; we have the tariff board, and now to say that under this act you may appoint
expensive special commissioners is in my judgment unnecessary. I only mention that to the minister; I do not think it serves any useful purpose except to invite, wherever there is trouble, an application for a special commission, at great expense to the country and without any uniformity of treatment or continuity of policy in connection with the administration of the act itself.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I wholly agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition that it would be undesirable to depart from the practice of having most investigations conducted by the commissioner. At the same time it is quite possible that a number of applications might come in at the same time, and that it would be desirable to proceed with them at the same time or at any rate without serious delay. There is nothing of a mandatory character in the section, of course; it simply gives us a power which has been given by the other combines acts in previous years. The intention is that investigations will be conducted whenever possible by the commissioner, and that investigations by special commissioners will be made only when the immediate investigation of an important case cannot be conducted by the commissioner owing to pressure of other work. That is to say, the power is here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have the general power under the Inquiries Act, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 8-Legal counsel.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I submit, of course, that if the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act is to be administered, provision is made there for a representative of the Department of Justice who may act as counsel in these matters. But I should like to say to the Minister of Justice that I am instructed that in connection with all commissions appointed in England, if counsel are appointed to assist the commission or commissioner, they are under instructions to elicit the facts with impartiality and are absolutely prohibited from using their position as counsel to disseminate political or economic doctrines or their personal opinions. I think the time has come when it will be necessary for the Minister of Justice to prepare a set of instructions of that kind, because at present the opinion is very prevalent throughout this country that the conduct of commission counsel is due to special instructions which they must have received in regard to these matters; otherwise it is inconceivable that they would have acted in the manner in which they have acted.

Combines Investigation Act


Ernest Lapointe: I may assure my hon. friend that the instructions received by those who act as counsel are to act with the strictest impartiality for the purpose of attaining the end which the governor in council has in mind in ordering the inquiry.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not casting any personal reflections, but that is not the point. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice believes in counsel acting with strict impartiality in eliciting the facts. The old traditions prohibited even counsel for the prosecution from acting in other than an impartial manner, because he was believed to act, and according to the traditions of the court did act, not as prosecutor for one side but in such a way as to elicit the information necessary for an impartial decision of the court. I had under my hand a whole pamphlet dealing with that phase of the question, but I do not intend to refer to it. The mind of the government should be expressed, I think, in the order in council appointing counsel, to the effect that his duty is to act impartially.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, as the hon. member knows, the parties whose actions are being investigated are always very well represented before the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot be, in some of these investigations.


Ernest Lapointe: But I have in mind investigations to which my hon. friend refers. Necessarily the actions of counsel for the commission seemed to be somewhat opposed to those of counsel for the parties investigated. I agree entirely with my hon. friend, however, that their attitude ought to be that of a crown prosecutor trying to bring out the facts, without taking sides against any party to the issue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly agree with the minister's view, but I was surprised to learn that during the meetings of one of the committees of the house at this session, counsel appointed by the government actually said "No, we will not do that; it would be favourable to the company." There it is on the record, and it is rather a bad thing. I will be perfectly frank with the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: A committee of this house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, sitting in this house. I must say also that I took strong objection to the attitude of leading counsel for the price spreads commission. The attitude taken was not of that impartial character which, in my judgment, counsel assisting a commission should show; and what is more, I told that
i.Mr. Cahan.]
gentleman so. I asked him to come to my office, and told him that his duty was to assist the commission impartially in getting the facts, and not to treat the witnesses as though they were in a police court; rather he should treat them as witnesses giving evidence before a commission. I think the minister's statement of it should perhaps be embodied in written instructions to be given to counsel who are appointed, because the condition is becoming bad in this country. It reached its zenith the other day-I should like to show it to the minister, and I may have to refer to it in the house-in the committee where counsel said "That would be helpful to the company."


Samuel Factor: Does the right hon. gentleman remember action of counsel on the price spreads commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was talking about.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Temporary assistants.
Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the greatest abuses is found under the procedure embodied in this section. What happens is that you constitute a commission, and then begin to call in your experts. I wonder if the minister has looked at the bills paid to auditors in connection with this matter? Last year the minister had occasion to direct attention to the amount of money being spent in connection with some of these transactions. One of our difficulties was that the commission had directed, without regard to anything else, that a very expensive audit should be taken with respect to various businesses, and the result was that in the aggregate we spent nearly S100.000-the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) can correct me as to the exact amount; I know it was a very large sum of money. I believe there should be a clear limitation upon that. I have felt that for some time, not now, but while head of the government. I had to direct attention to what I considered to be an abuse of the words "the commissioner may, with the approval of the minister, employ such temporary, technical and special assistance, as may be required to meet the special conditions that may arise in carrying out the provisions of this act."
As the Prime Minister said this morning, this is an investigating statute. It is not intended to have somebody delegate to half a dozen other people the right to pry into every transaction in connection with an organization's affairs. Especially is that so with respect to the financial side of the matter. I do

Combines Investigation Act
suggest that there should be at least an order in council authorizing the employment of any such assistants. I say that in the light of my own painful experience. I believe there is an abuse of the authority conferred and-I do not make this statement as a reflection upon the government-sometimes these jobs have a habit of lasting a very long time, once begun. I say the government should exercise control, and say "No; we are not going to spend $25,000 for this particular purpose. We are not getting balance sheets ready. What we are investigating is whether or not there is cause for criminal investigation."
For instance, I would direct the minister's attention to the Nash fruit case; from that he will get an idea of what I mean. The investigation took place before the late government took office. He will find the same thing in connection with the price spreads commission, and in connection with one other commission. I have thought, and still think, that the amount of public money expended in this way was out of all proportion to what was necessary. A trial is not involved. The enormous sums of money spent in this way were brought to our attention before we went out of office. I think it would be desirable to have the governor in council exercise control before such expenditures are incurred.


Mr. KINLEY:: Does the right hon. gentleman not think that the preliminary inquiry is a great protection for industry, and that in order to have a complete preliminary inquiry there should be complete investigation before publicity is given and before possibly irreparable harm is done?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the preliminary
investigation takes place after the investigation we are now considering. From a legal standpoint, the preliminary investigation takes place after this one, which is a departmental inquiry as to whether or not there is a prima facie case made out. Then complaint is made, the attorney general takes proceedings, there is a prolonged investigation, and the matter is sent on for trial.


John James Kinley: It all contributes to the decision as to whether or not the minister and commissioner will hold a public inquiry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be part public and part private, or both.


John James Kinley: But the committee can see that premature public inquiry into a business may do harm. A special commissioner looks into the matter first; the preliminary inquiry comes next, and the minister and the commissioner may decide that it is not necessary to have a public inquiry. I believe in order 31111-154
to have a complete preliminary inquiry it is necessary beforehand to have all possible evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That part of it has been settled. The question now is as to whether or not the commissioner shall employ costly help, with or without the consent of the governor in council.


John James Kinley: The word " costly " is
assumed; it is not used in the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I use that word in the light of experience. I do not like to move amendments, because they are not received with great favour, but I do suggest that the section should read: " with the approval of the governor in council " instead of " with the approval of the minister." I make that suggestion out of my own experience.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am agreeable to that suggestion. I believe section 11 does bear on the same point, but applies only to remuneration.


Mr. ESLING:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there should be a more direct way of bringing these matters to the attention of the department. Reference has been made to radios. This is one case where it does not need any stretch of the imagination to know that a monopoly exists. No one can manufacture radios in Canada without first obtaining the consent of Radio Patents Limited, which is a holding company controlling every patent which enters into the construction of a radio. I suggest that the Department of Labour and the Department of National Revenue take steps to give the general public more intimate information in connection with the conditions surrounding the control of these patents. The Minister of National Revenue is probably aware that the difference in price in the United States and Canada for exactly the same radio is about 100 per cent. That difference against Canada is caused solely by the control of the patents. It is not as though the manufacturer had to deal with only one patentee; he must deal with this holding company which controls every patent.
I have a complaint from a man who purchased a radio in the United States for $35, which he said would have cost him $80 in Canada. He brought it back under the $100 exemption clause, declared it and received a clearance. Shortly after, he was served with a notice that he was infringing certain patent rights by reason of the fact that he had brought the radio in from the United States, and he was called upon to pay a royalty. It is such incidents as this that cause discontent. I think the government would go far towards

Combines Investigation Act

relieving this discontent if they made a clear statement, say in the Labour Gazette or the National Revenue Review, explaining the conditions imposed by this holding company. I think the government should go further and take steps to remedy a situation which permits a monopolistic control over all these patents.
I suggest that more direct action could be obtained in connection with certain matters by the Department of Labour, under which the combines act is administered, if these special commissioners were directed to investigate. Take gasoline, for instance. We have had dominion royal commissions and provincial royal commissions, costing thousands of dollars, investigating gasoline prices; but nothing has happened. You can go into any community in the southern part of British Columbia and you will find the wholesale gasoline companies selling at a fixed price, for resale at a fixed price. A commissioner would not need affidavits and so on to find this out. He can go to any service station and he will be told that the wholesale price of wholesale companies is exactly the same, and that the service stations are required to sell at a common price. If they do not sell at that price they are penalized. Surely such a practice is a violation of the intention of the combines act.
Why should the price of gasoline in the interior of British Columbia be more than the price in Vancouver plus the freight? The same provincial taxes are paid, and there is the same spread between tank car and station. The price of gasoline is exactly the same at all service stations in any one community in the interior, and the wholesale price is exactly the same. The selling price to the public should be the same as the price on the coast, plus the freight.
There are other matters which enter into the determination of whether or not there is a combine. Sometimes the financial position of the man who is complaining enters into the question. The minister will recall that a few years go there was an inquiry into the Famous Players company, instigated by a competitor who was unable to secure films. Mr. Peter White was the royal commissioner, and he found that the charges were well founded. The matter went to the grand jury, which returned a true bill. The provincial government of British Columbia did not bring a separate action. The joint action brought by Ontario and British Columbia was fought by a battery of able lawyers acting for Famous Players, and they were able to show that the indictment was faulty.
The fact is this man wanted to get films. He and his solicitor went to every film agency

in Vancouver, but they were unable to secure any films. Mr. Peter White, the royal commissioner, was satisfied that this was the case. When conditions such as these are brought to the attention of the commissioner of combines, why should it be necessary to go through a lot of red tape in obtaining the affidavits of half a dozen people? Surely a commissioner who possessed any ability or common sense could visit a community and ascertain that certain facts were so. He could then make his report to the department, and any prosecution could proceed from that point. I think if such steps were taken it would go far toward restoring the confidence of the people, not only in the present but in future administrations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister has accepted the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and I would move for him that section 9 be amended by substituting the words "governor in council" for the word "minister" in line 21.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Duties of assistants.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that all the words after "commissioner" in line 30 to the end of the section should be struck out, the reason being that it is very unusual, and certainly against precedent, to have a commissioner delegate his powers to any employee or person who may be engaged for special purposes. If we end at the word "commissioner" we say that:
Any technical or special assistant or other qualified person employed under this act shall, when so authorized and deputed by the commissioner, inquire into any matter within the scope of this act as may be directed by the commissioner.
Surely we cannot have auditors going out and exercising punitive powers and the like. The old rule was, delegatus non potest delegare; this is a delegated power, and I think the Minister of Justice will admit that it is highly improper that somebody else should exercise those powers.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be glad to accept that suggestion and to have the words struck out. I will ask my colleague the Minister of Justice if he will make the amendment proper in the circumstance.


Ernest Lapointe: I move:
That all the words after the word "commissioner" in line 30 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

Combines Investigation Act
On section 11-Remuneration and expenses.
Ernest Lapointe: That subsection 2 of section 11 be amended by adding after the word "expenses" in the first line of the subsection the following words "of the commissioner and."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that makes it wrong.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: The remuneration of the commissioner is provided for under section 5.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This dealt only with the special commissioner.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Section 5 simply states that:
The commissioner shall be paid such salary as may be from time to time fixed and allowed by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Offices and equipment.
Ernest Edward Perley: I am sorry, but I no not like this clause at all. It looks as though some one were trying to build up a great organization as a special branch of the Department of Labour. I see no possible reason or argument why the commissioner should have offices anywhere else than in Ottawa. If he has in hand an investigation which requires some place in Winnipeg to carry it on, perhaps a room in some building, it surely would be proper for him to engage it and be reimbursed as part of his expenses. But to suggest that there shall be offices- innumerable, if the commissioner so wishes- all over Canada, is extraordinary, and I submit that there is no necessity for this clause. We have had too many examples in governmental administration of officers building up an organization for the purpose of increasing their own importance and spending money unnecessarily. All that a commissioner could ever need when away from Ottawa would be a room, which could be paid for as part of his ordinary expenses. But to set up regular offices-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Stationery and equipment.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, there is no necessity for it whatever. The offices should be in Ottawa. All the business could be carried on here excepting when, in the case of some particular investigation, the commissioner went to another city.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This particular section as it appears in the present bill is not new.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We took it out, deliberately, in 1935.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It appeared first in the Board of Commerce Act, and was continued in the Combines Act of 1923 and in the revision of 1927. I understand that this section with a number of other sections of an administrative character was omitted from the act of 1935, because the Combines Act was placed under the direct administration of the tariff board. I am informed that actually it has seldom been invoked in the past, and when offices have been opened elsewhere they have been opened temporarily, for the matter of a few weeks. I can assure the house that there is no intention to set up anything in the nature of a permanent organization outside Ottawa. It is quite obvious that there would be no purpose served by doing that. The section is here rather to authorize the setting up of an office which might be needed during a prolonged investigation at a distant point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will observe that the word is "establish."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A temporary office would be a part of the commissioner's expense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be part of his job.


Norman McLeod Rogers: He may:
... establish at any place or places in Canada such office or offices as are required for the discharge of the duties of the commissioner and of any special commissioner under this act, and may provide therefor the necessary accommodation, stationery and equipment.
I do not think there is anything in that which suggests of necessity the setting up of a permanent office. Certainly nothing is further from my own mind.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister's statement confirms me in my opinion. If temporary quarters are required at any place in Canada for -the purpose of caimying on am investigation, by the commissioner, they can be rented by him and the cost, put into his ordinary expenses. There is nothing to prevent that from being done; it is a common practice in business. But this section definitely contemplates permanent offices in other places than Ottawa.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would it meet the situation if the word "temporary" were inserted before "such office or offices"?


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there not sufficient authority in the bill for the commissioner to rent quarterns in Winnipeg or elsewhere temporarily for the purpose of carrying on an investigation and to include the cost in his ordinary' expenses?
Combines Investigation Act


Norman McLeod Rogers: I suggest that it stand until we see whether there is another section of the act which will cover expenses of that character. Obviously that is the only point at issue.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister consider whether the rental of space in Winnipeg or elsewhere to carry on one of these investigations is not evidently a proper expense, just as much so as the commissioner's railway fare for getting there, or his meals while he is there?
Section stands.
On section 14-Application for investigation.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have one suggestion to make. In section 11 of the existing act the terms "attorney, solicitor or counsel" are used. In the amending bill the term used is "other person." I wonder whether it might not be better to use the terms "attorney, solicitor or counsel or other person," to ensure that notice might be sent to any attorney, solicitor, or counsel or to any other person who did not answer to any of these descriptions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An attorney is a person.
Perhaps you will recall, Mr. Chairman, the story that O'Connell told of a case that was not so good. The judge directed that the court should be cleared, and the crier called out "All ye blackguards that are not lawyers leave the court." Attorneys will come under the term "other person."


Norman McLeod Rogers: In view of what has been
said, I do not think it is necessary to add other words. The words "other person" would seem to be broad enough to include an attorney. There is no desire to exclude any attorney, nor is there any reason why he should be excluded because of the present wording.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the end of the old
section there appeared after the word "public" the words "whether consumers, producers or others." I am curious to know why they are omitted from the present section.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The intention here is to
relate this to the earlier definition of the type of activity which is regarded as constituting the offence; that is, the offence against the interest of the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the minister will see, if he will look at line 31 of section 2, these very words "whether consumers, producers or others." Why was it not thought desirable to reproduce them in section 14 so as to maintain consistency? The offence must be shown to be against the interest of the whole public, and if you add the words I have quoted you

will preserve that consistency as between section 2, the interpretation clause, and the section now before us.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That might very well be
done. I would ask the Minister of Justice to move an amendment to that effect.


Ernest Lapointe: I move
that after the word "public" at the end of section 14 there be added the words "whether consumers, producers or others."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-Preliminary inquiry.
Ernest Edward Perley: Does the minister consider this clause really necessary? I am not a lawyer, but this section seems to me to give power to the commissioner to make investigations into charges with respect to combines. Would he not properly make some preliminary inquiry into any allegation before proceeding with an investigation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The commissioner acts
under the direction of the minister, and in the past it has been found that there is much to be said for a preliminary inquiry. It will be understood that sometimes vexatious applications are made, and it appears desirable that there should be a preliminary inquiry of this sort to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to justify a further investigation.


Ernest Edward Perley: I see that; it is
quite evident. But would he not have power in any case to make some investigation before he started the inquiry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister answers that question I would ask him to look carefully at the language of the section: (a) the commissioner " shall on application made under the last preceding section" or (b) "on direction by the minister." I doubt the wisdom of that; I say so with all deference. I am not speaking in any personal sense but I doubt whether it should be for the minister, without anybody making an affidavit or a declaration, to say: Go ahead and hold a preliminary investigation regarding these people. And (c) " or may whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that a combine may exist." That refers to the commissioner. Surely that is not quite the proper way to put the investigating powers of this statute into operation. What we start with is the presumption that the public interest is affected. Six citizens have directed attention to a condition and given reasons for their belief that a combine exists, and then the

Combines Investigation Act
commissioner acts. Now we are adding a section which declares that when he does get that complaint he may make a preliminary investigation, and with that, as the member for Argenteuil (Sir George PeTley) has said, we are wholly in accord. But we add two other things. We say that the commissioner himself, of his own motion, may act, which is putting into the hands of one man a power that is certainly not consistent with our general conception of judicial fairness.


Ernest Lapointe: But the commission could do it under the existing act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but what I say is that now we are dealing with the act in the light of present day conditions and we should deal with it as of 1937. I say that it is not consistent with our general conception of judicial fairness that we should put that power into the hands of one man.


Ernest Lapointe: It is now only two years since 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but look what has happened; you are there and I am here.


Ernest Lapointe: There is something in that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And according to the Minister of Labour a great public good has accrued. Be that as it may, I do not think it is sound to place in the hands of one man, whether he be a minister or anyone else, the power of his own mere motion, because he thinks that a certain condition exists, to start the machinery of investigation. I believe that the general principle that six citizens should make complaint is a sound basis on which to put the machinery into operation. 1 must say that I protest strongly against this method, despite the fact that it may have been adopted a year or two ago. I did not have leisure then to examine statutes as I have now, and I daresay the minister's experience will bear that out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The previous section concerned a commission of more than one person, three or five, or whatever the number of members of the tariff board may be. It is altogether different to say that one person shall move in the matter. There is a great deal of difference between the action of one person and the collective action of three or five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister look at the difference in language between the old section and the one now before us. The old section provided that the commission should act " whenever it has reason to believe that a combine exists "; this section merely says " has reasonable cause to believe that a combine may exist." There is a distinct difference there. One was a commission of three, presided over by an ex-judge, and the other is one man without legal training, who will arrogate to himself the right to say that in his opinion there is a combine and then start the machinery of the law. He might do it for any reason in the world except the public interest; he might be annoyed about something.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He can act without the minister's knowledge or approval.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, just because he had a bad night.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the past these preliminary inquiries have been initiated in the manner indicated; that is to say, prior to the setting up of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission the minister did have power to initiate a preliminary investigation. I do think there is something to be said for the retention of that power of initiation on the part of the minister. It may not be possible at all times to find six persons who are willing to make the application. It is possible that evidence may come to the minister which convinces him that a situation does exist which calls for preliminary inquiry. In that case he must take the responsibility for instituting the inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is governmental responsibility, which I fully understand.


Ernest Edward Perley: What about the next part:
or may whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that a combine may exist.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That has been a power exercised prior to 1935 by the registrar under the combines aot, and not a few preliminary inquiries were carried out in that way. I might read section 12 in the act of 1923:
Whenever such application shall be made to the registrar, or whenever the registrar shall have reason to believe that a combine exists or is being formed, or whenever so directed by the minister, the registrar shall cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters, whether of fact or of law, with respect to the said alleged combine as he shall consider necessary to inquire into with the view of determining whether a combine exists or is being formed.
I think, as a matter of fact, that the use made of the machinery for preliminary inquiry has been very salutary. That is, it has in some cases avoided further inquiries which would not have disclosed that a combine actually existed. Probably the registrar, or in this case the commissioner, who is in constant touch with the act and its administration, would be better able to determine the wisdom
Combines Investigation Act

of carrying out a preliminary inquiry than anyone else. If it is done under the direction of the minister, then obviously the minister must take full responsibility.


Mr. MacLENNAN:: I am more apprehensive of the power placed in the hands of six persons under section 14. Possibly six competitors of some business firm may make application; then, by section 15, this preliminary inquiry must be instituted. The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr Kinley) said that there ought to be a good deal of circumspection in regard to starting an inquiry into anyone's business. Suppose nothing detrimental to the public was found, the very fact of an inquiry being started does not look well for a firm or corporation. I prefer that the minister or someone responsible to the people should start an investigation rather than some six men who possibly are not responsible.


Mr KINLEY:: I think the preliminary investigation is for the protection of industry, and there should be no publicity connected with it. If six persons make an application, the minister will have a preliminary inquiry. No one is hurt much by a preliminary inquiry, but he is hurt by a public inquiry, because business is based upon confidence and credit, and there is always a certain stigma about a public inquiry. I think the preliminary inquiry is for the protection of industry more than anything else, so that trivial and vindictive reports may be thrown out-


Norman McLeod Rogers: No preliminary inquiry has ever been held in public. I think that does bear on the point raised by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacLennan). I think there is something to be said for making it possible for a preliminary inquiry to be instituted by a commissioner. It is conceivable that you might have a minister who was not sympathetic to the administration of the act, and if his direction were required he might prevent preliminary inquiries which obviously were desirable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is the whole basis of responsible government. Surely the minister with his wide knowledge of constitutional government would not put that up. The minister, whoever he is, would have to take the responsibility for it before parliament and the people.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Many commissions operate without going to the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that the minister consider seriously striking out all the words between "minister" in line 37 and "cause" in line 39-"or may whenever he has

reasonable cause to believe that a combine may exist"-for this reason: all he has to do is to speak to his minister, and as the minister directs, that is the end. The responsibility becomes the responsibility of the government and is thus a public matter. That is the proper course. The question of ministerial responsibility is the basis; the government takes the responsibility. The commissioner should not be a law to himself. This bureaucracy should not be set up; the matter should be under the control of the minister. The commissioner comes to the minister and says: I believe a combine may exist here. The minister asks: What is your evidence?-Well, I will not consider that at all. And that ends it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The trade and industry commission had just that power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a commission of three people presided over by a judge.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But I take it the constitutional point is not affected by the difference between one commissioner and three.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but the difference is that in the one case it is: "there is reason to believe," in the other it actually may exist. You have a commissioner appointed who holds office and is not responsible to anybody, and he says: I exercise my best judgment. He goes to his minister, or writes him a letter or telephones him, and makes a memorandum of it afterwards, and he says: I have reason to believe a combine exists here. Then the minister says: I direct a preliminary inquiry. But this is widely different. To give the commissioner power to do it of his own volition is a negation of our whole theory of responsible government. It is an arbitrary exercise of power arrogated to one man who is not responsible to anybody. I think that is wrong, and if the minister will just give it a moment's thought I am sure he will say it is wrong.


John James Kinley: Under this section the minister has nothing to do with the preliminary inquiry if six people make an application.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is true.


John James Kinley: But if an investigation is to be started by the department I think the minister, who is responsible to the people, should take the responsibility for commencing that inquiry, and the commissioner should not be able to start inquiries of his own volition.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I quite see the weight of the argument in support of the contention made by the right hon. leader of

Combines Investigation Act
the opposition and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I do think, however, that if it would be a breach of constitutional responsibility to allow this in the case of one commissioner, it would be equally so if the commission consisted of three members. I really cannot see the material distinction there. You might have three members of the trade and industry commission just as much under a temptation as a single commissioner to carry out inquiries which ought not to be instituted. I take it the leader of the opposition would also accept that view of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say for a moment that the fact that any such provision is there made it right in the one case any more than it is now; but here we are dealing with a single commissioner. I simply say that it is a negation of ministerial responsibility to create a situation such as this, which I think the minister would be the first to condemn. From what I know of the two hon. gentlemen who sit to his immediate left there is no doubt about what they have always thought.
Mr. IvINLEY: If six people in Canada want an inquiry, the commissioner goes ahead and holds one; the inquiry must go on. But if it is to be a matter of departmental or governmental policy, surely the man to take the sole responsibility for that is the minister, who is responsible to the people. He should say whether or not that inquiry should proceed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will ask my colleague the Minister of Justice to move the amendment suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: I move that all the words in line 38 of section 15, and the words "a combine may exist" in line 39 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Investigations.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a very real difficulty in connection with this section. Under section 16 the minister may review the decision of the commissioner before anything is done. Under section 17 it will be seen that if it is decided that further investigation is justified the commissioner, not the minister shall cause an investigation to be made. First the commissioner must hold the preliminary inquiry, and this again leaves it to him without any control by anybody. I suggest that the words "with the approval
of the minister" should be inserted, which would cause this section to read:
If after a preliminary inquiry the commissioner decides that further investigation is justified, with the approval of the minister he shall cause an investigation to be made-
I think that is the basis of this whole act, judging from what has been said from time to time. I should like the minister to consider it from that angle.


John James Kinley: The point is that the commissioner must get the consent of the minister to stop, but he can go ahead on his own responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. Before the minister deals with that, may I point out to him what I consider to be one of the most difficult features of this bill. This section provides that the commissioner shall make inquiries concerning all such matters, whether of fact or of law, and so on. There have been real difficulties in this connection. What capacity has the commissioner to deal with questions of law? I think what the Prime Minister said this morning is the essence of it; an investigation is an inquiry into the facts, and when we say that the commissioner is going to investigate all such matters, whether of fact or of law, at least we should have someone who is qualified to do so. From what was said this morning by the Prime Minister I gathered that in his judgment this was essentially an investigation of facts, and that was my judgment always. When you talk about a commissioner untrained in law investigating questions of law, I wonder if you are not going just a bit far. It is bad enough, as the Minister of Transport would say, to have these high-powered lawyers investigating these matters, but when we have someone without any legal experience charged with the responsibility of investigating matters whether of fact or of law, where do we land?


John James Kinley: Does not the minister take responsibility under subsection (2) of section 16 in any case? That subsection reads:
On written request of the applicants or on his own motion, the minister may review the decision of the commissioner under this section, and the decision of the minister shall be final and conclusive and shall not he subject to appeal or review.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The power to stop is in the hands of the minister, but the power to start is solely in the hands of the commissioner, after a preliminary inquiry. Perhaps it would be well if the minister would look into that section also.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so. Perhaps this section might stand.
Section stands.

Combines Investigation Act
On section 18-Requirement of written returns.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the hon. gentleman who sang out "Carried" so loudly has looked at this section. He is a man of business, and I wish he would just look at it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no change in the principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last part is the essence of it, with respect to contracts or agreements. I have heard complaints made about the character of the information required not being of any value. I speak now from the standpoint of experience. The last part certainly is essential.
-a full disclosure of all contracts or agreements which the person named in the notice may have at any time entered into with any other person, touching or concerning the business of the said person named in the notice.
That is clear. The very essence of a combine, as defined by section 2, there becomes the issue. But look ait the rest of it. It is a very arbitrary power to hand to one man. Consider what the consequence may be.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But is this not relevant to the point? Quite true that when you are dealing with a combine or combination as outlined in the earlier definition, there would presumably be evidence of contracts and agreements; but if you are dealing with a monopoly, trust or merger, that would not necessarily be the case. Surely in order to prove activities against the interests of the public it might be necessary to have access to documents other than agreements and contracts concerning the particular business in question.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall clause 18 carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; but I am not going to waste more time about it.


Ernest Lapointe: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 19-Investigation after requiring written returns.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a new section.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This, and section 20.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part of it is new, and part of it is a combination. If the Minister of Justice will look at section 19 he will see *how contrary to some of the general views of jurisprudence it runs. A commissioner is to do all this. He is now investigating a question of fact and law and he says: If after

receipt of these returns made in compliance with the act I consider the circumstances so justify I may do so and so. What does that mean? If he considers circumstances so justify, he may enter and pick up my books. He may do that, after he gets the return. If no return is made,-
-within a time set in the notice requiring such return or within such further time as the commissioner may upon application allow, the commissioner may investigate the business, or any part thereof, of the person making or failing to make such return, and may enter and examine the premises, books, documents and records of or in the possession or control of such person.
That puts a direct premium on not making a return. If :he makes a return they take his books; if he does not make a return, they take his books. Therefore it would be better not to do it. That would be the obvious conclusion with respect to that section. That did happen, as a matter of fact.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This would appear to be a question of policy in connection with the administration of the act. Section 19 provides for the investigation of the business and the records of persons who have been required to give information. I might say that this section is to the same effect as section 15 of the former act. It was repealed by the amendment of 1935. In the present instance t.he word "commissioner" is U9ed instead of the words "registrar" and "registrar or the minister".


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given some reasons why it was repealed in 1935. I do ask the minister and members of the committee to look at the true significance of the section. It enables a man, one person, without reference to a minister or to a court to take possession of books of any person who has not made a return which he thinks is satisfactory. He arrogates to himself this right, and may say: "This is not satisfactory; I will take the books and he may go and take them.


John James Kinley: He has to find them first. I have heard of them being lost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I am leaving that out for the moment. The Minister of Justice will surely admit that this is an extraordinary power. In my observations I have known of no such power being placed in the hands of a layman clothed with a little brief authority, and without regard to anything except his own judgment, his own discretion and his own state of mind. He may say: I am not satisfied. Is that fair?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is his oath of office and his sense of public duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. As it stands, section 19 was not included in the 1935 act lor the reasons I have given. I cannot stand in my place as a member of the house and place in the hands of one man, without reference to his minister or reference to anybody, the power to say: I am not satisfied with what these people have given me, and I am now going in to clean out their books-with all the publicity incident thereto. That was done in this country. The mounted police did go and take books, because the commissioner was not satisfied.
I must say I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider any such power as that being granted in this twentieth century to any person who, for the moment, is clothed with the position of commissioner.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In order to disclose the existence of a combine under the act, obviously it may be of the utmost importance to have access speedily to all documents in possession of the person or persons whose activities are being investigated. We will assume that the minister initiates the investigation; he takes the responsibility for that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I take it that all that is contemplated here is pursuant to the investigation, and in order to determine whether or not evidence exists upon which a full inquiry may take place. Is it out of the way that a commissioner who is under instructions to carry out a preliminary inquiry of that kind should not have these full powers in order to obtain access to documents, so that he may determine whether or not there is sufficient case for further inquiry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has asked a fair question, but he has overlooked the section with which he is dealing.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Section 19.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it states that if, after the receipt by the commissioner of a return made in pursuance of his power as a result of a request made by him to the party,-
the commissioner shall consider that circumstances so justify, or if after a return under this act has been required none is made, or none is made within a time set in the notice requiring such return or within such further time-
-he may do so and so. He may go in and take possession of the books, documents and records in possession and control of such person, and may examine them. Now, mark you: What founds his authority? His mere state of mind. In other words, just because I say: I am going to do it; circumstances justify it.
Combines Investigation Act
What are the circumstances? If you go so far as to say that he may do so with the consent of the minister, and let the minister exercise his authority, then we have ministerial responsibility. But if you say that this man, who may possibly have ill feeling towards someone or may be dissatisfied with someone may say: Well, the circumstances justify it; I am going to walk in and take possession-you have a different position. He may walk in and take possession of the books. I do not think that is the twentieth century way of doing it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I suggest that this section stand for further consideration?
Section stands.
On section 20-Investigation into business of alleged parties to combine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned to the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon what is involved in this section. This is a delegation of power to somebody to enter and examine the premises, books, documents and so on of any person who the commissioner believes may be a party or privy to or have assisted in the formation or operation of [DOT] a combine. The section reads:
The commissioner shall have authority to investigate the business, or any part thereof, of any person who the commissioner believes may he a party or privy to or have assisted in the formation or operation of a combine, and he or his duly authorized representative may enter and examine the premises, books, documents and records of or in the possession or control of such person, and make copies of or retain any of such books, documents or records which the commissioner or his duly authorized representative believes may contain information relating to an offence against this act.
There is no gainsaying the general rule that a man is not bound to go into a witness box and incriminate himself; but now we are giving the commissioner authority to take his books and make copies therefrom. The reason given for this is that the circumstances are not satisfactory; and all the time you have in mind the desire to prosecute him for an offence made criminal by the statute. I think the minister will agree that that is going too far. It is going even farther than we regarded as sound when we were a bit hysterical at times.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can appreciate the difficulty created for the leader of the opposition by the wording of this section, but it seems to me that possibly he is exaggerating the likelihood of a commissioner carrying on an investigation of this kind in a vexatious manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been done.
Combines Investigation Act


Norman McLeod Rogers: We must also guard against going too far in the other direction and frustrating the purposes of the act; and I am a little fearful that if we should take the action suggested, we might bring about that effect. A commissioner would be acting in a quasi judicial capacity. In connection with many inquiries of this kind we have had to confer very wide powers upon those who conducted the investigation. We must not underestimate the organized ingenuity of those who set up combines, monopolies, and mergers for the purposes indicated. I think we must recognize that unless wide powers of this kind are made available, it may lie within the power of those who have got control against the public interest in the manner contemplated by this bill, to escape entirely the consequences. I do not wish to take an unreasonable view of this. Other sections have been allowed to stand for further consideration, but I should like to guard against weakening the bill.


John James Kinley: The purpose of this bill is to protect the public interest, but sometimes it is hard to designate just what is the public interesl. Many times the public interest is a divided interest as between different elements in the community. What I might think was eminently in the public interest, some one else might think was not. The whole thing is left in a fog of uncertainty. The minister said this morning that when you saw a red light, you stopped. But a red light is a definite thing; you know what it is. Who is going to determine beforehand what is the public interest? I realize that this is only an investigating act; but we must not forget that what might be considered at one time to be in the public interest might not be so considered it another time. It might be regarded as hard sometimes for a business concern to decide just what is not in the public interest.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the last resort it would be for the commissioners who undertake the investigations, and more definitely for the courts which will give judgments when informations have been laid, to decide what is in the public interest. A series of decisions have been created which indicate the kind of business practices which are against public interest. I do not say that that body of law is rigid and unyielding, I agree with my hon. friend when he says that it may be subject to change under certain conditions. There may be a change in our own sense of public obligation as it affects business. Perhaps it would not be too far-fetched an analogy to suggest that under a bill such as this there might be developed a body of business equity which would be considered as rules in the governing of business, particularly with regard 
to those organizations which, because of the tremendous power they have acquired, are affected to a great degree by their obligations to the public. I do not think it would be possible to indicate in advance precisely what would be against the public interest, except possibly in the extreme cases of price control, wage exploitation or other matters of that kind.


John James Kinley: To cite a specific case, suppose the fish companies on the Atlantic coast decided that a higher price should be paid to the fishermen for the fish they delivered. Some one in Canada might say that that was not in the public interest. Coming from the district I do, I would say that anything that would raise the price of this commodity would be in the public interest of my constituents. We have only to listen to the discussions in this house to see where the public interest lies. "Where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also." Anyone who can define public interest with certainty is doing something which business men find it very difficult to do. There is an added difficulty in the fact that if ultimately an act is found not to be in the public interest, very drastic penalties are incurred; so it is well to know beforehand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the minister has not followed me with respect to section 20. The section is divided into two parts. The first part authorizes the commissioner to carry on the investigation of a business, and the second part enables the commissioner or his duly authorized representative to enter and examine the premises, books, documents and records. I once saw an effort made to take books from a solicitor's office.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I be given the permission of the house to make this motion, which relates to business near the close of the session:
That, for the remainder of the session, all private bills from the Senate, when received from that house, be read a first and second time, and referred forthwith, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of bills be suspended in reference thereto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect of that is to send them to the committee at once?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Trans-Canada Air Lines
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have one *other motion:	I move:
That, on Tuesdays and Fridays for the balance of the present session, unopposed private and public bills shall have precedence during the hour devoted to private and public bills.
That is merely to prevent one bill blocking all the others.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 91, respecting the Premier Trust *company-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Muriel Beatrice Brown Gray-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Joseph -Gedeon Emilien Tanguay-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Mabel Marjorie Powter Johnston-Mr. Jacobs.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. 74, to establish a corporation to be known as Trans-Canada Air Lines-Mr. Howe-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain the present condition of the Trans-Canada airway, giving some idea of the different types of airports and landing fields, and of the services that are to be supplied; also, and more particularly, some idea of when he expects the air line to be in operation and the time required for flying across Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At present we have airports at intervals of forty or fifty miles from Vancouver to Halifax. These fields are in various stages of completion. From Winnipeg to Vancouver they are practically completed, having a minimum landing strip of 3,500 feet. Most of the fields have two way, and some three way, strips. Farther east the landing fields between
Montreal and Winnipeg are now completed sufficiently for smaller craft. Some additional work must be done on these fields this summer, but I believe that by autumn the fields in that area will have been completed. From Montreal to Halifax many of the fields are under contract, but I am not sure when they will be sufficiently completed to permit the landing of larger aircraft. I do not know whether it will be this fall, but certainly we shall have these fields in operation early next year.
The beacon equipment, that is the radio beam equipment, has been purchased for the line from Winnipeg to Vancouver and is in different stages of erection. Equipment has also been ordered for the stretch between Winnipeg and Montreal. As regards the weather service, we have a skeleton crew trained and ready to establish the service on that route on very short notice. We have trained key men, and it is only a matter of expanding the service to take care of the various points that need to be covered. We intend to install teletype between fields so that the weather service can be carried on from any observation station, and the condition of the weather telephoned to the aeroplane wherever it may be.
We have laid the foundation for a first-class service which will be put into operation just as soon as the corporation can be set up and the necessary flying equipment delivered.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us approximately when it will be started, which parts of the route are to be flown first, and also the times from Montreal to Vancouver and from Montreal to Halifax?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is difficult to state a definite date because that is entirely dependent upon the delivery of the necessary flying equipment. The demand for aeroplanes for military purposes is taxing all manufacturers to capacity so I cannot be very definite about the date. Possibly September, I should think.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about Ontario?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the scheduled time from Montreal to Vancouver is sixteen hours; passengers leaving Montreal at eight in the evening will get into Vancouver at noon the next day. I have not seen the schedule from Montreal to Halifax, but I presume the time will be about five hours.


Thomas Langton Church: I cannot refrain from
making a few remarks about this particular corporation to be known as Trans-Canada Air Lines, in view of the bitter experience which
Trans-Canada Air Lines

this country has had with the Canadian National Railways in every department of its service-railways, ocean service and hotels. The Canadian National system is composed of some thirty or forty different entities, and there has never been public ownership of railways in Canada. The national system is the embodiment of all the mistakes of private ownership. As soon as we have got rid of those mistakes, all those combinations in restraint of trade, the government launches a new system, and Canada will live to regret the day it ever set up a corporation like this. Public ownership under the present minister has not a chance, whether on land, on sea, or in the air. The Canadian National was never a public ownership organization; on the contrary, it is anti-public ownership, for everything has been moved to Montreal.
I have given some study to this bill and I cannot see the use of all the strange language the minister has put into it. The country is going to put up the money but is going to have practically no control over the corporation. I cannot see why the government wants to create a transportation system of this sort, for the Canadian National has not been such a glorious success in transporting people on land or on the ocean, nor has its hotel service been so very successful. Every one can plainly see that the people of Canada are sick and tired of the way in which the road is run under public ownership, and now the government is going in for an air service. Such a service may be all right in England and the United States, but I can tell the minister that he will make the mistake of his life if he puts this service under the control of the national system. It should be completely owned by the public, a thoroughgoing public ownership venture, because the public will have to put up the deficits. Wait until you see the cost next year. Who is the vice-president anyway? Are we going to have a lot of office boys, clerks and students converted from laymen into vice-presidents? Who is the technical expert? Are there going to be in this air service any of the airmen who served in the war? I venture to say that politics will be rampant in the system just as it has been in the Canadian National. I wonder whether any of our great pilots like Bishop and some of our other Canadians will be employed?
This corporation system should not be embarked on; it has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Take the ocean services, costing $1,500,000; the boats were put on the scrap heap for $50,000 when, with a little vision, they could have been used to 
carry coal from the maritimes to Ontario. Now the minister is going to launch a system in the air; he is going to build castles in the air, and there will be nothing left of public ownership. They are going to launch this system with its high-sounding name, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and what will happen after that? Parliament divests itself of all control over the money invested; parliament will be told by this high-sounding commission that it has nothing to do with it at all.
I have been in parliament longer than the minister, and I was surprised the other day when he replied to a polite question that I asked: "1. No information. 2. Answered by No. 1." That will be all the control that we shall have over this air service which he is going to establish, with presidents and vicepresidents, and secretaries, and a whole retinue of people. I venture to say the minister will not go up in the air in it himself. I would not, if they run the air service the way they run the land and hotel services. The people of Canada are sick and tired of this hide-and-seek corporation business, this multiplicity of commissions and committees, gambling with the taxpayers' money, and with parliament divested of all control.
What about the rates? Does no one control the rates? We have a railway commission; is it going to have any control? What about damages? If the airships are run the same as the railways, who is going to pay? The country spent hundreds of millions on Canadian National branch lines almost to the sun and the moon and the stars, under the high-powered Sir Henry Thornton in the big-eye days of this country. This Canadian National Railway bought out the Central Vermont, and what was the experience in connection with that bankrupt concern? What happened to the corporation? What became of the rolling stock? Hon. members know from bitter experience something of the history of the thirty or forty corporations composing the Canadian National Railways; what became of them all? Political administration and bankruptcy and all that kind of thing.
Do hon. members think Mr. Hungerford is going to administer these air lines? His work with the railway has not been such a great success, and now are we going to have him control these air lines, and castles in the air?
I have no faith in the present bill. It is too full of metaphysical language which the ordinary layman cannot understand. " Just as they do in England " is the cry. So far as the stock is concerned, the country is going to have a vaster system of speculation. Who wants to take stock in a concern like that, in which the government has 51 per cent, when they

Trans-Canada Air Lines
should own 100 per cent? It is funny to see how the government shifts its position from day to day, doing everything by fits and starts, and nothing long. They wanted 100 per cent control of the Bank of Canada; and then they got down to a corporation system.
As to the experts, I should like to know whether the air marshal and Colonel Bishop were consulted about this. Did any experts recommend such a set-up? If so, I should like to read their report. If this is public ownership, the quicker we get rid of it the better. Public ownership has never had a chance under hon. gentlemen opposite, and never will have. They set up a committee known as the committee on railways and shipping; if this bill goes through, are the air line estimates to come before the house or before that committee?
We have a radio broadcasting commission, and they will not tell you who the officers are. The minister declined to give that information; but then the Prime Minister came back and the information was forthcoming. That committee on railways and shipping is the biggest whitewash concern on this continent. They sit around a table and call the first item. Then they say: Now let us get on to number two-no information given at all. When the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was Minister of Railways he told me in the house: You can go to the committee and they will answer your questions. I went there; but could I get any information? No, the officers of the railway declined to give me a copy of the budget. That is all the control parliament has got.
This bill means going in for a vaster system of deficits than ever. The present minister is going to set up a sort of namby-pamby commission that will be up in the air, because the railways are up in the air all the time. This will result in increases in income tax and sales tax; and who pays? The industrial provinces, which do not want this kind of thing. Ontario is for public ownership of this system. We have seen the results of private ownership of the railways, and are sick and tired of the way our province has been used. Our assets have been squandered, and we have seen huge votes of money passed, so much so that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said the other night that all the provinces would have been bankrupt if they had had to pay their guarantees and the cash advances and the other hand-outs and land grants which have been given to this railway.
This corporation would be all right if the country owned it, but it does not. We are
told that we have 51 per cent; well, the politicians will own the other 49 per cent, and they will control those who own the 51 per cent, namely, the government of the day.
I am absolutely opposed to this bill. It has no redeeming features at all. I would not want to travel on these airships, and I do not think anyone would who knows the way the railways and the ocean services are run. I am absolutely opposed to this bill, as I believe every public ownership man in this country is. We shall not own anything at all; you will have a commission and a committee of ground officers who will just do as they are told by the government of the day-if they do not, their job will be in jeopardy. The Minister of Transport is not an air man. I do not know whether he has ever been up in the air, except that he was the other day when he replied to me "Answered by number one." In Toronto the city owns the street railway, and if that system is good enough for the municipalities it should be good enough for Canada.
This proposed air line is a private corporation. It is under quasi-government control, and competing against the land services of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. When it was proposed in 1923 that the railways should be permitted to issue commutation tickets to give them a chance to compete with motor traffic the administration of the day declined, and the result was that the business went to the motor trucks.


Mr. BARBER:: I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to the western area, say from Lethbridge to the coast. Have sufficient test flights been made to convince him that he can maintain a year-round service through to Vancouver, having regard to weather conditions? The minister is no doubt aware that during certain times of the year there are storms in the mountains and fog conditions on the coast, and I was wondering if enough test flights had been carried out to enable the minister to say that a service can be maintained during twelve months of the year. I should also like to remind the minister that I understand consideration has been given ito the establishment of an airport at Chilliwack, which is just outside the fog area. Negotiations have not been completed, but I believe he would find an airport there extremely useful. No doubt he will consider that in the near future; at least I hope so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have tested that route through the mountains very thoroughly, and we believe we have one of the best of the four transcontinental routes now being used. We are studying the question of an alternative
Trans-Canada Air Lines

landing field to take care of fog conditions on the coast, and before autumn I think we shall have that problem solved; we have not come to a final decision about it as yet. We expect to be able to fly twelve months in the year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What pass are you going through?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Qrowsnest pass.


Howard Charles Green: In order that we may have the whole picture before us in considering the bill, would the minister explain the present position with regard to the trans-Atlantic air service? The other night he said that Canada's share of the capital required, for the present at least, would be $1,250,000. I should like him to tell us just how Canada is interested in the trans-Atlantic air service; when it is expected to be inaugurated; whether or not it will be a year-round service, and what length of time this trans-Atlantic flight is expected to take.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A tentative arrangement has been discussed between Great Britain, Ireland and Canada, which provides that Imperial Airways at their own expense will pioneer the route from Great Britain. After regular services have been established and operated for three months, the proposal is that a company will be formed in which Great Britain will have fifty-one per cent, Ireland and Canada twenty-four and a half per cent each, and that company will take over the service. Imperial Airways have already built the equipment necessary for the route, and initial flights are expected very soon. A reciprocal arrangement has been entered into with the United States under which Pan-American Air Lines have joint rights with Imperial Airways to fly this route. The president of PanAmerican Air Lines was in Ottawa some two weeks ago to discuss one or two details in this connection and told me that he fully expected that the service would be carrying passengers and mail by next autumn, which is rather more optimistic than the view of Imperial Airways. However, I think the inauguration of regular services across the Atlantic will come certainly within the next twelve or eighteen months. Those who are expert in flying have no doubt whatever that a regular service for passengers and mail covering twelve months of the year can and will be established across the north Atlantic.


Howard Charles Green: Will Pan-American Air Lines fly via Montreal, or will they go direct from New York to Newfoundland?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The arrangement provides that Montreal is to be the port, with Shediac, New Brunswick, as an alternative port to be tested.


Howard Charles Green: What time is expected to be required for the trans-Atlantic flight?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is still in the experimental
stage, but it will be somewhere' around twenty-four to twenty-six hours.


Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister has
any information regarding the inauguration of a proposed air mail route from Japan to California with landing fields ini British Columbia. An article appeared in the press not long ago stating that Japan was about to inaugurate an air mail service to the United States, using the lower Fraser valley as a stopping-off place. I wonder if the minister has any information on that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no information whatever, except that I saw the same article in the press. No negotiations whatever are pending for the landing of the airplanes of foreign countries on the west coast.


Mr. PURDY:: May I ask the minister if he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the proposed extension of the line from Moncton to Sydney? If he has anything discouraging to say I hope he will not answer me.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the moment we are concentrating on a main line from coast to coast. There are several problems having to do with branches such as the one mentioned by my horn friend, but the development of those will have to wait until we can get the service established on the main route. After all, that is the most important feature; branch line operation would be of no value in any event until the main service is established.


Howard Charles Green: Are any negotiations under
way for a British trans-Pacific air service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Before we embark
upon this project, has the minister made any sort of canvass to find out what patronage he can expect for this line. Has he any statistics, or any idea of how many people will be using this service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
René-Antoine Pelletier: I do not know whether
the minister can answer this question, but has he any reason to believe that the cost of air transportation in Canada will at least compare favourably with the cost in the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are basing our initial
plans on the theory that the costs in Canada will be entirely competitive with those in the United States. At the present time the fare in the United States is six cents per mile, and we have every reason to believe that unless that rate is changed, that will be the fare in Canada also.


Thomas Langton Church: Will there be any control over rates? Will the railway commission have jurisdiction over rates and the safety of the public? Will there be any passes in connection with this air line? Will it be like some parts of the Canadian National, over-run with deadheads? Who will have control of it? Will this corporation be subject to the rules and regulations of the railway commission in regard to rates, equipment, safety devices and passes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The setting up of this corporation has been full of disappointments, and one of them is that we are unable to place it under the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners, through an unhappy accident to one of our bills. There will be no free passes; that is not done on airways.


Robert Fair: Would the minister inform the committee if it is the intention of the government to establish feeder lines in the various provinces to link up with the trans-Canada air mail service, and if so whether these contracts will be made with private companies; or does the government intend to establish other lines in the same way as the one under discussion at the present time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This line has to do purely with the trans-Canada service. So far as connections from the north are concerned, I feel sure they will be operated by private services which are occupying that territory to-day. So far as international connections are concerned, I presume that for national reasons we would wish to have those services operated
by the Trans-Canada, Air Lines. But t.he main purpose of Trans-Canada Air Lines, is to set up a trans-continental service.


Robert Fair: My reason for asking is that a few days ago I had correspondence from the Lloydminster board of trade. Lloydminster is a town situated partly in Saskatchewan and partly in Alberta. Apparently it is quite awake, and has been for the past number of years, to all the possibilities connected with trade and industry. At a recent meeting of the board of trade the following resolution was unanimously adopted and sent, I believe, to the Minister of Transport, the Postmaster General, and to myself:
Whereas it is desirable in order to encourage the training of pilots in Saskatchewan, and
Whereas it is still more desirable that these pilots when trained should be able to secure employment;
Therefore be it resolved that the board of trade go on record as favouring the granting of contracts for the carrying of air mail on feeder lines to the main route of the trans-anada air mail service to Saskatchewan companies only, in so far as Saskatchewan mail service is concerned
And be it resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Transport, the Postmaster General at Ottawa, and also to our local member at Ottawa.
I might add that there is the same request from the province of Alberta, I think it only fair, when we train pilots in the provinces, that we should make use of them there instead of bringing in others from outside.


Thomas Langton Church: In the event of an accident on the Trans-Canada Air Lines, as it is crown property and carries insurance, will passengers have the right to sue the corporation without a fiat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This will not be crown
property.


Robert Fair: Is it the intention of the government to use pilots trained in the various provinces for the service in those provinces? I am referring to the feeder lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This being a Canadian line we will use the best available Canadian pilots we can find. '


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would you call the paragraphs separately, Mr. Chairman?
Paragraphs (a) to (e) inclusive agreed to.
On paragraph (f)-Gross revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not the term
"gross revenue" be defined as the total
Trans-Canada Air Lines

revenue earned by the corporation from all sources? It is difficult to understand why the definition should be put in its present form.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Trans-Canada lines refers to
lines running across Canada, and the mail subsidies set out apply only to those lines. That safeguard is inserted in case other services should be undertaken. It is to make it quite clear that the provision refers only to the trans-Canada air mail services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is why I asked the question. What follows subsequently deals with the "gross revenue" of the enterprise. Later on there is a description of "operating expenses," and it is provided that there will be-
-an allowance equal to five per centum per annum on the capital invested in the trans-Canada lines, an allowance for depreciation to be determined in accordance with the terms of the trans-Canada contract, premiums for the insurance of passengers, goods and equipment and such other items of operating expense as may properly be allowed in accordance with the terms of the trans-Canada contract aforesaid.
The difficulty I see is that if you use the the terms "gross revenue" and "operating expenses" in the interpretation section dealing with the corporation as a whole, you are going to do violence to company accounting, as distinguished from that section. Surely "gross revenue" means everything the corporation receives from every source, as it does with respect to any other corporation. But in the present instance it is being separated for a particular purpose. What should be said is "gross revenue," for such and such purposes means so and so; for with respect to the enterprise as a whole it would be absurd.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I
point out that it is the revenue earned by the corporation from the operation of the trans-Canada lines. That is specific and definite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But under the Companies Act that is not the gross revenue, and the provision of the Companies Act would apply. The gross' revenue of a corporation is all its resources-all its income from all sources. But for the purposes of this particular measure the minister says: I desire to limit the term "gross revenue" as applied to the trans-Canada lines to such and such a definition, and "operating expenses" in the same way. Now-


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out there is a
distinction in the measure between Trans-Canada Air Lines, which is the name of the corporation, and trans-Canada Lines. We wish

only to subsidize or to provide a mail subsidy to trans-Canada Lines. It may be that for reasons peculiar to the situation this corporation may engage in other services. If so, we wish to have nothing in the way of guarantee on that operation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not as though this
matter were complicated or difficult. This is a corporation, and it comes within the terms of the Companies Act. Part III of the Companies Act as applied to the gross revenue of this corporation means its income from all sources. But the minister has said, quite properly, that for certain accounting purposes and for the purposes of our obligation to make good the deficit for two years, he desires to limit the use of the words "gross revenue" and "operating expenses" to a special meaning in connection with trans-Canada Lines, and not more than that. Then, if he is going to do that, his own experience as a business man must tell him at once that the words "gross revenue" for the purposes of section 14 of this measure mean so and so, because you cannot take away from the ordinary meaning of the word "corporation." I do not care what is said about it-"Gross revenue" means all its income, and "operating expenses" means its expenditures. But for the specific purposes of trans-Canada Lines the minister desires to limit it, and he should use appropriate words for that purpose. Otherwise he will have trouble.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the purposes of this act "gross revenue" has the meaning we give it. Anywhere it occurs in the bill it has the particular meaning in this definition. It may have other meanings in other places, but for the purposes of this bill it means what appears in the definition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part III of the Companies Act applies to this company under section 18.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Wherever the words "gross revenue" are used in this bill they have the meaning as given in the interpretation clause. If my right hon. friend will refer to paragraph (b) he will see that "Corporation" means Trans-Canada Air Lines. "Gross revenue" means the total revenue earned by the corporation, that is by the Trans-Canada Air Lines, from the operation of the Trans-Canada Lines. Where the words "gross revenue" are used in this particular bill they have a specific definition which relates to a particular purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will refer to section 3 he will see that certain persons are to comprise a corporation to be known as Trans-Canada Air Lines "Corporation" is

Trans-Canada Air Lines
interpreted as meaning Trans-Canada Air Lines. Therefore, it means the corporation created by this statute. Surely we cannot get beyond that. "Gross revenue" means the total revenue earned by Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Correct; Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the name of the company. It says "earned by the corporation."


Clarence Decatur Howe: From the operation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the operation of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Section 14 states:
The governor in council may authorize the minister to enter into a contract with the corporation (to be known as the trans-Canada contract) for the organization, operation and maintenance by the corporation of lines of aircraft (to be known as the trans-Canada lines) for the speedy and efficient transport across Canada and between and within the several provinces of passengers and goods.
That is clear, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 14 provides for the operation under this contract. Surely all the revenue derived by this corporation through the carrying out of that contract is to be part of its revenue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but it is contemplated that this corporation may undertake work outside of the contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They may carry passengers, but the earnings would constitute part of their gross earnings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They may undertake services outside of the contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to worry any more about it.
Paragraph (f) agreed to.
Paragraphs (g) and (h) agreed to.
On paragraph (i)-Operating expenses.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention of the government to guarantee that this company shall make five per cent on the capital invested ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.
Paragraph (i) agreed to.
Paragraphs (j),	(k),	(1),	(m) and (n)
agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6, subsection 1.-Board of Directors.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an extraordinary provision. The directors do not have to be shareholders in the enterprise, neither do they have to have permanent residence in this country. All they have to be is British subjects ordinarily resident in Canada. Having regard to the interpretation by the Department of Justice of what constitutes an ordinary resident of Canada as applied to taxation, we have no assurance of the directors of the company having a fixed residence in this country. Why should we not say that they shall be British subjects resident in Canada for a period of not less than blank years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
would be no objection to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Otherwise we will have a situation which the hon. member knows occurred in one case.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: This subsection states that the corporation shall be under the management of a board of directors composed of nine persons. Is there any significance to the number of directors? Is there to be a director appointed from each province?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Angus MacKinnon: Would the minister explain this subsection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We expect to appoint as directors men whom we think are best qualified to direct an aviation enterprise.


Mr. HEAPS:: Do I understand the minister to say that the investment in the company is to be guaranteed by the government to the extent of five per cent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rates for air mail after the initial period will be adjusted to cover the operating expenses and provide a return of five per cent on the capital. I may say that the profits are also limited to very much the same amount. The feeling is that in the long run the cheapest way is to pay the cost of the service, and this bill is designed to that end. There is a very slight margin of profit provided for in case the operation improves from year to year, but the general plan is that to begin with we shall pay the cost of the service.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Assuming that after three
years there is an operating deficit, will the government still pay five per cent on the capital invested?

Trans-Canada Air Lines


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is necessarily so, as in the event of there being a loss in the next two years there is no provision that it can be recovered at a later period.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That means that if after three or four years there is a deficit in/ the operations of this company, the companies which have invested to the extent of forty-nine per cent of the stock will be guaranteed five per cent on the amount they have invested. Either that, or the cost of air mail transportation will be increased to meet the deficit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government does not pay the five per cent. What the government does is to provide that operating expenses shall include five per cent return on the capital investment, and the deficit would be the difference between the operating expenses and the gross revenue.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Director British subject resident of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
suggestion of the leader of the opposition would be met, I think, by moving this amendment, which I now do:
To delete all the words after the word "subject" on line 40 and substitute the following, "who has been resident in Canada for not less than five years preceding the passing of this act."
Is that satisfactory?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anything is satisfactory that removes the uncertainty about " ordinary residence."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that twenty years from now that would mean that he must have been resident in Canada for twenty-five years. Should it not be, before the date of his appointment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not following the details of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: " Before the date of his election or appointment."


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment is:
To delete all the w'ords after the word "subject" on line 40 and substitute the following, "who has been resident in Canada for not less than five years preceding the date of his election or appointment."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.

On section 6, subsection 3-Election and appointment of directors.
Mr. YOUNG:: I was going to ask the minister why the six directors should be elected by the shareholders. Provision is made for at least fifty-one per cent of the stock being owned by the Canadian National Railway. We appoint the directors of that railway-after all, it is government-owned-and I wonder whether it would not be in the best interests of the transport corporation if the directors were named by the government rather than by the shareholders.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are too prone to say that because we own the Canadian National Railway we operate it. That is not true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are striking
evidences of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We placed a body of business men in charge of the railway and we expect them to operate it. The Prime Minister is apt to say that the Minister of Transport runs it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He should know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of fact, if I run it, it gets very little attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a good deal of force in what was said by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young). It will be remembered that when this bill was drafted it did not provide for fifty-one per cent being owned by the Canadian National Railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was always the intention; the unexpressed intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is these unexpressed intentions which give rise to the view that the Canadian National Railway is being run by the government. But the expressed intention of the government now is that fifty-one per cent should be owned by the Canadian National Railway. That was not so when the bill was given its second reading. It strikes me that if we are now put in that position, the reverse of that position might not be unsound, and that the six directors should be appointed by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Capital shares.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Shares offered to C.N.R. and others.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to move an amendment to subsection 2.

Trans-Canada Air Lines


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
To strike out from subsection 2 all the words after the word "company" in the third line of the subsection, and add the following proviso to subsection 4: "Provided however that the Canadian National Railway Company shall not sell or dispose of more than 24,900 shares except with the approval of the governor in council


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that if the Minister of Transport and the minister who moved this amendment will give me their attention, they will see that a rather difficult situation is created by this amendment. The capital of S5,000,000 shall be divided into shares of one hundred dollars each-usually the wording is five thousand shares of one thousand dollars each or fifty thousand shares of one hundred dollars each, but that is unimportant. These shares shall be offered for subscription to the Canadian National Railway Company; "at par" I think should be added. I believe that is usual in a case of that kind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We come to subsection 3: "when the capital stock of the corporation has been fully subscribed." For our purposes it is fully subscribed at once when it is handed to the Canadian National Railway, because there is a subsequent provision in the bill providing for them finding the five million dollars, and subsection 3 will now have no relevancy in view of the change that is made in the later sections of the bill. That I think is quite apparent.
Then the Canadian National Railway Company is hereby authorized to subscribe for, underwrite, purchase, hold, and, subject to the provisions of this act, sell and dispose of the shares of the capital stock of the corporation, provided that it shall not sell more than 24,900 shares except with the approval of the governor in council. I suggest seriously to the minister that it would be better for him and better for this country, and would prevent any possible misunderstanding if we merely said, "except with the approval of parliament." This is a national enterprise, and it is not fair to the minister or to the government to put them in that position.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to move accordingly. As a matter of fact I thought it was that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to me that subsection 3 has no further purpose. Is the minister going to move to add the words "at par"?
31111-155}


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree with my right hon. friend that subsection 3 should be omitted, and will ask my colleague when we come to it to move an amendment accordingly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move to amend section 7 as follows:
To strike out from subsection 2 all the words after the word "company" in the third line of the subsection and to add the following proviso to subsection 4: "provided however that the Canadian National Railway Company shall not sell or dispose of more than 24,900 shares except with the approval of parliament."


Frederick George Sanderson: This takes the place of the first amendment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: And it is intended to add the words " at par " in the underwriting section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: And that the words " at par " be added at the end of subsection 2. I would ask my colleague also to move that subsection 3 be stricken out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. GRAY:: Subsection 1 provides that the capital is one hundred dollars par.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it does not say that the underwriting shall be at par. It is the underwriting that I am providing for.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Surely subsections 1 and 2 must be read together, and subsection 1 provides that the par value is one hundred dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the idea is that the underwriting shall be at par; that is, there is no discount on the underwriting.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes, I see. The only point is, supposing the underwriting is not possible at par. Does the right hon. gentleman say that that must be compulsory?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not only possible, but it is secured by a further clause in the bill that enables the Canadian National to raise the $5,000,000. That is to say, the underwriters are authorized to raise $5,000,000 by guarantee of the government, and that is the reason I suggest that the underwriting be made at par so as to remove any question about the company having the whole $5,000,000 in its treasury when the shares are underwritten and taken over by the railway.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The object which the leader of the opposition has in mind is a laudable one, that the company should secure the full
Trans-Canada Air Lines

amount mentioned. But suppose we sell bonds carrying a certain rate of interest; that might have to be variable if we are to get par out of it. I dio not see how you can put the shares on the market in the way the right hon. gentleman proposes, because the words "at par" might be embarrassing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a subscription of money; the Canadian National subscribes the money. Where that money is obtained is something else.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsections 2 and 3 as amended agreed to.
Subsection 4 agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Money subscribed for shares at the call of directors.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister's legal advisers will realize, I have no doubt, that this section is misplaced. The section provides:
The directors of the corporation may call for and demand from the shareholders thereof respectively all sums of money by them subscribed . . .
And so on. The directors of the corporation have nothing to do with the calling of shares. They have sold their shares to the underwriters for $5,000,000, and this section, [DOT]which is copied from the usual clause of this kind, has no place here.
This transaction is a simple one. The 'Canadian National underwrites the enterprise for $5,000,000 and provides the cash, and after that the matter is between them and the people who have subscribed, subject to certain approval by the minister.
This section has no place in the present set-up; it never has in a set-up of this kind. It is taken- from the standard form that applies to companies that are organized and offer shares to the public. We have underwritten our shares and that is the end of it, and we have nothing to do with calling up and buying old, played-out truck from companies. That is something to be done by the directors with the money they receive from the Canadian National, as provided for subsequently in this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is intended that while the capital shall be fully subscribed up to $5,000,000 it will be called only as needed; that is to say, we expect that for the service contemplated by the bill about $1,750,000 will be required. Later-we have no idea when-a further $1250,000 will be required to take over Canada's share in the ownership of the transatlantic service. The additional $2,000,000 is

reserved for future expansions and may never be called. The shares will be sold on the basis of paid-up value.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but the minister has overlooked the amendment he put in yesterday, which appears on page 5 of the reprinted bill:
To enable the Canadian National Railway Company to proceed forthwith to purchase the capital stock of the corporation, the governor in council, pending the issue, sale, pledge or other disposition of the aforesaid securities, may authorize advances to be made to the said company from the consolidated revenue fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty by the said company from the proceeds of the sale, pledge or other disposition of such securities.
That is to purchase forthwith the capital stock of the company. We are not providing for the payment of this by instalments; the agreement is to purchase the capital stock. If it is to be proceeded with in the way the minister now indicates, and I certainly appreciate his point, we have to have a different section from the one now before us.
If I follow the minister, he has provided by this bill that the entire capital stock issue shall be underwritten by the Canadian National Railways. That underwriting is in fact a purchase, as provided by the amendment of yesterday and now set out as subsection 4 of section 12, which I have just read. The minister makes it abundantly clear that the whole of that purchase price is not required at this moment, and I suggest -that appropriate words will have to be used in the various sections to show that the purchase price can be payable in such instalments as the directors may from time to time require. That, I gather from what he has said, is the purpose the minister has in mind. If he will look at the clause which was adopted yesterday, appearing on page 5 of the reprinted bill, he will appreciate the reason for the observation that I have made with respect to the section now under consideration. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Provision will have to be made for what I call instalment payment of the purchase price by the underwriters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The section my right hon. friend refers to is the usual section placed in branch line legislation giving statutory guarantee for the securities required. In connection with branch lines these securities are sold as the funds are required. It seems to me that the position here is the same. There is a continuing statutory guarantee for the funds

Trans-Canada Air Lines
required for the enterprise up to $5,000,000, but there is nothing in the provisions of the bill to prevent $2,000,000 of bonds being sold, or $1,500,000 if that is the amount required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not for me to say. The minister assures us that he has high-powered lawyers to advise him. All I can say is, I should like to see any man go into the market with a set-up like this and try to obtain money. See what would happen to him. Even his high-powered lawyers will tell him that I am right.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the section carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On division; I cannot bring myself to vote for it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, on division.
On section 9-Shares only transferable with approval of minister.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a power we object to, but we won't waste time over it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Ownership of shares.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Is this satisfactory to my right hon. friend?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to say something about it, but I don't think it makes any difference.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11-Minister may acquire all shares.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On subsection 2-Book value.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be well,
in view of the case referred to by certain members the other evening, to say that no value shall attach to any franchise? Because this franchise might be held to have value. There have been cases in which franchises were held to have value; some of the cases which have caused the most trouble in this country have been in connection with matters of that kind. I think that is desirable because of the experience of other companies when it came to a question of arbitration. But I am not going to waste time discussing it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think if section 11 is allowed to stand an amendment an be drafted. We will attempt to do so.
Section stands.
On section 12-Power to issue securities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to
move a new clause 12, to make the bill correspond with the reprint.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move
a new clause 12, as follows:
12. (1) Subject to the provisions of this act, the Canadian National Railway Company may issue notes, obligations, bonds and other securities (hereinafter in this Act called "securities") not exceeding the sum of five million dollars for the purpose of purchasing the capital stock of the corporation, and the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of the principal and interest of such securities.
(2)	The governor in council may, subject to the provisions of this act, approve or decide,
(a)	the kind of securities to be issued and guaranteed, and the form and terms thereof;
(b)	the form and manner of the guarantee or guarantees;
(e) the time, manner and amount of the issue or issues;
(d)	the terms and conditions of any sale, pledge or other disposition of the securities;
(e)	the securing, if deemed desirable by the governor in council, of the securities by mortgage, deed of trust or other instrument, and the form and terms of any such instrument and the trustee or trustees thereof.
(3)	The guarantee or guarantees may be signed on behalf of His Majesty by the Minister of Finance or by such other person as the governor in council may from time to time designate, and such signature shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of the validity of such guarantee and that the provisions of this act have been complied with.
(4)	To enable the Canadian National Railway Company to proceed forthwith to purchase the capital stock of the corporation, the governor in council, pending the issue, sale, pledge or other disposition of the aforesaid securities, may authorize advances to be made to the said company from the consolidated revenue fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty by the said company from the proceeds of the sale, pledge or other disposition of such securities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like the minister to look at this for a moment. While again I have no desire to take the place of the high-powered lawyers, I think if he looks at the section he will ask, guaranteed by whom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the standard wording.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there are definitions in the general clauses which cover that, but in this case you have injected into a special act a provision which deals with power conferred upon the railway company. Surely you have to state by whom the guarantee is given. It may be by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, as far as this is concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Given by His Majesty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have to say they are guaranteed by someone:
(3) The guarantee or guarantees may be signed on behalf of His Majesty by the Minister of Finance or by such other person as the governor in council may from time to time designate . . .
Trans-Canada Air Lines

This is taken from an act in which you have in a preceding section definitions that cover points not dealt with here, namely, the person who guarantees. " May authorize the guarantee by His Majesty " is all you want. Then subsection 3 covers the way in which it is done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have reworded clause 1 to read:
Subject to the provisions of this act, the Canadian National Railway Company may issue notes, obligations, bonds and other securities (hereinafter in this act called "securities") not exceeding the sum of five million dollars for the purpose of purchasing the capital stock of the corporation, and the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of the principal and interest of such securities on behalf of His Majesty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. While the minister is at it may I point out that when his high-powered lawyers copied this section, instead of saying "in this act called securities," they should have said " in this section called securities." It will be observed that the language in section 8 is that it is for the purpose of purchasing the capital stock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would "subscribing to the shares " be better?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not that point, but the clause providing for payment of the purchase price by such instalments as may be determined by the directors. All through the legislation we have dealt with it as a purchase by the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Business and powers of the corporation.
Subsections (a), (b), and (c) agreed to.
On subsection (d)

Business within and outside Canada.
Howard Charles Green: We understood from the minister the other night that the new company would have the exclusive right to fly this trans-Canada airway. There seems to be nothing in the bill making that provision. I should like to know whether it will be possible for other companies to fly the airway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The intention is to give this company the exclusive right to fly this route. No interurban route can be flown by any service without special licence from the aeronautics branch.


Howard Charles Green: The exclusive right will be brought about, then, by means of licence under another act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister be disposed to give a little further information with regard to the flying of this route, particularly with regard to the length of the jumps? It traverses my riding; there are three or four aerodromes in the riding and I know that as soon as I get home I shall be asked exactly where the planes are going to stop and from what places they are going to be guided.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not possible at this time to give that information, because it has not been worked out. We must have expert operating officers, and they must consult with the post office officials to work out the requirements of the service before anything can be determined.


Grote Stirling: Will there be considerable jumps?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it is the intention to have as few stops as the requirements of the post office will permit.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Is it the present intention to *have a connection between Vancouver and Victoria?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said before, the matter of branch line service and feeder lines has not been considered up to the moment. Obviously the main line must terminate at Vancouver.


Mr. McNIVEN:: I notice this company is authorized to carry on business throughout Canada. Does that mean that they could operate feeder lines as well, and engage in commercial flying in competition with other companies which have been in the business for many years? I am thinking more particularly of the northern country, northern Ontario, northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan, where these companies have pioneered. It does not seem fair that they should be subjected to the competition of a government subsidized company. Is it the intention of the minister that this company should be allowed to enter into competition for commercial business with companies that have been established and have been giving service for some time past?


Clarence Decatur Howe: While this company is given power to operate anywhere in Canada or outside Canada, it can operate only on services designated by the government. I have stated already that it is not the present intention to operate any feeder lines north of the main line. Because of the fact that some of the feeder

Trans-Canada Air Lines
lines to the south involve international connections, for national purposes it may be considered advisable to have this company operate such lines; but it will not be allowed to interfere in any way with present northern operations.


Mr. MASSEY:: May I ask whether the
Trans-Canada Air Lime, that is the line itself, has been mapped out as yet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The line, as defined by the airfields, extends from Vancouver to Lethbridge, to Winnipeg, to Kapuskasing, to Ottawa, to Montreal, and to Halifax. There is a branch for which airfields have been provided from Toronto to Scotia Junction; that part of the line is considered part of the main trans-Canada line, and is being treated as such.


Denton Massey: Will there be any service between Toronto and Montreal, and Toronto and Ottawa?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those are branch line services and not part of the main operation. Later they may be made part of it, but as I said before, services that are not essential to the main service must wait until this main line has been developed.


Denton Massey: Then at present there is no plan to tie Toronto into the main line except through Scotia Junction?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the only route that has been laid out to date to bring Toronto into the main line.


Denton Massey: And you will be able to fly only north from Toronto?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all at the moment.


Denton Massey: I should like to ask the minister also what plans he has afoot to train pilots for beam flying. He will fully realize, of course, the hazards of beam flying by a pilot who has been accustomed to flying by a map, by compass, and by guess. Of course, we have developed that type of pilot to a higher degree than any other country in the world. We have made a marvellous job of it, and have been peculiarly fortunate in the type of men we have had doing this flying. It is generally estimated, I think, that the Canadian flyer is without a peer in the world. But flying blind or flying a beam is a different story, and the early experience in other countries has not been exactly happy. I was wondering what plans the minister had developed to train our pilots in beam flying.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I quite appreciate that a
successful pilot on this route must have a very considerable training. Fortunately some ten pilots, I think, have been through the training schools in the United States and have
followed that up by flying either as pilots or co-pilots on one of the transcontinental services there, and I think those men are available to us. Also I have ascertained that for a consideration we can send as many men as we please from Canada through either of the two aviation schools in the United States, and that these men can be put on air liners there to gain experience for our service. That is a temporary makeshift, of course, until we have our own service sufficiently developed to be able to carry on our own training in Canada. We realize the need of it, and of course the first thing to do in setting up this service is to get the directors, and then to get the management. The rest must follow, but we do know that this training can be obtained.


Denton Massey: Of course, the minister
realizes that the success or failure of this air line depends upon how airminded the people of Canada become. At the present time we are not airminded by any manner of means. In some of the urban centres smaller companies have set up good services but in many cases they have failed miserably because of the fact that we were not at all airminded. The experience of the Handley-Page line and the Daimler line in the earlier days of British air lines was of that nature, and the experience in the United States was exactly the same at the beginning. Airmindedness is a state of mind brought about through dismissal of fear, to a very great degree. Once a person has flown in a plane and realizes the convenience, comfort and safety of that method of transportation he becomes airminded. Fear is caused through accidents more than anything else. If in the beginning of our experience we should be so unfortunate as to have some rather bad accidents, the future of the trans-Canada line will be at stake. That situation will have to be overcome in the early days, by some means, and we should go the limit in the prevention of accidents. Hence my questions in regard to the training of pilots.
Apropos of the safety factor, I should like to ask what provision the minister is making for emergency landing fields in a territory such as northern Ontario, for example. Will land be cleared, or will pontoons be flown and lakes used through that particular area? Will one plane fly right across Canada, or what has the minister in mind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have well developed
emergency landing fields, full size, brought level, on an average not more than fifty miles apart all the way from Montreal to Vancouver.
Trans-Canada Air Lines


Denton Massey: Will the beam be available to private companies at a fixed fee, or will they pay for the beam as they use it? In other words, is it dependent upon the mileage flown? Is it a fixed service charged for accordingly, or is it a free service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There, again, we are initiating a new service. We have provided that for the initial period we will supply the beam free, and for that period I presume it will be free also to other companies who may use it. Of course, they can only fly it for special trips; they are not allowed to fly it on schedule, because as far as that goes we are giving this company a monopoly. After the initial period is over, however, fees will be set for that service.


Denton Massey: Will the use of the beam
be compulsory or can a man fly between Winnipeg and Calgary, for example, willy-nilly, just taking a chance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it is a scheduled flight carrying passengers, he must fly the beam. If it is only a tourist flight or a private plane being flown, of course the pilot can fly as he pleases, just as he can to-day.


Denton Massey: If a pilot has a small plane carrying, say, four passengers and is operating a chartered service out of Winnipeg or Regina, or wherever it may be, and intends to continue his chartered service, if he takes a hop from Regina to Calgary he will have to fly the beam, will he not? In case he uses the beam he will of course have to equip his machine with radio, if it is not so equipped at the present time. Is that the understanding?	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not the regulation at present. A man can. take a chartered flight anywhere, but it is not his privilege to set up scheduled flights. Any licensed pilot in a licensed plane can take passengers on chartered flights at the present time with no requirement in regard to flying on a beam, because there is no beam. That may be amended later.


Denton Massey: Will the requirements for pilots flying these chartered services be in accordance with the requirements for pilots flying the Trans-Canada Air Line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I really cannot say. The act, of course, will be amended to keep up with the development of flying in Canada.


Denton Massey: The reason I am asking so many questions in this connection is that at first there was so much difficulty in the congested areas in countries where beam flying
[Mr. Howe.)
has been instituted. Some pilots, unaccustomed to beam flying, took up their ships and perhaps followed, some circuitous route, then came back on to the beam and perhaps got in the way of regular traffic. This danger is particularly acute in fog or cloud when, the ceiling is low, and accidents have been caused by planes wandering on to the beam because the pilot was inexperienced and did not know where he was. That is not a reflection on the pilot; it is simply a result of his lack of training in 'this particular line. It seems to me particularly important that in the drawing up of the regulations all of these matters be kept in mind, and accordingly I am wondering if the minister has in mind the setting up of a Canadian school either under the Trans-Canada Air Lines or by some private source, or whatever it may be, so that pilots flying the short chartered trips and those taking the schedule trips may receive exactly the same training. In that way they would be working together, and would not be at sixes and sevens in the air.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will bring the remarks of the hon. member to the attention of the officers now engaged in drafting the regulations.


Denton Massey: I should like to ask the minister a further question referring back to the question I raised a few moments ago with regard to the airmindedness of the Canadian people. As the minister knows, it will not be sufficient simply to put the Trans-Canada Air Lines into operation and expect passengers to patronize the service. Considerable advertising will have to be done, of a certain definite and specific nature. The advertising which has been done by Imperial Airways, for example, has been amazingly effective. But when you are dealing with a country such as this, with its great areas, an adequate advertising campaign will be exceedingly expensive. Has the minister in mind the possible necessity of spending several hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to make his air lines attractive to those who are not now air-minded?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the hon. member underestimates the airmindedness of the Canadian people. A friend of mine came east from Vancouver about two weeks ago, and he said that travelling with him on the plane, all the way from Vancouver to Chicago, were eight Canadian passengers. I believe the people of Montreal use the plane service, and especially travelling westward, as much as the people of any city of its size in the United States. As I pointed out originally, one of the benefits of having the Canadian

Trans-Canada Air Lines
National Railway interested in the service is that they are advertisers in any event, and I am sure their advertising will carry air passenger service and air express service, just as it advertises rail service.


Denton Massey: Is it the purpose of Trans-Canada Air Lines to carry passengers and mail only, or will it carry freight as well?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I presume the freight will depend upon the carrying capacity of the machines. It will be their object to get a full load of mail, first; passengers will come second, and freight third.


Denton Massey: I had particularly in mind the area in northern Ontario where there is more freight carried than in any other two countries of the world put together. Would the Trans-Canada Air Lines enter into competition with the companies that are so successfully operating in that area, and doing such a magnificent job?


Howard Charles Green: The section gives the new company power to engage private flying companies to do the actual flying. Will the Trans-Canada Lines be flown by a private company, or will the new company do the actual flying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The new company will do the actual flying, but it is usual to give a company of this kind powers which they might reasonably use.


Howard Charles Green: Can the planes be purchased in Canada, or will they have to be purchased in the United States; and about what do they cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure I cannot say, Mr. Chairman, it will depend upon the type of planes which the directors and management decide will be suitable for the service.


Howard Charles Green: A fairly well standardized type is used in the United States; I presume ours would be of the same type?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are several types in the United States. There are the Douglas, the Lockheed, and the Stinson for the smaller services; then there is the Boeing, which has a factory in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And Fairchild and Vickers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Vickers build planes, but at this time they are not building standard passenger planes.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to have a daily service across Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is the intention.


Mr. RYAN:: In describing the route from Vancouver to Halifax the minister said the flight would be from Montreal to Halifax. In view of the fact that the planes will carry mail, is it the intention to fly directly from Montreal to Halifax, or will there be stopovers between those two points? I have in mind the city of Sad,nit John, where there is an excellent airport in connection with which in the last few years the Dominion of Canada has spent a considerable sum of money. That airport is now in a position to afford excellent facilities by land, and if necessary by water. I was wondering if any intermediate site had been selected in the event of a stop-over between Montreal and Halifax?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said before, the expert operators of the line will determine the stops, but personally I would be disappointed if they overlooked stopping ajt the city of Saint John.


William Michael Ryan: Thank you.


Denton Massey: Is it in the mind of the minister that the service will commence at Montreal and work east and west, commence at Halifax and work west, or commence at Vancouver and work east? In other words, will there be a main terminus for the lines? The reason I ask the question is this: The time-table factor is important in acceptable service, and in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the minister said it was the plan to schedule one plane per day. One cannot fly from Halifax to Vancouver in a day. Therefore, I was wondering what plans the minister had in mind to carry out that schedule.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said, the schedule has not been worked out. We have to work out our estimate of costs, based on a provisional service. We have made our plans, generally, for a service leaving Montreal early in the evening, and arriving at Vancouver next noon; and on the return leaving Vancouver at noon, and arriving at Montreal the next morning. The maritime services have not been worked out yet, because not as much work has been done on that section as has been done in the western part. I think the hon. member will appreciate, however, that it is the duty of the board of directors and the management of the corporation to work out the operation details of the route.


Denton Massey: I had this in mind: If there is just one plane, will it be a sleeper plane or a day plane with some system worked out between the railways and the Trans-Canada Air Lines, as was first done before the sleeper planes were put in service in the United States?
Trans-Canada Air Lines


Clarence Decatur Howe: The management will work out the type of planes. I sincerely hope they will be sleeper planes, because that is a very comfortable way to travel.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government doing anything to equip the northern air routes with aids to navigation; I refer to routes off the Trans-Canada Line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have a few wireless stations in the country, but we have never developed any part of the northern routes.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention to provide any of those aids to navigation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. We are not doing it; that is about as far as I can go at this time.


Denton Massey: Does the minister feel it will be possible to fly the year round?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Regina has the floor.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The minister told a moment ago about the schedule between Montreal and Vancouver. Has he immediately available the times of arrival and departure at intermediate points?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The times I mentioned are purely tentative. No detailed schedule can be worked out until the expert operators of the company decide upon it.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Has the minister any idea how soon the services will be inaugurated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just as soon as we can get delivery of the necessary equipment, and make the necessary preparations. I sincerely hope it will be some time this autumn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might it not be desirable to place a limitation upon the borrowing powers of the corporation? It is usual in a company of this kind to make such a provision, and it would prevent the government from getting into trouble hereafter. The expression used is " to borrow money for any of the purposes of the corporation " without placing a limitation upon it.
There is another phase: There is nothing to indicate what the fiscal year of the corporation is. That becomes important in view of what is to be done in January of each year. Further, the rates fixed in January are to be effective from the first day of January. That would be during the current year, and it would be rather difficult to do in connection with a postage rate, for instance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will notice that the rates of the succeeding year are based on the operating result of the previous year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And I think if we have that result at any time in the current year it would work out, because subsidies are usually not paid in advance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be desirable to provide what is to be the fiscal year of the corporation. Part III of the Companies Act does not touch that phase of its activities.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: Should not paragraph (b) of section 14 contain the word "aircraft"?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It covers hangars, aerodromes, sea plane bases, landing fields, beacons and mooring masts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is covered in an earlier section.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 15-Minister may contract with corporation.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not put a limitation on borrowings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not contemplated that the company shall borrow any money other than for temporary accommodation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is so, all right.


William Kemble Esling: Have the ports of call been determined upon between the Alberta border and Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No ports of call have been determined upon. We must first set up the corporation and obtain a management. The ports of call would then be an operating problem which would be worked out in conjunction with the post office. Their selection will call for a good deal of consultation, and it is impossible at this time to say where they will be located.


Denton Massey: A short time ago the minister stated that it was not intended that the
Trams-Caoiada Air Lines should operate between Toronto and Montreal, for the time being ait least. Would the opening of this sen-vice be dependent upon the success of the transcontinental line, or will it be simply a matter of waiting until there is a demand for this service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are quite seized of the fact that there must be a service between Toronto and Montreal, but it is physically impossible to develop routes faster than we are doing at the moment. The decision by the directors of whether that route should be covered as part of the trans-Canada air line or should be regarded as a feeder line is a matter for future determination.

Trans-Canada Air Lines


Denton Massey: To regard the service
between Toronto and Montreal as a "feeder line" would be ridiculous. The two largest cities in Canada are only 300 air miles apart, an hour and a half by air, and six hours by fast rail. The minister claims that Canada is more airminded than I had thought; then surely he will admit that a service between Toronto and Montreal should be productive of considerable revenue for the Trans-Canada Air Lines. Here we have two urban centres with large populations, with very considerable passenger traffic between them, much of which could be expeditiously and very satisfactorily carried by air. I think it is extremely unfortunate if these two large centres are to be deprived of a connecting service. I can understand the difficulty of having Toronto on the main transcontinental route in view of the fact that it is situated well to the south of the "crow-flys" line and thus the minister has in mind a feeder line from Toronto to a junction point, in the north. But it seems a great and unnecessary blunder not to have a regular route from Toronto to Montreal. It may not be profitable to put Douglas or Boeing transport planes on this run for the time being, but there is certainly sufficient traffic for Stinson, Vultees, or other smaller planes carrying six, eight or ten passengers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No doubt that would be a very important route, but it is not on the trans-Canada route. No matter if it Should prove to be the best route in Canada it can only be a feeder to the trans-Caniada line.


Denton Massey: I am not objecting to that
word because after all Toronto is a "feeder" to the rest of the dominion in many different ways.


Mr. McIVOR:: We have great hopes at the head of the lakes that the humming centres of Port Arthur and Fort William will provide dependable feeder lines for this trans-Canada line.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On. section 16-Mail transport contract.
Howard Charles Green: Subsection 2 of section 17 provides for "an increase in the sum total to be paid on account of the said rates equal to the deficit in the preceding year." Will the result be an increase in the postal rates or will the deficit simply be charged up to the Post Office Department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill contemplates that after the initial period, which is taken care of separately, the mails will be carried at cost. That is, the cost will be adjusted on the basis of the cost of the previous year. If it costs
thirty cents per mile to carry the mails in the previous years, thirty cents will be the rate for the next year. If the rate for that year proves to be only twenty cents per mile, the rate for the succeeding year will be fixed at twenty-five cents. The corporation will get only half the amount of the saving.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time we pay
six cents for sending a letter by air mail. Will that rate be changed to five cents, seven cents or eight cents according to whether or not there is a deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The surcharge of three cents over the regular rate is universal all over North America and cannot be changed except by agreement with the other countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In one section we mention mails, passengers and goods, while in other sections we refer only to passengers and goods. In looking over the bill some days ago, it occurred to me it would be better to include the word "mails" in the various sections where passengers and goods are referred to. It will be noted in section 14 passengers, mails and goods are referred to. In the final provision with respect to the contract it will be seen reference is made to mail, passengers, express and other traffic. Express and other traffic would be covered by the word "goods". Would it not be well to include the word "mails" throughout so that no question would arise?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The definition of "rates" refers to the rates paid for the transport of mails. The rates on mail are used to determine what you might call the operating subsidy, which is really not a fair name for it as it is a payment, for a service. But mails seem to be differentiated throughout, because as far as goods and passengers are concerned the company can charge competitive rates for those as determined by actual experience. The rates are set automatically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not made myself clear to the minister. In section 14 we provide for the establishment of an air service, and that air service will transport passengers and goods by air. Later on we provide for the transport by air of mail, passengers and goods; and inasmuch as the rates are to be fixed on the basis of the cost of carrying mails, it occurred to me that it would be better to have the purposes of the corporation stated throughout in similar terms, namely "mails, passengers and goods." It will be noted that section 14 says "the transport of mails, passengers and goods by any means," but just before that the word "mail" is left out.
Trans-Canada Air Lines


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is not that clause limited to contracts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. May I make myself clear? Section 14 recites:
The corporation is authorized,-
(a) to establish, operate and maintain air lines or regular services of aircraft of all kinds, to carry on the business of transporting passengers and goods by air, and to enter into contracts for the transport of mails,' passengers and goods by any means, . . .
You use in that particular line the words "mails, passengers and goods," and my suggestion is that for the purposes of the act it is desirable to use those three words all through. I think it would strengthen the position. If sometimes you use the words "mails, passengers and goods," it may be taken that in other places you intend to exclude the word "mail" because you do not use it, when as a matter of fact you intend to use it everywhere. Difficulties may arise over that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to move that in section 14, line 16, the word "mails" be inserted before "passengers." In the old act it is section 13, in the new act it is 14.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 17-Fixation of rates.
Howard Charles Green: Subsection 3 of this section states:
Provided, however, that the rates so fixed shall not be lower than rates payable for other similar coast to coast transport of mails in North America.
Why are our rates tied up with American rates for the transportation of mail?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is felt that there should be some objective for the company which, having been reached, it will be allowed to make a profit, and we feel that when they are operating on a basis of efficiency such as will bring the mail rate down to the rates of the same service to the south, they should be permitted to obtain a profit.


Howard Charles Green: Then if the American rates go very high, our rates, of course, would go up too? Would not that be detrimental to the interests of Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think there is very little
danger of the American rates going higher. At the moment they are exceedingly low.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the minister think it desirable that the contract shall be for not less than ten years? Why, in the experimental stage? He has a reason for it. I should like to know what it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason is that a great
deal of expensive equipment must be purchased. It is to give the company time to amortize at least the cost of its purchase of original equipment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
On Section 19-Part III of Companies Act to apply.
Clarence Decatur Howe: In the original bill there was an error in the printing by which the second line of what was section 18 was omitted. That has been inserted in the reprint, and I will ask my colleague to move to provide for the insertion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a section 19, is there not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, we inserted a new section. Section 18 of the old bill is number 19 in the new bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a section left
out of this. I sent for the new Companies Act of 1934. This section says that part III shall apply, that is the new part III that was put in in 1935, except section 145. Section 145 relates to the application of part I, and we need not consider that. Then section 158 is mentioned here, which deals with preference shares; that of course does not apply; section 159 relates to the change of the chief place of business, by bylaw; that does not apply; section 163 is the section that deals with interest on the amount unpaid at six per cent per annum on calls on shares; section 162 deals with the calls on shares, and that is not to apply, nor the provision for interest. Then you go to section 180, which is the section that deals with preference shares; and also section 181, saving of creditors' rights.
No provision in this part as to the creation of preference shares and no bylaw authorizing the creation of such shares and nothing done under or in pursuance of any such provision or bylaw, shall affect or impair the rights of creditors of the company.
Obviously that has no application. So obviously sections 180 and 181 are to be added.
I have not time to go over the rest of them, but I assume they are all right. But certainly section 181 should be added.

Supply-Public Works
I think the minister would find it desirable to add a clause indicating what is the fiscal year of this corporation. In dealing with the other matter he uses the term "current year." I dare say it can be done adequately by the bylaws, but in view of the provision in the statute I thought it might be desirable to clarify it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The fiscal year is intended to be the calendar year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be easy to add that the fiscal year of the corporation should be the calendar year.


Frederick George Sanderson: There is an amendment
to section 18, now section 19, which has not yet been passed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move
that the old section 18 be amended.
By inserting after the word "act" in the first line, the following. "1934, except sections one hundred and forty-five, one" . . .


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a line left out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to move as subsection 2 of section 19:
The fiscal year of the corporation shall be the calendar year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I so
move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 11-Minister may acquire all shares.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I have an amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move as a new subsection 3 the following:
Trans-Canada contracts shall not be deemed to have any value or be an asset to be taken into consideration in determining the book value of the shares.
The present subsection 3 should be renumbered as subsection 4, and I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose it is contemplated that the machines will be combination machines such as are being built by the great nations of the world and that they may be converted into bombers if necessary?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, they are all convertible nowadays.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-Establishment, operation and maintenance of air lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will ask my colleague to move that this section be amended by inserting after the word "transporting" in line 16 the word "mails."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.

[Stage Direction]
Quebec
Harbours and Rivers,
Anse a la Cabane, M.I.-slipway and hauling plant, $3,400*.
Anse Millerand, M.I.

slipway and hauling plant, $3,400.
Bagotville- purchase and repair wharf, $35,000.
Baie des Sables-wharf extension. $32,000. Baie St. Paul-protection wall, $20,000. Bergeronnes (Point a John)-wharf, $17,000. Bic

wharf reconstruction, $12,000.
Cap aux Meules, M.I.-wharf reconstruction and improvements, $22,000.
Cap aux Os (The Gulch)-landing, $3,300. Cap Chat-deepwater wharf, $40,000.
Cap de la Madeleine-wharf repairs, $4,850. Cap des Rosiers-descent to beach, $2,300. Carleton-wharf extension, $70,000.
Chambly Basin-protection wall, $16,000. Chateauguay river

dredging, $13,500.
Chenal du Moine-dredging, $8,600.
Colonie des Greves-protection work, $5,000. Conception-protection wall, $1,500. Contrecoeur

protection wall, $25,000.
Cote Marcel-reconstruction of protection, $3,200.
Cross Point-wharf repairs, $8,500. Drummondville-protection work, $15,000. Etang du Morel. M.I.-harbour improvements, $20,000.
Granby-protection work, $6,000.
Grande Entree, M.I.-wharf reconstruction, $13,600.
Grande Entree (West Point), M.I.-landing, $2,500.
Grand Riviere-rebuilding wharf, $47,100. Hamilton Cove (Riviere Portneuf)-wharf, $41,000.
lie aux Coudres-wharf repairs, $16,000.
Isle Verte-wharf reconstruction, $6,900. Lachine-protection wall, $16,000.
Lac Duparquet-wharf, $1,500.
Lacolle river-dredging, the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $19,000. Lac Megantic-protection work, $16,000.
Lac Nominigue-improvements to navigation, $2,550.
Laprairie-protection wall, $30,000.
Lanoraie-extension of protection wall, $2,800. L'Anse a Brillant-fishing harbour, $50,000. La Sarre-wharf extension, $1,000.
La Tortue-dredging, the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $16,000-. Lauzon-dredging, $50,000.
Levis-wharf, $110,000.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Lome Dry Dock-new power house-pump house equipment and machine shop, $125,000.
Magog-protection wall, $4,700.
Maria-wharf repairs, $4,700.
Marsouins-wharf extension, $10,000.
Matane - extension to east breakwater, $40,000.
New Carlisle-wharf repairs, $8,300.
Nicolet-dredging, $6,400.
Notre Dame du Portage-wharf repairs, $3,400.
Paspebiac-wharf extension and dredging, $56,000.
Peribonka-wharf, $5,900.
Petit Gaspe-wharf, $8,400'.
Petite Riviere au Renard-extension to west jetty, $2,000.
Petite Riviere Est-construction of fishing harbour, $35,000.
Petite Vallee-wharf extension, $20,000.
Pointe Jaune-improvements to fishing harbour, $21,000.
Pointe Lebel-wharf, $12,000.
Port au Saumon-to take over and repair wharf, $19,000.
Port Daniel East - wharf improvements, $6,700.
Richelieu river-improvements, $500,000.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $475,000.
Riviere Caplan-repairs to jetty, $4,450.
Riviere des Hurons-contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $75,000.
Ruisseau Castor-purchase and repair wharf, $11,500.
Ruisseau Chapados (Gascons)-fishing harbour, $12,000.
Ruisseau LaBlanc-dredging. $22,500.
Ruisseau Pariseau - contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $15,000.
St. Andre de Kamouraska-headblock, $14,600.
St. Cuthbert-wharf, $2,200.
St. Charles de Caplan - wharf extension, $25,000.
St. Chrysostome-protection walls, $12,900.
St. Denis-wharf reconstruction, $4,650.
St. Edouard de Fabre 

 protection wall,
[Stage Direction]
St. Etienne de Malbaie-wharf improvements, $5,500.
St. Felicite-wharf extension, $54,400.
St. Flavie-wharf extension, $20,500.
St. Godfroy

wharf repairs, $8,200.
St. Ignace de Loyola-protection wall, $15,000.
Ste. Jeanne d'Arc-wharf, $1,100.
St. Joachim (Cote Neuve) -breakwater, $3,000.
St. Paul (lie aux Noix) - improvements, $4,500.
St. Pierre les Becquets-dredging, $13,000.
Ste. Rose-protection wall, $4,900.
Saguenay river-dredging, $170,000.
Sault au Mouton-channel, $24,100.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $180,000.
Tadoussac (Anse Tadoussac)-wharf improvements, $12,500.
Taillon (St. Henri)-wharf extension, $1,300.
Terrebonne-protection wall, $16,200.
Trois Rivieres-dredging, $4,900.
Val Barette-protection work, $3,000.
Varennes-protection wall, $15,000.
Vercheres-protection wall, $10,000.
Vercheres county-dredging-the provincial government contribution being a like amount, $5,000.
Yamaska-protection work, $9,300.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to make another comment or two on the vote for the Richelieu river improvements. I can assure the minister that I am not opposing this vote for any other reason than that I am not convinced that the proposal is a sound one. That, of course, is only my opinion; the minister has a right to his own. Before the house rose last night the minister said that the reason there was not much traffic on the canals was that the Chambly canal is too shallow. Having gone over the canal from one end to the other [DOT]right down through the state of New York to the terminus of that waterway I am convinced that there are two other major reasons why the traffic is small and, indeed, why it can never be large. The distance from Sorel to St. Ours is fourteen miles, and is the first lock there. From Sorel to Chambly is forty-six miles, that is the commencement of the Chambly canal, which at present has nine locks. Those nine locks overcome a rise of eighty feet in the river. At the head of the canal any boat ascending that canal to lake Champlain would enter practically at lake level, I presume, outside of the current allowance. The minimum lake level is 93 feet and the maximum 102 above sea level, so that from the lake to the head of the canal, if there is a difference of a foot or so, it would be the current allowance in the river. Then to the international boundary is eighty-one miles, and to the Champlain canal 192 miles-that is the total distance from Sorel in each case. To the junction of the Erie canal is 258 miles and from there to tidewater at Albany the total distance is 265 miles, and to New York 441 miles.
But in addition to that very great distance, a ship leaving Canadian waters south of St. Johns and entering the lake, after having ascended the said ten locks, approximately 90 feet, has to enter the Champlain canal and rise another 43 feet or thereabouts through three locks, and after passing over the height of land-where by the way there is difficulty in getting water; they have to bring it from storage dams in the adjacent hills-the ship would have to descend from the summit level approximately 140 feet, through nine locks, down to the Hudson river and sea level at Albany. Now that requires a great deal of time. On the Canadian side there are ten locks, and twelve on the American side. In the American canal, that is the lake Champ-lain-Hudson canal, there is a depth of twelve feet. I did not see any boats of any magnitude there, just barges with a pusher, nothing but oil boats when I was there, but I know other boats do travel that canal. But the

Supply-Public Works
total traffic for the whole year was only some 351,000 tons, in a canal which has a potential capacity of over 8,000,000 tons.
The minister said that the proposal is to erect a dam approximately half way between Ohambly and St. Johns. My memory may be wrong or I may have mistakenly judged the height of the bank at that point; I got the location in the department offices at Montreal, and I went to the point where I was informed the dam was to be erected. The banks there perhaps do not exceed 25 or 30 feet; I judged about 25 feet. If a dam erected at that point is to be of any benefit whatever south of St. Johns it would have to be more than 25 feet high. The minister said that approximately half of the Chamfoly canal locks would be cut out, six locks, and those six locks I presume are equivalent to half the rise from Chambly to St. Johns, which is 80 feet. Therefore if half the locks are going to be cut out that dam would have to be somewhere between 35 and 40 feet high. It would be impossible to erect it with the banks as they are now, if my memory of the height is correct. I cannot grasp at all how a dam at that point can accomplish what is expected of it.
The United States engineers' proposal was to build a dam south of the international boundary, I presume across from Stony Point to Windmill Point-


Vincent Dupuis: Does the hon. member mean in lake Champlain?


John Ritchie MacNicol: North of the main outlet. While it is called river, it is nothing more or less than an extension of the lake, of considerable width. The banks at that point are not high. I presume that is where the minister referred to some flooding taking place during high water, when the lake level was at about 102 feet. The United States engineers proposed to build the dam between Stony Point and Windmill Point. In that way they would control the lake level, and they would not have to ask Canada's permission, as I understand, that water being wholly within the United States.
But in our case if the dam at the point where this government proposes to erect it raises the lake level-although personally I cannot see how it can unless large dykes are built alongside the river-what right have we to raise the level of water in a foreign country? I believe the Prime Minister made a trip to Washington recently, and I presume one of the subjects discussed there, although I am not asking that to be admitted here, may have been the proposal of the Ontario government to pour water into lake Superior from the watershed of Long lake.
The Ontario government decided, it is said, to allow United States lumber interests to dam the Kenagami river and take the water out of Long lake watershed and pour it into lake Superior. If the Ontario government had thought for a moment, they would have known they cannot do any such thing. And in this case, if a dam at the point proposed would have any effect on the level of lake Champlain we could not do it without an international agreement. Perhaps that has been obtained already.
Something was said last night about the traffic on the Champlain canal, and I referred to a submission made by the Montreal chamber of commerce. I should have said the chambre de commerce; I presume that is the French-speaking section of the Montreal chamber of commerce. When I got to my room I found that the submission had been presented by Mr. Paul Beique, and had been signed by M. Rene Morin. I presume they are associated with the chambre de commerce. The Montreal chambre de commerce submitted a brief in opposition to the proposal to carry a seaway through from the Hudson to the St. Lawrence. Last night the minister pointed out that the proposal he has in mind has nothing to do with the United States proposals, of which the main one was from lake St. Francis to lake Champlain. In discussing that I mentioned the United States figure of $200,000,000, and when the minister was speaking he gave the cost of what the government had in mind as about $8,000,000.


Mr. CARDIN:: Yes, if we decide to reconstruct the Chambly canal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, it is not carried. I not only wish to voice my own objection to this particular item of half a million dollars for the Richelieu river improvements, but also to present the very strenuous objection of the Hamilton chamber of commerce. On December 9, 1936, the following resolution was sent by the Hamilton chamber of commerce to Mr. Lawrence J. Burpee, secretary of the International Joint Commission:
"Resolved, that in the light of information before us at this time that this board express its strong opposition to the proposals placed before the International Joint Commission during the meetings from the 19th to the 27th of November."
This attitude is adopted not only because it is not considered wise or desirable, under present financial conditions, to support any plan of this nature which would mean the ultimate expenditure of the sum of two hundred million dollars as outlined in the proposal, but taking into consideration as well the large annual deficit of our government railway, the substantial cost of the maintenance and operation of our present canal system and the almost lack of advantage to Canada in the building of this canal.
Further, our understanding is that there is a 160 lift from the St. Lawrence river to lake Champlain, all of which is Canadian territory, and as it is proposed that this canal would be toll free the major portion of the cost of construction, maintenance and operation would fall on Canada.
I should1 like to say a further word) with regard to these estimates generally. How are we to know how many of these amounts included in item 342 are revotes? This particular item was attacked last evening, and it happens to be a revote. Can the minister say how many of the others are revotes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Frank Exton Lennard: Can the minister tell me
how many of these items are for the county of Bonavemture?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The list does not show it by counties, but I know wdiat the hon. member has in mind and I can relieve him of his apprehensions. The total of expenditures for the county of Bonaventu-re in the main and supplementary estimates is less than it was last year.


Frank Exton Lennard: What was it last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot tell the hon. member at the moment, but I can assure him that the expenditures in- that county last year were larger than those we contemplate this year. I regret not being able to give the detailed information. but I can give my word to the hon. member that that is so.


Frank Exton Lennard: I understand that in this vote alone $225,000 is earmarked1 for Bona-venture.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I would not say that is not correct, but last year the amount was larger than that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Harbours and Rivers,
Balm Beach-breakwater, $5,000.
Bayfield-reconstruction outer end north pier, $18,000.
Bronte-dredging, $5,200.
Burlington channel-dredging, $25,000.
Burlington channel-reconstruction of south pier, $108,000.
Byng Inlet-dredging mouth of Still river, $11,600.
Cape Croker-wharf extension, $9,600.
Cobourg-dredging, $18,400.
Fort William-dredging, $17,000'.
Glenmount-wharf, $8,200.
Gore Bay-purchase and repair wharf,
[Stage Direction]
Hamilton-harbour improvements, $250,000.
Kenora (Laurenson's Creek)-improvements, $3,000.
Kingston R.M.C.-retaining wall and maintenance of boat-houses, $3,000.
Kingsville-harbour improvements, $19,900.
Leamington-harbour improvements, $100,000.
Little Current - dredging west channel,
[Stage Direction]
Meaford-reconstruction of harbour works,
[Stage Direction]
Midland-dredging Monument channel, $13,400.
Nation river-contribution towards dredging, the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $15,000.
Oshawa-to replace old west pier, $125,000.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements, $30,000.
Pelee Island-north wharf reconstruction, $25,000.
Pentanguishene-wharf extension and repairs,
[Stage Direction]
Peterborough-harbour improvements, $15,900.
Port Arthur-harbour improvements, $260,000.
Port Burwell-harbour improvements, $50,000.
Port Hope-reconstruction of harbour works, $27,000.
Port Maitland-protection wall, $2,700.
Port Stanley-harbour repairs and improvements, $89,000.
Providence Bay-wharf repairs, $4,000.
Rockland-wharf, $15,000.
Rondeau-reconstruction inner end, west pier, $23,000.
Sarnia-harbour improvements, $28,000'.
Saugeea river-extension to north pier, $9,000.
Sault Ste. Marie-dredging, $44,000.
Sydenham river-dredging, $8,500.
Thames river (Chatham)-dredging, $7,400.
Toronto Island-breakwater, the city of Toronto to bear a like amount, $125,000.
Verulam park (Sturgeon lake)-wharf, $5,500.
Walker river (Desbarats)-dredging, $4,500
Wallaceburg-wharf extension and warehouse, $10,000.
Windermere-small boat landing, $3,200.
Windsor-wharf extension, $15,000'.
Wolsey bay-wharf, $2,400.
Samuel Factor: 
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have well in mind the representations made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) and his two colleagues with respect to additional works for the city of Toronto. Their case was strongly and ably presented to the government, but at the time of presentation the supplementary estimates with which we are dealing had been prepared and printed. My answer to the hon. member and his colleagues, and others who made representations along the same lines,

Supply-Public Works

was that personally I was very much inclined towards agreeing to the request made for expenditures in Toronto harbour and for the extension of postal facilities in that city. But it was then too late to give consideration to the recommendations because the supplementaries had been prepared. However, the door is not definitely closed-


Denton Massey: The "revolving" door?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The open door. However, I feel that before the session closes there will be an opportunity of meeting, if not in their entirety, at least in part, the requests which have been made. The amount of expenditures provided for the city of Toronto is going to be somewhat larger than that provided in these estimates, which means that part of the recommendations made will probably be favourably considered if the hon. member can help me convince my colleague the Minister of Finance that we ought to do something more for Toronto. So, although I am making no promise. I am ready to shed a little ray of hope in the mind of the hon. member.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Spadina in connection with this item. I fully realize that hon. members are at times apt to regard the city of Toronto as being somewhat ambitious for its own development. In speaking to this item to-night I am sure the hon. member for Spadina will support me when I urge upon the minister the need for this work, not only for the purpose to which the work is to be put, but also in view of the fact that within Toronto there is probably a larger number of unemployed than in any other urban area in Canada, with possibly one exception. Relief work has been and will be done. One is not anxious to develop improvements, or whatever we may wish to call them, solely through relief works.
The request which was made to the minister through the proper channels, a request which the minister states was made arduously, was for a very legitimate purpose. Those of us who are interested in the development not only of the harbour of Toronto but of Canadian harbours generally, feel very keenly that this work should be put forward. We notice that in estimate number 343 there are some substantial votes. One sees, for example, that the city of Port Arthur is to have harbour improvements costing S260.000. Port Arthur, of course, has some very honourable sons, and is a splendid and important port in Canada. On the other hand, Toronto gets only $125,000, or about half that of Port Arthur. If improve-

ments go forward in connection with transportation facilities-even though we have been relegated to the position of the end of a "feeder line" so far as air transportation is concerned-no doubt there will be an increase in traffic to and from Toronto and resulting in greater demand on the harbour.
Bearing in mind not only the necessity for this work from the point of view of Toronto's harbour development but also its importance from the point of view of providing work, I am sure that those of us who have at heart the interests of those whom we earnestly and sincerely attempt to represent in this house feel we would be derelict in our duty if we did not raise our voices at this time and earnestly urge the minister fully to take into consideration, and if at all possible, to follow to a conclusion, the perfectly legitimate requests which have been made, and to see that the full amount of $400,000 be granted for the purpose for which it is asked.


Frank Exton Lennard: I wish to direct the minister's attention to the item "Burlington channel, dredging" and "Burlington channel, reconstruction of south pier." Are these revotes?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The $25,000 for dredging is a new expenditure, but there is a revote of $35,000 out of $108,000 provided for the construction of the south pier.


Frank Exton Lennard: The minister will remember that when the reconstruction of this south pier was being considered last year, he said the work would be let by contract.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: I understand the work
has since been changed to a cost-plus basis.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: Who has the contract?
Mr. CARD'IN:	The Russell Construction
Company Limited, of Toronto.


Frank Exton Lennard: This work is still under contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Frank Exton Lennard: How many government
inspectors are there on this job?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed by the
deputy minister that usually there are two inspectors on jobs of this size, but I would not be too sure about this as I have not definite information before me.


Frank Exton Lennard: When similar work was
carried on at Burlington channel some years ago, the contractor continued working

Supply-Public Works
throughout the winter. Work could have been carried on very easily this winter as it was quite open, but I understand that only four workmen have been employed throughout the winter. But there were two inspectors on the job all the time, and they had a truck driver and a truck at their disposal. This work was being done for the relief of unemployment and I think, therefore, a full force should have been kept on all winter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot answer the charge made by my hon. friend, but I am surprised that such a thing has happened. I shall be glad to make proper inquiries and remedy this situation if it exists.


Mr. BROWN:: This item includes $250,000 for harbour improvements at Hamilton. Is this to be part of a more comprehensive scheme?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is to provide
for an initial portion of a proposed development in Hamilton harbour as requested by the harbour commission. The whole scheme calls for the construction of a revetment wall 4,417 feet long, surrounding an area owned by the harbour commission north of Burlington street and east of Wellington street. After the wall has been completed the enclosed area is to be filled in, which will reclaim 2,159,500 square feet or 50 acres of land. It has been represented to the department by the harbour commission that the present pier is insufficient to take care of the traffic, and it is proposed to develop the facilities in order to reclaim land next to the present pier.


Denton Massey: Is the $125,000 for a breakwater at Toronto island to be earmarked for any particular work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a revote to provide for the federal government's share of approximately one-half the cost of constructing a breakwater 6,408 feet in length, along the south shore of Toronto island from Ward's island to Centre island.


Denton Massey: It is not part of the
$400,000 scheme that was suggested?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Denton Massey: Is there any time limit to
when this work must be finished? Are there any strings attached to this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that this
work is under way.


Denton Massey: Quite, but when does it
have to be completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will be completed this
fall.
311X1-156}


Mr. LOCKHART:: I am told that certain
breakdowns occurred in the harbour of Port Weller and Port Colbome on the Welland ship canal, and I do not see anything in this item to cover this work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have not received any
report covering that.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The hon. member for
Welland (Mr. Damude) perhaps would be in closer touch with this than I am, but I understand that this work needs attention.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It may be that the matter my hon. friend refers to would come under the Department of Transport. The Department of Public Works has received no report on this matter.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would not harbour
work come under your department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would be the Department of Transport.


Ernest Edward Perley: I notice that the largest amount in this vote is for harbour improvements at Port Arthur, $260,000. That is a large amount of money. Could the minister tell us what is the nature of the improvements to the harbour at Port Arthur?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is to provide for work under contract. Of this $260,000, there is a revote of $153,000. The contract has been awarded to the Canadian Dredge and Dock Company Limited. It is part of a scheme of improvement of the harbour which was commenced a number of years ago. The following is the work under contract and the cost at contract prices: completion of 1,000-foot section of breakwater immediately south of New Central entrance. That requires 11,000 tons armour stone, $38,500; 150.000 cubic yards of core stone, $135,000; rectification of 1,200 feet of breakwater, 13,200 tons armour stone, $52,800; and 1,200 cubic yards of core stone, $24,000. That, with inspections, surveys, et cetera, represents the amount of $260,000.


Mr. DAMUDE:: In connection with the harbour at Port Colbome, I understand that estimates are in the Department of Transport to the amount of $86,000.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Mostly maintenance, I think. I happen to know something about the region of Port Maitland, and I notice there is only $2,700 in the estimates for work to be done there. May I have some information as to just what that breakwater consists of? I was under the impression that there was considerable work to be done there.
Supply-Public Works


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The explanation given to me is that the amount is to provide for the construction of a rubble stone protection wall 200 feet in length along the shore, at the inner end of the existing sheet pile wall at Port Maitland. The sheet pile wall built from 1929 to 1931 extends up stream along the west bank of the Grand river, and is to prevent erosion. The district engineer reports that waves are following up this wall and are eroding the bank at its upper end, and he recommends the placing of rubble stone to prevent further damage.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is not a revote? That is new work, is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is new work.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I wonder whether the minister could reassure some of my friends to the left. They have been murmuring among themselves that the $250,000 for Hamilton has something to do with the recent election. I am sure the work will go on just the same.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the vote should have been enlarged on that account.


Gordon Timlin Purdy: In other words, the Liberal party did not promise this without the intention of fulfilling its undertaking. It was no Indian gift.


Denton Massey: Rather, Greeks bringing gifts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan Harbours and Rivers,
Ceepee-bridge, $45,000.
lie a la Crosse-wharf, $11,000.
Meadow and Beaver rivers-improvements, $4,000.	_
Waskesiu lake-dredging, $9,500.
Ernest Edward Perley: I want to
draw the attention of the committee to this magnificent vote-$69,500 in all for the province of Saskatchewan-$45,000 of which is for the Ceepee bridge. Is this for the completion of that bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that is for the completion of the bridge.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has the work been going on during the winter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Ernest Edward Perley: There have not been any inspectors, then, on that job?


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Will the minister give particulars of the $9,500 for dredging at Waskesiu lake? It is in the national park

north of Prince Albert. There is no traffic on that lake, so far as I know, except pleasure boats, so why this $9,500 for dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount is to provide for the deepening of the enclosed harbour at Waskesiu, Prince Albert national park, by the removal of approximately 17,900 cubic yards. The proposed work is requested by the parks superintendent. He reports that this area is silted in very badly, and that during the periods of low water it is almost impossible to use even a row-boat without fouling sand bars. The lake is used for boating by some residents of and vistors to the park, and the district engineer reports that unless the proposed dredging is carried out, boats cannot use the harbour.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are there any row-boats
there?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Two.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: There are many launches there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia Harbours and Rivers,
Ahousat-wharf, $7,200.
Columbia river (below Burton)-bank protection, $15,400.	_
Digby island-wharf repairs, $20,000.
Fraser river-contribution towards protection work at Agassiz, the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $5,000.
Fraser river-improvements, $170,000.
Fraser river (Lulu island)-protection work, $39,000.	, .		
Fraser river (north arm)-dredging, $100,000.
Mayne island-wharf improvements, $7,200.
New Westminster-fisheries station, $30,000.
Port Alberni-extension to assembly wharf,
$4,i00.	. „„„
Port Alberni-dredging at floats, $12,500.
Savary island-wharf enlargement and improvements, $2,500.
Snagboat Samson-reconstruction, $57,000.
Taehi river-improvements. $3,000.
Trail-retaining wall, $10,000.
William Head (quarantine station)-wharf repairs, $25,100.
Alan Webster Neill: Referring to the item, Port Alberni, extension to assembly wharf, $4,100; should not that be "repairs"? You could not make much extension of that big wharf for $4,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has to do with the construction of a 400 foot extension to the assembly wharf. The amount of the contract was nearly $73,000.


Alan Webster Neill: This is an addition to that sum?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: An addition, to complete it.

Supply-Public Works


Alan Webster Neill: Then the next item, Port
Alberni, dredging at floats, S12,500. I understood it was intended to provide $9,000 for dredging, and $6,000 for new floats. Are the floats left out? I think the original amount was $15,000. Apparently no provision is made beyond the dredging. The floats have to be taken out, then the ground dredged, and the floats put back again, with some extra ones. But apparently there is no provision for the floats.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is a revote, providing only for the dredging.


Alan Webster Neill: It is no use dredging unless you put the floats in. The original estimate,
I think, was $9,000 for the dredging and $6,000 for the floats, but as I have said, there does not appear to be any provision for the floats, or for renewals.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the dredging is being provided for in these estimates, and it may be an advantage to use the floats that are there already.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but the original recommendation, and in fact last year's vote, included S6,000 for taking out the floats-that is necessary before the dredging is done-and putting them back again, and supplying some additional ones necessitated by the increased area provided by the dredging. There should be an item somewhere for this, of some $6,000, unless you are going to take it out of the general vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information is that somebody must have opposed it, although we have nothing definite before us. However, the matter deserves consideration.


Harry James Barber: Where is the Ahousat
wharf located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In Comox-Alberni.


Harry James Barber: Can the minister give any particulars of the Mayne island wharf improvements, $7,200?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is required to reconstruct and extend the wharf head and to provide two landing places instead of one. The request has come in the form of a petition from the residents.


Harry James Barber: Is it not true that the request was for a ferry wharf? The federal government undertook to build this wharf for ferry purposes, but another wharf was built on the opposite side of the river.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is Mayne island on the Fraser river? The last time I saw it, it was in the gulf of Georgia?


Harry James Barber: I noticed in the local newspaper that provision had been made for this wharf and I understood that it was at a point on Mayne island, because a bridge was built to this island, and from the island the ferry was to run across the Fraser river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that that is another matter.


Harry James Barber: There is no provision for that ferry wharf in the Langley district?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand that is another matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and Telephone Lines-Ontario -contribution of one-half the cost of construction of telephone line between Killarney and Little Current, $6,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Who contributes the other half?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Canadian Pacific Railway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-miscellaneous-to provide for balance required to complete any projects already undertaken, no new works to be undertaken, $200,000.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Has the minister had an
opportunity to give attention to the request I made a short time ago to have the union jack replaced over the Pont Credit post office?
I have had complaints about the condition that flag has been in for some time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been attended to. Item agreed to.
Public works-salaries, $509,450; contingencies, $56,000.


Mir. POULIOT:: I thank the minister 'or the help he gave me last year in the way of work done in my constituency, but I regret that quite often reports are delayed by the engineers in the Quebec branch. I hope that in future they will be more careful and will not suggest putting timber on rotten boards, as they have done in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I wish to express my appreciation of the kindly disposition shown by my predecessor, the ex-Minister of Public Works, and by the opposition in passing my estimates generally. In fact hon. members opposite including all groups have been very kind and I do greatly appreciate the consideration they have shown.
Radio Broadcasting


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe the minister left one item open.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, item 17.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I see no reason why that
item should not be passed.
Public Buildings
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, Etc.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-elevator attendants, $124,000.
Departments generally-char service, including $150 for firing noon gun, $489,000.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $408,000.
Light and power, including roads and bridges, $204,000.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $360,000.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau Hall-improvements, furniture and maintenance, $42,000.
Telephone service, $93,000.
Water, $67,000.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
It being ten minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 2, 1937