Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That a select standing committee of eleven members of the house be appointed to inquire into and investigate the causes of the large spread between the prices received for commodities by the producer thereof, and the price paid by the consumers therefor; the system of distribution in Canada of farm and other natural products, as well as manufactured products, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, more particularly to inquire into and investigate,

(a)	the effect of mass buying by department and chain store organizations upon the regular retail trade of the country, as well as upon the business of manufacturers and producers;
(b)	the labour conditions prevailing in industries supplying the requirements of such department and chain store organizations, and the extent, if any, to which existing conditions have been brought about by the purchasing practices of such organizations, and the effect thereof upon the standard of living amongst those employed in such industries and organizations;
(c)	the relation between the flour milling industry and the bakeries of the country, and the effect of such relations upon the baking industry of Canada;
(d)	the methods and system prevailing in the marketing of live stock and animal products for domestic consumption and export, and the extent to which the present system affords or restricts opportunity for fair returns to producers.
That the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and the further power to request the appointment of a commission or commissioners under the Inquiries Act, to secure evidence to be presented to the committee by such commission or commissioners.
That the committee shall report to the house from time to time its findings, together with recommendations of such measures as in the opinion of the committee may be considered necessary to secure as far as possible, fair and just practices in the distribution and marketing systems of Canada, with fair and just returns to producers, employees, and employers, not inconsistent with the rights of consumers.
He said: The purposes to be served by the committee are, I think, amply indicated in the motion which I now move. I should not think it desirable at this time to enter into any discussion as to the correctness or otherwise of representations that have been made with respect to the causes for the great spread between the cost of commodities to the consumer and the price received by the producer. I think that might be regarded as an effort to pre-judge the case, and I

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
prefer to leave it without making any observations as to specific instances. Suffice it to say that I think it is probably well known to most of us that there is a wide spread between the prices received by the producers and the prices paid by the consumers of most commodities, natural and otherwise, with which we have to deal in the country.
The question of the retail trade in the country has received much attention during recent months. One of the trade journals has made very strong observations as to the necessity of having the business of mass buying by large organizatinos in some way regulated, but whether or not that is possible I am not expressing an opinion. I only indicate that the matter has been very forcibly presented to the public in recent months, and it is desirable that the whole subject should be investigated.
It will be recalled by this house that after the war a conference was held, in accordance with the terms of the treaty of Peace, looking towards more equitable provision being made for compensation for labour, better hours, less onerous, shall I say, hours of service, and better compensation. In this country the acute division of legislative powers between the Dominion parliament and the provincial legislatures has occasioned much diseussion, but most of the provinces did pass minimum wage acts and regulations were made under the provisions of those statutes. It is alleged, and very strongly, that there has been practically a disregard of the provisions of those statutes in many of the provinces and that industries and factories have been placed upon the exempt list with very evil consequences to those who are emplo3'ed in them. Without in any sense indicating the correctness or otherwise of the statements that have been made, the government has thought it desirable that there should be a close and careful consideration of all these matters as they affect the standard of living, compliance with the general principles of the law and the conclusions which were reached at the end of the war and embodied in the treaty of Peace and which in'fact brought about the maintenance at Geneva of an international labour bureau to which we have made notable contributions.
With respect to one particular industry in this country to which I observe reference was made yesterday by an hon. member from Saskatchewan regarding the relation between the bakeries and the milling industry, it is necessary for me at this moment only to remark that many of our milling industries own bakeries as subsidiaries and that the effect that such ownership has had upon the
price paid for bread or other products of the bakeries is a matter that will be considered by the committee.
The other problem to be dealt with is one that is almost a perennial, that is, how the marketing of live stock and animal products in this country may be improved. The other evening I pointed out that an effort had been made many years ago to improve conditions in Canada and that successive governments, federal and provincial, had endeavoured to graipplle with the question. The committee will investigate the method and system prevailing and ascertain to what extent the present system affords the largest possible opportunity or restricts the largest possible return being given to the producers. After consideration I thought it was not desirable to enter into a discussion of specific instances, because that might be regarded as a tendency to prejudge the matter, but I realize that to set up a committee of this kind it is necessary that witnesses should be called, that papers and documents should be examined, and that the committee should have before it evidence as to hours of labour, wages paid, and conditions. That is very difficult for any committee to secure by the mere calling of witnesses and it has been thought that the committee might direct that a commission be issued to some competent person to make inquiries in factories A, B, C and D and report such conditions to the committee. I believe that would serve the purpose without undue expense, and at the same time give first-hand evidence to the committee of the conditions about which complaints have been made. I know hon. members are all familiar with the use of the word "sweatshop" and recently representations have been made to me, and, I fancy, to hon. members opposite as to conditions in some of the factories of the country. It is proposed by this method, if it meets with the approval of the chamber, to deal with the situation, that is, that the committee shall determine that a given individual who has the qualifications necessary shall be appointed to make investigations into factories in Ontario, Quebec or elsewhere and then come back to the committee and report conditions as they are found. I do not think there is anything I desire to add beyond what is stated in the motion itself and these few preliminary observations which are made in explanation of the reasons for the motion being moved.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
am rising, not to take exception in any way to the purpose to be served by the motion,

Price Spreads-Mr. Mackenzie King
namely, that of establishing a special committee of the house to make the inquiry indicated in the motion itself, but rather to express surprise that the government has waited until the fifth session of this parliament to introduce a motion of this kind.


An hon. MEMBER:: How long did the
right hon. gentleman wait?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we waited any 'length of time, it only makes the time hon. members opposite have waited still longer. If, before the late government went out of office, my hon. friends recognized the necessity for an inquiry into the matter referred to, I am more than ever surprised that they h$ve waited so long. The point I wish to make is that, ever since this parliament has been in session, there have been persistent representations as to the necessity for an investigation into the spread of prices; and into the necessity not merely for an investigation but for action by way of legislation which would make more effective legislation already on the statutes, and to meet a most pressing and urgent situation in the country.
The motion indicates that there is to be an inquiry by a committee with the possibility of the matter being followed still further by a royal commission. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has just indicated that in all probability a royal commission will be appointed. I would take that to mean that so far as this session of parliament is concerned, if we are to judge by the length of time parliamentary committees and royal commissions usually take to do their work, we shall hardly be able to look for much in the way of legislation that will help effectively to meet what apparently at last the government recognizes to be a very serious condition. The motion is in large part one of postponing action. What the country is interested in is not so much further inquiry with respect to matters about which nearly everyone knows a great deal, but legislation, if more is required, to meet a situation that is already understood.
Among motions specifically related to the question of inquiring into the spread of prices, was one introduced and discussed at the last session. In the course of the debate information was disclosed amply sufficient to guide the government in the matter of the necessary legislation. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) at the 'beginning of last session gave notice of the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, an immediate inquiry should be made under the provisions of The Research Council Act, chapter 177, R.S.C., 1927, or by other means, into the causes underlying the wide spread between the prices of raw products and the
IMr. Mackenzie Kinir.1
prices of goods manufactured from such products.
That resolution stood on the order paper throughout the greater part of the session. Finally, a debate took place upon it, and at that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who has recently 'been speaking on this subject, said that later on he would have some observations to make on the subject in this house which would be- and I quote his words-"sympathetic and not in any sense antagonistic to the object they have in view." Why did not the Minister of Trade and Commerce come along with his further observations before the session was over? Nothing more was heard about the lesolution. It was allowed to remain on the order paper, the government gave no further opportunity to have it discussed. Yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce now says that at that time he was in sympathy with the resolution. I submit that in view of the discussion which took place on that resolution, the government might well have held an inquiry during the recess and had legislation in readiness at this time, rather than to be now asking the house to appoint a special committee to begin inquiry.
Last night, in this chamber, an address was delivered by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) which showed as conclusively as any inquiry that could be made by a committee of this house the necessity for further legislation to meet the obvious restraints of trade and commerce which help to account for the wide spread between prices being paid to producers and those which are being paid by consumers.
I recall that this summer, speaking in western Canada, while in the province of Alberta, I drew the attention of the public to the necessity, perfectly obvious in the mind of every farmer I met while there, of some immediate investigation into what is believed by the cattle raisers to be a series of price fixing arrangements in connection with the processing of products of the cattle industry and of immediate legislation with respect thereto. I quote from a press dispatch from Claresholm, Alberta, of August 14, reported in the Ottawa Journal by Canadian Press, August 15, as follows:
"I find," said the Liberal leader to his Claresholm audience, "that people in the cattlebreeding business here are just 'being strangled in matters of trade."
In the combine which he believed' existed there was circle after circle, each demanding its profit, so finally a great spread grew up between the producer and consumer.
It is not necessary to have any government inquiry to find out that that condition is

Price Spreads-Mr. Mackenzie King
existing, it is known by the cattle-raisers generally throughout western Canada. What I think was really to have been expected from the government at this time was, not that they should be asking the house, in this fifth session, to appoint a committee of inquiry, but that they would bring down concrete legislation in the light of information which hon. members already have, and which is ample for the purpose of guiding the government.
There is one other aspect which I think is perhaps even more important. It is that the government has already legislation available to deal with matters of this kind, if it will view the whole question sympathetically. Legislation is one thing, but the administration of existing law is quite another. I do not think one need go beyond what has taken place in the last three or four years to recognize very clearly that no matter what the laws may be, unless the department of the government that administers them is wholly sympathetic with the object in view, the law will serve very little purpose. We have on the statutes a Combines Investigation Act which provides all the machinery necessary for the purpose of making the fullest possible kind of inquiry into any matter preventing or lessening competition or restraining trade; effective machinery, machinery giving all the powers and affording as well all the safeguards needed in connection with inquiry into matters of this kind. But where inquiries have started under the Combines Investigation Act, as far as they have been within the control of the ministry proceedings have been protracted and permitted to drag along from year to year so that the legislation itself has been rendered largely ineffective. What is really needed is sympathetic administration.
To illustrate the difference between the attitude taken by hon. gentlemen opposite and that of hon. members on this side with respect to the investigation of combines, monopolies and other organizations in restraint of trade, I might point out that in 1910 the Liberal government of the day placed on the statutes a Combines Investigation Act. That statute served a useful purpose while the Liberal administration was in office. Soon after, the Conservative party came into power in 1911. In 1914, the war came on, and during the period of the war there were other matters to which attention of necessity had to be given, and some matters which were of great importance at other times did not at that time receive the same amount of attention. But long before the war was over, there was ample
evidence of the extent to which formidable monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade had been developing, which had been doing much to further the artificial fixation or control of prices. Did the government of the day try to proceed under the act? Did they not rather take a course quite the opposite? Hon. gentlemen will recall that they repealed the Combines Investigation Act, and substituted for it two other pieces of legislation; the Board of Commerce Act, passed in 1919, and a so-called Combines and Fair Prices Act passed in the same year. But these measures had no sooner been passed than their constitutionality was questioned, and shortly before the government of that day went out of office a decision was given by the judicial committee of the privy council to the effect that the Board of Commerce Act was ultra vires. In other words, all that was done was to repeal an act which was wholly effective, and substitute for it measures which would prevent any real investigation taking place meanwhile.
What happened after the change of administration? In 1923, the Minister of Labour in the late Liberal administration reintroduced a Combines Investigation Act. A great deal of study and care had been given to its preparation. A Combines Investigation Act was again placed on the statutes and while a Liberal administration was in office the measure was sympathetically administered. The public soon became aware of the fact that, if the attention of the Department of Labour were drawn to combines and monopolies in restraint of trade in accordance with the provisions of the act, a very thorough investigation might be expected. The result was that many of those who otherwise might have lent themselves to price fixing by agreements to restrict and hamper trade were more cautious and careful in their action. But since hon. gentlemen opposite have come into office the Combines Investigation Act has not been as sympathetically administered. Indeed, one has only to look at the estimates laid on the table by the bon. the Minister of Finance a day or two ago, to see how this very year, at this very moment, at a time when the act is more needed than ever before, and when its provisions should be of the greatest possible service, the government is actually cutting down the appropriation needed for efficient and effective administration of the act. I have in my hand the estimates of the Department of Labour for the year ending March 31, 1935. I find that in the year 1933-34 a total of $43,000 was appropriated for the purposes of the act, but that
192	COMMONS
Price Spreads-Mr. Mackenzie King
this year there is to be an appropriation not of $43,000 but of $22,000. The vote is practically cut in half, and this at a time when hon. gentlemen by the motion which they now introduce, concede the necessity for full inquiry into the sort of thing with which the Combines Investigation Act was enacted to deal.
May I add that the Combines Investigation Act contains within its provisions ample powers for all the investigation that need be made to guide the government in the matter of further legislation? The legislation is already there, we do not need to wait for a committee of this house to report on these matters. There is ample provision in the act for conducting inquiry if the government is really in earnest.
Take one matter that the Prime Minister has just referred to, the appointment of a royal commission. The Prime Minister says when this committee meets that possibly they will want some additional information, and that in all probability a royal commission will be appointed to secure the information. Why should it be necessary to take that step when the legislation I have in my hand has anticipated and provided the means to meet the need for that very sort of thing? Let me read section 12 of the Combines Investigation Act, 1923:
All provisions of the Inquiries Act not repugnant to the provisions of this act shall apply to any inquiry or investigation under this act, and the registrar and every commissioner shall have all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, including the powers mentioned in section 11 thereof, whether thereunto authorized by the commission issued in the case or not, except in so far as Slid: powers may be inconsistent with the provisions of this act.
With all the powers that could be conferred under the Inquiries Act, under which royal commissions are appointed, already given the commissioner under this measure; with those powers available to the minister in order to obtain the information that is necessary to guide parliament or his department, why should there be need for a royal commission? More than that, on his own initiative the minister can hold an inquiry into any one of the various matters mentioned in the provisions of the act. He has a staff that is efficient and trained in matters of this kind, and he has a registrar who has shown his capacity for careful, tactful, thorough and efficient investigation. Why should an effort be made to get out from under this act, in an investigation of this kind, and have matters placed in the hands of a royal commission?

In a word, Mr. Speaker, that is my objection, so far as I have any, to the motion before the house at the moment. I would not in any way discourage any step which will help arouse the ministry to the necessity for action, but I do say that they ought to be fully aroused at the present time, that they ought to have been fully aware of the need for inquiry long ago and that they ought to have been fully aware of the need for what more may be required in the way of legislation. I say the ministry ought now to be prepared with its legislation. Just about this time last year, speaking in this house, I pointed out that if there were, as I thought possible, limitations to this act in coping with new situations which have arisen, the government ought to supplement it by additional legislation. I said that the Combines Investigation Act was only a beginning. I quote from what I said on February 27, 1933:
The Combines Investigation Act is but a mere beginning and does not meet the situation obtaining to-day. There should be more adequate facilities for investigations, and additional penalties should be imposed. Some conditions obtain which should be remedied by additional provisions in the criminal code. To-day we are seeking in vain to cope with these evils by milder methods.
Why are not additional provisions recommended for the criminal code in order to meet some of the situations which I think are pretty obvious and understood by the public generally? The public are looking at this session not for further inquiry or further royal commissions but for action in the nature of legislation.
I have just one further thought to add, and it is this: Since the government has decided that a parliamentary committee is advisable for the purpose of inquiry, the government should enlarge the scope of the inquiry in a manner which will go to the very root of the situation. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have drawn attention to what they have referred to as mass purchasing and alleged evils growing out of mass purchases in the retail and wholesale trade. When purchases are made they are made from large manufacturing concerns, and when large manufacturing concerns fix their prices for the things they sell they take into account all items that have entered into the cost of production. I submit that what is really required, above everything else, is an inquiry into the methods of financing of some of the large industrial concerns of this country, and what through reckless financing has been occasioned by way of loss which is being passed on to the consumer and for which the consumer is paying to-day.

Price Spreads-Mr. Marcil
That is a situation, Mr. Speaker, of the existence of which we have had ample evidence south of the line, and anyone who .is familiar with conditions in Canada will realize that a similar situation exists here. So I would suggest that, before this motion carries, if at all possible, it should be enlarged to include an investigation into the method of financing of some of this country's industrial concerns.
Mr. WILLIAM G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg) :	Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask
the Prime Minister if he would consider an amendment to paragraph (d) of the resolution. Probably in the case of no other commodity is there a greater spread between the price paid by the purchaser and the price paid to the producer than in the case of fish. Paragraph (d) may be intended to include an inquiry into the fish business, but that does not appear. So I would ask the Prime Minister if he would consider an amendment to that paragraph, inserting after the words " live stock " the word " fish," so that it would read, " in the marketing of live stock, fish and animal products."


Mr. POULIOT:: And to-day is a fish day.


Mr. ERNST:: Yes, and the price is too
high.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. In the Gaspe peninsula the fishermen complain that they are treated differently from their brother fishermen in the maritime provinces; this is a long-standing complaint, and it has been made more frequently since the fisheries were transferred to the provinces. At the present time there is a move on foot to have joint action taken by the dominion and the province to attend to these Quebec fisheries, so I hope the Prime Minister will agree to the suggestion that has been made and include fish in this resolution.


Hon. P. J. YENIOT (Gloucester):: When
coming to attend this session of parliament, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take a very active part in the debates, but when I saw this motion which has been brought forward by the Prime Minister I could not help thinking that it should be enlarged. Holding that opinion I wish to suggest, and in fact I may say that I am going to move, an amendment as an addition to the motion before I resume my seat.
My reason for thinking that the motion does not go far enough in the matter of
investigation lies in the fact that no reference is made to the point I wish to raise. In paragraph (a) we have the matter of mass buying which is to be investigated; under paragraph (b) labour conditions are to be looked into; paragraph (c) deals with the relationship between the flour milling industry and the bakeries of Canada. These are all to be investigated, but there is one phase of the question of industrial development in Canada which I think should attract the attention of the government to a greater extent than the subjects I have mentioned, and that is the effect of the administration of the finances of this country upon industry in general.
The administration of our finances, as I understand the principle, should be so arranged as to serve industry and not have industry serve finance. It is a patent fact that within the last few years the financiers of Canada have developed industries to serve their own needs. Why should the bankers, brokers, those in charge of bondhouses, trustees or trust companies have the administration of Canadian industry? It is a known fact that one of the chief reasons for failure in the production of newsprint is that the financiers have encouraged kite flying to the very skies. Instead of pointing the way for the industries, attempting to effect a curbing influence, and pointing out that the industries are on dangerous ground, those financiers have encouraged development to the point where they, the financiers of Canada, the brokers, the trust companies and the banks have taken the personal profits to themselves, a process which has not been in the best interests of the industries affected.
The same statement would apply to the development of Canada's mineral resources, to our lumbering industry, and to many others I might name. I repeat that the time has come when this parliament should take the matter in hand and by legislation, and if necessary drastic legislation, prevent the financiers from in future handling the finances of Canada the way they have been handled in the past.
Probably the house would excuse me if to some extent I violate the rules and read from a manuscript. Why should we find industry being controlled by banks and trust companies? If the financiers had not encouraged promoters to fly their financial kites to the skies we would not have in Canada to-day such drastic failures. Let us if possible get to the bottom of the financial evil, and thus lay the foundation for more solid and enduring development of our industrial life. If we

Price Spreads-Mr. Heaps

can do this we will be sounding the death knell of industrial speculation, we will be securing a solid foundation for our internal expansion, we will secure better wages for our labouring class, we will put an end to uncontrolled and ruinous competition and, above all, we will lessen mass buying, of which there is so much complaint. Through this action organized industry will be able so to lessen its overhead and control its cost of manufacture that competition will find a common ground on which to make offerings of its wares to the public. Those who complain of mass buying cannot, and should not, blame the wholesale purchaser who knows that the manufactured goods offered to him are priced on the basis of the amount of watered stock which can be traced to their cost, the effect over-capitalization has had upon the cost of production, and the relation of high interest rates to such cost.
The firm that has not been cursed by such over-capitalization, watered stock and undue rates of interest can afford to sell at prices yielding a moderate profit. Is it any wonder that wholesale dealers will say to the manufacturers, "Your prices are too high, and unless vou come down to something reasonable we will have to purchase elsewhere,-outside of Canada, if necessary. We should not be called upon to pay an added cost arising from the fact that you have to pay from eight percent to twelve percent for the money you have borrowed. We should not be called upon to pay an added price caused by over-valuation or over-capitalization of your stock. We should not be called upon to pay the prices which you claim you must add to your ordinary profit to take care of the high rate of interest which you have to pay for the money invested in the development of your industry." Can you blame the wholesalers for mass buying? Can you blame a wholesaler when he states to a certain firm, "Your cost is too high, and if you do not come down to a reasonable price we will have to look elsewhere, even if we have to look outside of Canada." My conclusion is that the only way to remedy the evil I have outlined is to go fully into the whole matter, call upon our captains of industry, our banks, our trust companies and our brokers to lay bare, before a committee of the house, or, if you like, a royal commission, the methods adopted in their business transaction.
To that end I move the following and ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to add what I have to suggest as subsection (e) of his motion now before the house:
(e) the methods and system that have prevailed in the distribution of common stock,

preferred stock and the flotation of bonds by brokers, trust companies and banks for the development of industry in Canada.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to voice my endorsation of the motion now before the house. I feel inclined to believe that had the motion come from this corner of the house we might have been accused of attempting to upset some of our established institutions, and of reverting to socialistic and bolshevistic tactics. However, coming as it does from the government side of the house I suppose we may put it down as an act of statesmanship. Therefore I wish to commend the government upon its act of statesmanship in introducing the motion now before us.
My purpose in rising is to put a question to the government concerning a matter debated in the month of November, 1932. At that time I spoke concerning conditions of wages and labour in the textile industry. During the course of the debate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) rising in his place stated that the government was prepared to submit the whole question of wages and conditions in the textile industry to the tariff board, when that board had been appointed. The tariff board has been appointed, but I am not going to ask the Prime Minister to refer this subject to it. If the committee now under consideration is appointed, and no doubt it will be, would the Prime Minister tell me whether or not the question of labour conditions and wages received by those employed in the textile industry will come under the purview of the committee and whether such committee will be able to make a thorough investigation into conditions now prevailing in that industry?


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks I wish to make it is not my intention to speak in opposition to the principle of the resolution. As a matter of fact I believe I may claim that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has adopted my child, because last year I moved a resolution along the lines of the present one. To-day it appears on the order paper as number 23 in the notices of motions. It would appear therefore that in this instance the government is just a year late in considering the matter. I do not know but what the government would be well advised to accept the resolution I have on the order paper instead of this one which the Prime Minister has placed before us because I believe that it is quite possible to accomplish what is desired a little sooner by my resolution than by this cumber-

Price Spreads-Mr. McKenzie
some method of first appointing a parliamentary committee to make an investigation with the hope of having it all completed in time for legislation to be passed at this session.
My reason for presenting my resolution in the first place a year ago was that, first of all, I thought of the farmers and the labouring people throughout the country who are in such dire distress owing to the present economic conditions, and because of those conditions, which still prevail, it is surely time that the farmers who produce wheat, for instance, should be able to get part at least of the profit that comes from the growth of that wheat. The farmer prepares the ground, sows the crop, reaps it and markets it, and after doing all that, he makes the least of anybody who has anything to do with the handling of that wheat. I think that the time has come when the men who labour on the land should have an opportunity of making a decent living. The same thing that applied a year ago still applies to live stock, poultry and all the other farm products. I was thinking principally of farm products when I introduced my resolution a year ago.
The resolution which the Prime Minister has presented to the house deals in paragraph (a) with the effect of mass buying by departmental and chain store organizations; (b) deals with labour conditions; (c) deals with the flour milling industry and (d) with the methods prevailing in the marketing of live stock and animal products for domestic consumption and export. That probably goes far enough, but what I am concerned about is whether the matters which I brought to the attention of the house a year ago and the conditions I pointed out then as existing throughout the country will be fully gone into by this committee of inquiry,. When that committee meets, whoever may be on it, when some person introduces something along the lines I have just suggested here with regard to farm products, I do not want some member of the committee to reply that the scope of the committee's reference does not permit them to go that far, and thereby be precluded from introducing that subject.
I am concerned to know just what is behind the fact that the five and ten cents a pound which the producer gets for wool to-day becomes two dollar per pound clothing when it is processed, and why it is that hides that are selling for as low as fifty cents apiece are made into ten and twelve dollar boots, and equally expensive harness, sole 74726-13 i
leather, lace leather and other products. I want to know not only the facts about the flour milling industry but also why some of the breakfast foods that are so extensively used are so expensive to buy when grain is at its present low price. I want to know why it is that these conditions prevail and if the scope of this resolution and of the reference that will be made to the committee will allow of all these matters being taken up and investigated fully by the committee.
Last year I suggested that tariffs and combines were largely responsible for those conditions. My right hon. leader has dealt with the question of combines. I believe that tariffs and combines are largely responsible for the conditions that exist, and I should like to see that matter fully investigated.
I believe, as has been stated before, that there is considerable to be investigated in the textile industries in this country. My information is that the textile industries are fairly busy, but that the wages are lower than they have ever been before. If that is the case I think there should be an investigation into that industry.
I think inquiry should also be made whether or not there are industries in this country that should never have been given protection -exotic industries. If there are such, I for one am willing to let those industries be discontinued if they are costing us more through their tariff protection and the high prices they are charging for their products than they are returning to us in salaries and services.
During the last two years the expression has been widely used in this country-Buy made-in-Canada goods. We remember that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr1. Stevens) a few years ago got out his creed largely devoted to promoting that idea. I believe that that Made-in-Canada slogan has cost us a great deal of money in this country. If we can buy cheaper from other countries, then I believe that industries that cannot make a living in this country without high tariff protection should be allowed to go to the wall. Our farmers and our labouring people must have some relief, and that very soon.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to support this resolution in every way possible if I can be assured that it will be wide enough in its scope to take in all that I have suggested and as much more as possible.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the house this afternoon I did not intend to participate in this debate. I desire, however, to congratulate the govern-
196	COMMONS
Price Spreads-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
ment on the motion which is now before the house. I believe that no action which the government has yet taken has so impressed the electorate of this country that this government has a real concern in the affairs of the people and especially for the producers in Canada.
I want to support the request made by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) that fish products be included within the ambit of this motion. In my constituency of Selkirk the fishing industry is a very important one. Last year the provincial government investigated that industry and found that conditions in it were, to say the least, deplorable. As the market for our fish products in Manitoba is largely abroad, most of our markets being found in the United States of America, it is especially important that this commodity should be included in the inquiry. We found for example, in that investigation that the fishermen of lake Winnipeg, a matter of forty or fifty miles from the city of Winnipeg, were being paid the paltry sum of li cents a pound for white-fish which was retailing in the large departmental stores of Winnipeg at from 12 to 15 cents a pound. The fishermen in my riding were practically reduced to a condition of wage slavery, and no action that this government has taken will find more support in my riding than this proposal to investigate these conditions.
I may say for the benefit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) that resolutions have been passed throughout this dominion supporting and congratulating him in the stand which he took in the speech he made recently in regard to trade conditions within our own country.
Let me also emphasize a point in relation to the labour conditions prevailing. It is certainly time that this house, under the power which it has in regard bo the general peace, order and good government of the country, should really take hold of the question of the labour conditions existing in Canada. I find that last year, even in regard to supplies which were ordered by the government, those people in the province of Manitoba who desired to tender for such supplies could not compete with the province of Quebec, where there was no minimum scale of wage. There ought to be a minimum wage in this oauntry, and I believe there ought to be a minimum price. The fish producer certainly cannot dispose of his product at one and a half cents per pound, nor can the live stock producers throughout the country supply meat products to the large

packing industries at prices which only mean serfdom on the land. Just realize what one and a half cents per pound means to our farmers!
I cannot speak in too eulogistic terms of the government's action, but before closing I might say a word with regard to the objection put forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to this matter being discussed by this honourable house. If I rightly understood his remarks, he said that we had a Combines Investigation Act and that this matter ought to be referred to a departmental official. I submit that this is a matter that should come before the supremacy of parliament. I ask the right hon. gentleman:	Does it not look as if this
government really meant what it proposes to undertake, when it comes before parliament and asks the supreme power of this house to investigate a condition which should not be relegated for inquiry to any mere official.
We have heard speeches from the opposition regarding the contemptuous way in which parliament has been treated. Surely in a matter of this kind, which concerns the whole of Canada's industrial and commercial life, the supreme power of parliament ought to be invoked and the powers of this house should be utilized, to ascertain the fundamental facts existing. I believe the people of Canada will recognize that the Prime Minister and his government mean business, and I congratulate them on their stand.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton):: Let me say at the outset that so far as this resolution goes I am heartily in accord with it. I do not intend to discuss what is contained in it nor to express any opinions as to what should be added, but I must make this observation. Inquiries of this sort never amount to a great deal so far as parliamentary committees are concerned. Hon. gentlelmen need only refer to the investigation held last year, and the statements made in this house last night by the hon. member who had asked for that inquiry, with respect to milk. Everyone knows how futile it has been-even the suggestion made by the committee. I am beginning to think that if we are to remain under the blight of high tariffs in Canada, excessive tariffs, then the only thing to do is to follow the course pursued by previous governments in dealing with railway matters.
Inquiries were made in the House of Commons into freight rates. Hon. gentlemen have access to Hansard and they can ascertain how far we succeeded in obtaining redress. And

Price Spreads-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
we in western Canada have a very vivid recollection of the summary manner in which we were treated by the railway companies until finally parliament appointed a railway commission and gave them wide powers of control over every activity of the railways. Since that time, it is true, there have been individual complaints, but in the main the people of Canada have had a court to which they could appeal with some hope of getting redress and receiving decent treatment.
So far as this inquiry is concerned, I say, let it go on. We are not well equipped however to deal with the matter as proposed. Despite the fact that we have many eminent lawyers in the House of Commons, we are not well equipped for obtaining evidence, and the time is too short to get it. Take the matters mentioned in the resolution itself: it would take a whole year to arrive at a conclusion which would enable us to provide relief. However, I commend the government for their effort, in starting this inquiry, but I do say that in my judgment we shall have to come to some organization similar to that which we have set up for the supervision of the great railway corporations in this country.
If we are to have a few large departmental stores, and if, as we observe day by day, we are to see the manufacturing industry of the country getting into fewer and fewer hands, with the result that the small retailer has to go out of business, then in order to cope with these intensive organizations we shall have to set up some body clothed with authority to deal with the question of price fixation as practised among these institutions. Let me refer my fellow farmers to one-and I am not going to blame this government in the matter, because I do not believe that either this or any other government, either by tariffs or otherwise, can control the farm implement industry in Canada and the United States as that industry is to-day organized. It has in its own hands a system of price fixation and it is impossible to get at it unless somebody clothed with authority is empowered to investigate such matters as investment, plant, cost of manufacture and the prices they can reasonably expect to receive from the consumer. Unless you make competition free- which I am not even going to advocate-then you will have this evil with its ever-increasing effect upon the purchasing power of the country.
So far as this inquiry is concerned, we shall probably uncover some things, but they will be mighty few; and then the difficulty will be that after all, if parliament is to do anything about it, there will have to be set up,
as I say, someone with authority. Personally I believe that we would go further by an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act; but so far as I am concerned, I am in favour of the investigation. I do want, however, to see something result from it. What effect has the milk inquiry had upon the fixation of prices, and how much have the producer and the consumer been helped? I am afraid that is about, where we shall find ourselves in this inquiry.
Horn. H. II. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I had not intended taking part in the debate, having expected that the resolution would commend itself to the house and be received without any great discussion. I can assure the house however that the resolution, as presented by the Prime Minister, has certainly been offered in no partisan spirit whatever: it has been offered in the hope and, as I have intimated, the expectation that hon. members generally throughout the house might at least have viewed this effort as non-partisan, directed solely to securing some solution of some of the most perplexing problems with which this and indeed other countries are confronted at the present time.
I suppose it is quite unnecessary for me to indicate this comparison. Reference has been made during this session to the efforts that are being put forth south of the line, and I received this morning a pile of codes, thirty or forty in number; but it must be obvious to anyone who has carefully observed the efforts to the south of us how many difficulties and perplexities are confronting the people there. It is perhaps one of the most complex and intricate tasks any government has undertaken. The same thing obtains here, perhaps in a lesser degree, because this country is not so large and its businesses are not so extensive. But the desire of the government -and I can say this with absolute assurance- is that this committee, purposely named as a small one, should get to grips with some of these baffling problems.
In the first place, let me point out to the house that a very sharp problem of jurisdiction obtrudes itself into almost any of the measures that are referred to in the resolution, and the government of the day has reviewed some of these problems with the desire to do something, but almost at every turn one takes in dealing with matters, for instance, of civil rights or anything that is included within the ambit of that very broad term, we are up against provincial jurisdiction. Then- there is the question, for example, of wages which, as everyone knows, comes
Price Spreads-Mr. Stevens

under provincial jurisdiction. We could very easily have taken shelter under that; we could have said: We are very sorry for these things but the matter is under provincial jurisdiction and we could have handed it over to the provinces. But the government has recognized that so acute have some of these problems become, with one province having one type of legislation dealing, for instance, with the minimum wage question, another province having another standard or type of legislation, some provinces having no legislation at all and all of them competing one with another in manufacturing and producing within the confines of Canada, that a very difficult problem is presented. I am not going to suggest this afternoon that these questions are simple or easy. They are most difficult and this committee will have a most important and intricate task presented to it when this resolution passes and the committee is set up.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was very unhappy in his approach to this question and I was disappointed in his address. The other members who have spoken have been a little more generous and moderate, but the right hon. gentleman was most disappointingly critical, and I shall endeavour to show in one or two instances where he has been unfair to the government. I regret approaching this problem in rather a combative spirit because I had hoped it would be unnecessary, but one cannot allow to go unchallenged some statements made by him. He said that his predecessors, the Union government, repealed a perfectly good statute and substituted for it the Board of Commerce and the other bill which companioned it in 1918 or 1919. He said that they carried on under this legislation for a couple of years; that nothing was done and that then the legislation was declared ultra vires of the Dominion parliament. That is quite true, but whether it was a wise or an unwise act, it was a sincere one and a genuine effort at that time to deal with then existing conditions which were almost the reverse of those that prevail to-day. The condition which confronted the government of that day was rapidly rising prices of commodities in Canada and throughout the world with the tendency on the part of producers of commodities-and I am speaking not so much of natural as of manufactured products-to follow the rising market rather with accelerated speed, shall I say, thus boosting prices to an unreasonable extent. My right hon. friend will remember

how he and his whole party fixed their campaign in 1921 on the one outstanding war cry-the high cost of living.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The tariff.


Mr. STEVENS:: In other words, commodity prices, farm prices, raw material prices and prices of manufactured goods were all on the rise and there was a tendency for the cost of living to go exceedingly high. It will be recalled that one of the main things that brought the matter to a head and resulted in the establishment of a board of commerce was the price of sugar. I am subject to correction by any hon. member if I am wrong;
I believe the price of sugar went up to twenty-five cents a pound at that time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Twenty-seven cents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Someone says twentyseven cents. I know it went up to an absurdly high price. It will be recalled that wheat, for instance, went to something like $3.40 or, indeed, to almost $4 a bushel on one occasion, and the wheat board was appointed for the purpose of keeping the price of wheat down to a moderate and reasonable level and controlling what was a rising market in that particular commodity.
Conditions to-day are just the reverse of what they were then. Further, the right hon. gentleman says: Deal with it under the Combines Act. Let me turn again to the United States. Since the late Theodore Roosevelt started his compaign against the combines about 1900 roughly speaking, and the Sherman Act and other acts were passed, the United States has operated under them until recently. What was the basis of those acts? Simply that where businesses and industry got together in combination, they were at once suspect. That type of legislation was set up to prevent businesses from getting together and fixing prices. That was really the genesis of that legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The United
States legislation, not the Canadian.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am speaking of the
United States, as my right hon. friend, if he wall permit me to finish my paragraph, will see. That legislation was in force and was the directing legislation of the industrial life of the United States until last summer. What has happened since then? Under the present president, Mr. Franklin Roosevelt, a gentleman of the same name, there is a complete reversal of that principle. Under the code system and under legislation passed by congress he is making it obligatory for industries to get together, imposing upon them the

Price Spreads-Mr. Stevens
duty of arriving at a fixed fair price. There is a complete reversal of the legislation, in that country that has been controlling trade and industry for the last thirty-two or thirty-three years. Therefore my right hon. friend must surely recognize that when he appeals to the house, as he has done, to disregard the suggested study to which I shall refer in a moment, and points to the Combines Act of Canada, I submit that he is making an entirely retrograde movement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that the Canadian Combines Investigation Act proceeded on a basis entirely the opposite to that of the anti-trust legislation in the United State?. The basis on which our legislation was founded is similar to that on which the present president of the United States is proceeding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know; because I drafted and introduced the act, and I am familiar with its provisions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The trouble with the
right hon. gentleman, if he will permit me

I do not wish to be rude-is this: certainly he introduced this act in 1910 or 1909 and he is so wrapped up in the historic fact that he is the father of this legislation, he thinks there is no other type of legislation necessary. I have often heard him refer to this legislation. I was one of the few members in the house in 1923, I think it was, when this modern act was introduced by his government and I pointed out that in my opinion it was wrong in principle. I have always argued that there is no crime in association, whether it be an association of grain growers or of shoe manufacturers or of retailers or of any other class of society-


Mr. RHODES:: Or labour.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or labour, providing such association is not used for the oppression of the public generally.
Let me point out to the hon. gentleman where he is in error and where he was not, I think, fair to the house in saying that under section 18 of the act all the powers we are asking for in this resolution for commissions bo make examinations-and I shall elaborate that in a moment-could be exercised by the registrar. Therefore he says there is no need for any more legislation, take the legislation you have; inferring of course, "it is my legislation and this government is not trying to enforce it."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are speaking about investigation now, not legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He said quite clearly,
You have the legislation in the Combines Investigation Act, use it. That is the effect of what he said. Here is the clause that he cites, section 18:
All provisions of the Inquiries Act not repugnant to the provisions of this act shall apply to any inquiry or investigation under this act, and the registrar and every commissioner, shall have all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, including the powers which are thereby authorized to be conferred by the commission issued in the case, except in so far as any such powers may be inconsistent with the provisions of this act.
What are the provisions of this act? The powers that this act confers are in section 11. That section sets forth that any six persons, British subjects, who are of the opinion that a combine exists or is being formed, may apply in writing to the registrar for the investigation of such alleged combine, and so on. In other words the whole act is directed at one thing, that is the possible or alleged or presumed existence of a combine. That is not what we are concerned about alone.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says "and so forth" but, if he will read a little further so as to include the "and so forth" he will find that an inquiry can be made whenever the minister so directs, not dependent on the six persons.


Henry Herbert Stevens: the great manufacturing industries of Canada. My concern for the moment is not for the great industries of this country, because they are not suffering particularly. They may be suffering from the general condition of depression. But the industries that we are considering now are the small industries that find themselves manufacturing for large organizations who by the exercise of mass buying power are able to dictate to those industries what their prices shall be. The right hon. gentleman inferred, indeed he stated, that it was the large manufacturing industries of this country that fixed prices, therefore, he says, I would invoke the Combines Investigation Act. But that is not what we are concerned about. It is open to any six people in Canada to make application where they consider there is an abuse of that kind of power. That is provided for by the Combines Investigation Act. But there is no legislation, either passed during the right hon. gentleman's regime or this, that protects or gives a chance of competitive existence to the decent small industry, of which there are thousands in this country, industries that cannot, by the widest stretch of imagination, be classed as combines or vast manufacturing organizations. It is to the assistance of industries of that kind that we desire to go. Not only to them, but to them in so far as they are observers of the law. It is to find out other industries competing with them in defiance of law that we feel it necessary to have this inquiry. Therein lies the entire difference between what is commonly known as the large overbearing industry and the class of small industries that I have mentioned.
Let me draw the attention of the house to what in my estimation is really one of the chief economic problems of industry and commerce to-day, not limited to Canada but common to the whole world; that is the practice that has developed in the last three years in particular of selling goods at less than cost of production. There is scarcely a country in the world that is not indulging in that practice to a certain extent. Indeed many countries are doing it to a degree which if they pursue it much longer will probably bring them to national bankruptcy. There are many industries doing it which also are approaching bankruptcy. Now I admit-I see my hon. friend the member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) getting very busy when I make that observation-I admit that there are people, such as my hon. friend, who hold to the doctrine that it is a contribution to the welfare of humanity if goods are got for less than they are worth. But I want to point out that that cannot be.
I Mr. Stevens.]
It may be a fortunate thing for an individual if he can get an article very cheap at some moment. But if that practice of selling goods at less than the cost of production becomes very prevalent obviously someone else, in some other place it may be, or in some other way, is paying the cost. It has to be absorbed somehow. I do not wish to go into details; the Prime Minister said very properly a few minutes ago that this is not the time for that. But it will probably be paid, as is indeed the case in many countries that are selling goods at less than legitimate cost-I will add that word-by cutting down the wages of employees to a starvation point and thus penalizing those employed in the industry. What we have in mind is to try to find out whether or not the indulgence in unfair and unethical practices is prevalent in this country; to find the causes, to ascertain as far as we possibly can what remedies can be invoked, and, as the resolution very clearly states, to report to the house from time to time the findings, together with recommendation of such measures as in the opinion of the committee may be considered necessary to secure as far as possible fair and just practices in the distribution and marketing systems of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word further. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) I think was very fair in his remarks in the main. He said, however, that he feared it would take so long for this committee to make the investigation that it would be unproductive. I think perhaps his criticism in that respect is not to be refuted too hastily, I can understand that he might be quite sincere in that view. However, it will be noted that this resolution has divided up under certain heads the various types of investigation to be carried on, and there is no reason why these should not be carried on concurrently. Another thing; it is not suggested here that a royal commission should be appointed to follow up what this committee is doing, as the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition repeatedly stated. That is not the idea, and it is not so stated in the resolution. If the right hon. gentleman would deign to read the resolution he would see that it does not contain that inference. Here is what the resolution says:
That the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, and the further power to request the appointment of a commission or commissioners under the Inquiries Act, to secure evidence to be presented to the committee by such commission or commissioners.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a
royal commission.

Price Spreads-Mr. Stevens


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend knew, when he used the term "royal commission" that he was implying and leading the public to believe, to the extent that they may read his remarks, that we were simply seeking to evade the issue. In fact that is what he said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My right hon. friend so stated. He said that we were seeking to evade the issue, that this committee would carry on its work for a long time and then a royal commission would be appointed. I am trying to make clear to him what the resolution states and what is the intention. The intention is that while the committee is sitting, such additional evidence as may be required can be collected by the commission or commissioners so appointed. That will meet the very just apprehensions of the hon. member for West Edmonton and will facilitate the work of the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a royal commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: From the evidence so collected and the evidence heard by the committee itself it is sincerely hoped that the committee will be able to report to the house as I stated a moment ago, measures that will meet the situation.
My hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) referred to a debate which took place about a year and a half ago with regard to the wages paid in industries that enjoyed certain protection under the Canadian tariff. My hon. friend quoted me correctly from page 1325 of Hansard for November 18, 1932. At that time his suggestion was that the question should be referred to the tariff board, and he quoted me as saying:
I am authorized to say this, that it is the intention of the Dominion government that as soon as the tariff board is organized, or as soon thereafter as possible, this whole question shall he reviewed by that board.
The hon. gentleman asked what was being done in that regard. In the first place let me say that this point is being reviewed by the tariff board in each case that comes before it in the ordinary procedure. But when it comes to the question of referring to the tariff board a problem such as is indicated in this resolution, it is felt that the situation will be much more effectively dealt with by a committee of the house than by a reference of the abstract question to the tariff 'board. But the hon. gentleman can rest assured of this, that any time an item is under survey or a question arises regarding the wages paid in Canada
by a given industry enjoying protection under our tariff, the board will take due cognizance of such matters and investigate them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On that point I should like to ask just one question. I am under the impression that under the resolution now before us this committee, when appointed, will have power to investigate such industries as come within its purview. Of those I should think the textile industry would be one, and I wanted the interpretation of the government on that point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot speak for a parliamentary committee, of course, because it must be recognized that such a committee is a power unto itself subject to its order of reference. But giving the ordinary interpretation based upon some experience in these matters I would say that any industry that might be involved in the cause of the large spread between prices received for commodities by the producer and prices paid by the consumer, or that is involved in the system of distribution in Canada, or that comes under any of the different items, certainly would come within their purview if in the opinion of the committee it was thought desirable to go into that matter. But the committee itself must be the determining factor as to whether or not they investigate that particular industry.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out to the minister that paragraph (b) deals with the labour conditions prevailing in industries supplying the requirements of department and chain store organizations. Under that heading I would presume that since these organizations are large purchasers of textiles that industry would come within the purview of the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think there is any doulbt about it, but I hope my hon. friend will not ask me to make a ruling in advance on behalf of the oommittee.
Before I take my seat there is one other point to which I should like to refer. In his remarks the right hon. gentleman referred to the paucity of action by the present government under the combines act. The impression he sought to leave in the mind of anyone not informed in this regard, I am sure, was that we had simply ignored the act. As a matter of fact, since this act was passed in 1923 there have been 330 cases dealt with, and of that number 142 cases have been taken up since this government took office. I think that is a fair answer to the right hon. gentleman's castigation in that respect.
Price Spreads-Mr. Stevens


Charles A. Stewart: Personally I remember only a very few cases in which recommendations were made for investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The registrar can investigate without a recommendation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The registrar can take action himself.


Charles A. Stewart: I only know of three cases in which investigations have been made.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I happen to have a few in mind that I can recall, though of course at a moment's notice I cannot give my hon. friend a complete list. The figures I gave are accurate so far as the totals are concerned. Of course many of these investigations, which are initiated by the registrar either at the instigation of six or more citizens, on his own initiative or on the instructions of the minister, are disposed of in a short time. It is either shown that combines do not exist, or that the charges have no foundation, or that some correction has been made. I recall at the moment investigations into moving pictures and radio tubes, the bread inquiry, the fruit inquiry, the tobacco investigation, the British anthracite coal inquiry and the investigation into rubber footwear, which I believe is still proceeding, as well as the inquiry into the price of gasoline. These are a few of the major matters which come to my mind at the moment. Let me say this to the house without hesitation, however, that as far as this government is concerned the combines act has been enforced impartially, and there has been no interference with the officials charged with duties thereunder. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is not in his seat, but I can say this from personal knowledge. The act has been enforced just as impartially as it was when my right hon. friend led the previous government.
I have spoken a little longer than I first intended, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to conclude simply by repeating that we hope to have a committee-in selecting the members of which the right hon. gentleman will join-[DOT] that will go earnestly and sincerely into this whole series of questions, which are very broad, with one object in view, that of trying to compose some of the difficulties that exist with regard to constitutional rights and to find measures that are within the power of this parliament to deal effectively with the abuses and difficulties with which trade and commerce and industry are confronted at the present time. As I said in the opening of my remarks the government offers the resolution

sincerely, in the hope and expectation that the house will endorse the effort and lend its cooperation as soon as it is possible to do so.


Charles Marcil: I should like to ask the minister a question. Would the government include the question of fish in this resolution, as suggested by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is covered already, but the Prime Minister has just intimated that he will include fish.


Charles Marcil: Perhaps I might be permitted to say a word or two concerning coal combines in the province of Quebec, because some time ago a great deal of public attention was directed to it. Under the Combines Investigation Act an investigation was carried on by .the registrar, following which a complete record was sent by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the attorney general for the province of Quebec, stating, "It is for you to act now." About thirty years ago there was a member in this House of Commons, our old friend W. F. M'aclean, who pleaded in committee that the weakness of the federal government was that enforcement of at least three-quarters of our legislation rested with the provinces. If the Minister of Labour, on the occasion of the coal inquiries, had sent the record to the attorney general of the province without word or comment, and the attorney general in turn had taken no action, that would have been the end of the whole matter. In this instance shall we be in the same position?


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise primarily with the intention of supporting the suggestion of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) that an inquiry may be made into the spread between the amount received for fish by the primary producer and the cost to the consumer. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has been good enough to indicate that the suggestion of the hon. member will be included within the scope of the committee's inquiry, and to that extent I believe the thanks of the house are due him.
Not long ago I was in a retail establishment of a city of about 40,000 people and I saw boneless codfish, a very succulent fish I may say, and one of which I am very fond, offered for sale a.t 40 cents per pound. I was simply astounded that the proprietor would have the temerity or nerve to ask the consuming public to pay that price for a commodity for which the producer received probably only three or four cents.

Price Spreads-Mr. Hanson
(Y ork-Sunbury )


Charles Marcil: Some of my fishermen get two cents for it.


Mr. HANSON (York-Siunbury):: Yes, I
have no doubt the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) is justified in his statement. I am quite aware that there is an undue spread between the price received by the primary producer and that paid by the consumer on some of our staple commodities, one of which is fish. Reference has been made to the milk investigation of last year, and further reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) who had the courage and distinction last year of bringing the matter before the House of Commons and the agriculture committee. I am bound to admit that few results have ensued from that investigation-not nearly enough. At all events a great deal of publicity has been given to the situation, and wherever there is publicity in such matters there are bound to be results whioh may not be quite apparent at the moment.
Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the hon. members of the house, the fundamental weakness of the whole position, namely that of jurisdiction. That matter has been alluded to briefly by the Prime Minister and referred to at greater length by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who has just taken his seat. After the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and that of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council we cannot in this -house,
I am satisfied, pass legislation which will be absolutely effective in bringing about the results we desire. We shall therefore have to find some other method besides that of direct legislation. For instance, the remedy for the situation in respect to milk in the province of Quebec is directly in the hands of Mr. Taschereau and his government. What has he done? He has done just what was indicated last night by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi: he has appointed some kind of milk board, without any power, to go round and tell the farmers what they should do.
I am happy to be able to point out that recently some action has been taken by the government of the province of Manitoba. Speaking subject to correction, I am told that in that province, having regard to the fact that under subsection 13 of section 92 of the British North America Act the jurisdiction in respect of property and civil rights, the fixation of prices and all that sort of thing, lies entirely within the ambit of the province's control, that province has declared milk to be
a public utility. That is a concrete way in which this matter could be considered. I am satisfied that in this parliament we have no power, even were we so disposed, to set up a code similar to the N.R.A. of the United States. By the way, if we ever do attempt anything like that, I certainly hope we will not go to the extent the United States has gone. Let me tell the house something about the milk situation under the N.R.A. Just a year ago I was in the republic to the south of us, and at that time the price of milk to the consumer in the city in whioh I happened to be was ten cents a quart. To-day, under the N.R.A. milk code the price to the consumer is ten cents per pint and seventeen cents per quart. I want to know where the consumer gets off, under those circumstances. I have every sympathy for the farmer, but we must keep the balance even. In the United States they are not keeping the balance even. What labouring man, with a family of small children, could pay seventeen cents a quart for milk?
Let us face the facts before us. Let us not, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has at least inferentially done to-day, damn the underlying principle of this motion. I am not saying the Combines Investigation Act is not good. I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce has definitely distinguished between the two objectives before us. Let us all put our shoulders to this resolution and see if we cannot accomplish something to take care of an evil which we all admit and one which I believe every hon. member is sincerely anxious to remedy. No doubt there is too wide a spread between the price received by the primary producer and the cost to the ultimate consumer. We have that condition in connection with many staples of life, of which milk is one. There can be no doubt about that. I suggest that the house leave out partisan views-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hon.
members opposite may laugh, but I should like to tell them that I am not half as partisan to-day as I was when I entered this House of Commons.


Mr. YOUNG:: You are getting wiser.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, but
perhaps I a>m getting older and becoming more mature. The primary reason is that while a member of this house I have had the honour to represent the whole of my constituency, having Liberal and Conservative supporters behind me; consequently I have
Price Spreads-Mr. Ralston

learned to believe that I represent not only the Conservative but the Liberal electors of my constituency. They have approved of my course. Therefore I have grown mellower and less partisan than I used to be. We ought to wish the committee well. In some slight degree I have been able to visualize the task before it. I have no hope that the committee will be able to complete its work to the extent of one hundred per cent, but I have hope that some good may come from its inquiry and that some remedy may be afforded the primary producer of Canada, whose position to-day is one which none of us would like to contemplate in his own business.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few
words to say. I should hope that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) would have lost his partisanship sufficiently to have forborne reference to acts of a provincial government which happened to be Liberal. I do not think he showed evidence of complete conversion from partisanship. However, we all accept what he says, that he is getting better all the time, that he is not as bad as he was, and we do hope that the improvement will continue.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and my hon. friend have warned us not to expect very much from this inquiry because of these constitutional questions, which by the way are brought up very frequently on the other side of the house now as compared to what they were a few years ago. The good old constitution is doing valiant service time after time as an excuse on the part of our friends opposite for not taking action, but notwithstanding that, to use my hon. friend's expression, the project is " being damned " in advance to some extent by the suggestion that we cannot do much, I unite with those who think that we at least should make a try, and that we ought to get together to bring out the facts with regard to the major matter dealt with in this resolution, and that is the spread between the amount that is received by the producer and the amount that is paid by the consumer. After all, as I understand it, that is the teeth and the backbone of this resolution. It may be found that there are false impressions abroad as to the prices which the producer is receiving and the amount which the consumer is paying. It may be that there are explanations for it. It would be well if any false impressions are removed as a
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1
result of that inquiry. It would be well also, if these impressions are decided to be well founded, that remedial action be taken in so far as it can be taken by this house.
I want to join with my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) and the others who have spoken with regard to including fish products as a subject of investigation in connection with this inquiry. There is an impression abroad in connection with this industry that the spread is far too great. Whether that impression is right or wrong this inquiry ought to bring out. Fishermen may be getting 75 cents to $1.50 a hundred pounds for their fish, while the consumer is paying a great many times that amount. One hon. gentleman opposite spoke this afternoon of the price of fish in Winnipeg. I heard that one day in Winnipeg fish was selling at 25 cents, and turkey at 22 cents a pound. Now it is pretty difficult for people who do not really understand what the luxuries of life are to be persuaded to buy fish at 25 cents when turkey can be got at 22 cents.


James Herbert Stitt: May I correct my hon. friend? You could buy turkey in my constituency last Christmas at from 6 to 10 cents a pound.


James Layton Ralston: That just shows the value of turkey as compared with fish as food.
With regard to the matter of an inquiry under the Combines Act I do think, with all deference to ray hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the first paragraph of this resolution which provides for an inquiry into mass buying by department and chain store organizations certainly sounds very much like the same sort of thing which is aimed at by the Combines Act. The Combines Act expressly provides for an inquiry into combines which have operated " or are likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others," and which result from any " actual or tacit contract, agreement ,arrangement, or combination which has or is designed to have the effect of:
(i) limiting facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, 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 a common cost of storage or transportation; or (iv) enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental storage or transportation . . . ; or (vi) otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce.
It does seem to me that mass buying by departmental store organizations comes dangerously near to that provision of the Com-

Price Spreads-Mr. Bothwell
bines Act, and if that is so, my leader is quite right in suggesting that action may be taken under section 18 of the Combines Act.
There are other provisions in the resolution which seem to pick out particular industries. One has a little difficulty in finding out just exactly what industries are aimed at. The resolution is in most general terms in the first section, that a committee be appointed to inquire into the large spread and into the system of distribution of farm and other natural products, as well as manufactured products. Then the resolution comes down to mass buying. That is covered in paragraphs (a) and (b). Then m paragraph (c) the flour milling industry is particularly picked out, and (d) has to do with:
-the methods and system prevailing in the marketing of live stock and animal products for domestic consumption and export, and the extent to which the present system affords or restricts opportunity for fair returns to producers.
I understand that fish will be added to live stock and animal products, which are specifically mentioned in paragraph (d). I would rather think, after all, that the government is limiting this inquiry to chain store buying and its effects on labour conditions, to the flour milling industry, to live stock and animal products, and fish products. As has been said, there are a good many industries left out of the ambit of this inquiry when we come to examine the particulars of the resolution.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should try to see what this investigation will bring forth, so that at least we shall have the facts upon which to base some conclusion, and I would hope that the investigation will be not only thorough but rapid in order that we may have its results before the conclusion of this session.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment was suggested to paragraph (d) of this resolution there was no doubt in my mind that an opportunity would be given to investigate the spread in prices between what the producer receives and the consumer pays in respect to any commodity-a general investigation; but since the amendment has been made adding fish, it seems to me that a very limited interpretation is being given to the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is only in paragraph
(d) that that is suggested. It is not in the general paragraph; it is in sub-paragraph (d). So it does not limit it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would point out to
the hon. member for Swift Current that there is no amendment before the house regarding fish.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I understood that the
Prime Minister suggested that he was willing to allow an amendment to be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the appropriate time
I was going to direct attention to the fact that it is included in the words that are now there, but if it is desired to add the word "fish," for abundant caution, I am content that it should be put in. That was all.


Charles Edward Bothwell: So we can take it that so far as this resolution is concerned we are to have a general investigation into the spread in prices on all commodities which the committee may wish to inquire into?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I am sure that everybody will welcome an investigation of this kind. I am rather of the opinion that the government might have passed legislation on the strength of the complaints that they have already received and because of which they are asking for this investigation.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) says that the government are sincere in bringing in this resolution. We sincerely hope they are. However, in the past we have had an investigation in which there did not seem to be much sincerity on the part of this government. I refer to the investigation into the price of gasoline and the spread of prices there. Some questions involved in this resolution were brought to the attention of the house in 1931. An investigation was held into the price of gasoline in 1932, but the report made by that committee to the house was simply a rehash of a report made by a firm of auditors. I do not believe that there is a single member of this house who could read and analyze the evidence given before that committee and conscientiously approve of the report that was brought in. Ample evidence was given before that committee for action by the government, and all I can say is that at this late date, in 1934, after this matter having been brought to the attention of the government in 1931, and proven in 1932, we do sincerely hope that something will come out of the proposed investigation.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: I do not think I should let one of these very infrequent opportunities go by to say a word of even mild approval of the government's investigational intentions, as set forth in this motion, and I refer most particularly to sub-

Price Spreads-Mr. Motherwell
section (d), where the live stock industry is promised to be looked into. Some of the members of the government will recall that when they came into power they found the sum of $25,000 already voted for this very purpose by their predecessors. The first session after that, in 1931, I urged the government to take advantage of that vote and hold an investigation. The money was there. The vote did not get there all by itself; it was put there for a purpose, and I hoped that the government would take advantage of it and hold the inquiry which had been anticipated by their predecessors. However, they either used the money for some other purpose or let it lapse into the treasury. They did not proceed with the inquiry. On the principle that it is better late than never, I approve of this action on the part of the government, particularly with regard to live stock.
With regard to subsections (a) and (b), affecting the chain stores, it was inevitable that the government should take action if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) were not going to be let down as a gentleman engaging in heroics before the country with the idea of obtaining some approval, which he did get. I am sure it would not be becoming of the hon. gentleman to let it stay at that. I can bespeak one class of people who will approve of this action, namely, the very much embarrassed retail traders throughout Canada, especially in the small villages in the west. They are at their wits' end to know how to carry on. What with the competition of the buses, and the drays and the highways, the mail order houses and the chain stores, and competition among themselves, they hardly know what line of goods to keep which they can dispose of to advantage. I know the minister will get sympathy from these people.
Just how the minister is going to investigate and put a stop to mass buying I do not know. Perhaps we have been wrong in the past in our industrial development methods, but we have always thought that it was a good thing to conduct affairs efficiently, and that we should buy in large instead of in small quantities. The very foundation of industrial development has been to purchase our raw material cheaply. There is an old saying that anything that is bought properly is half sold, so that the buyer can buy it to advantage. I am sure our wives always like to go to the chain stores-why? Because they can get good bargains. Maybe while these things are so there are nevertheless some abuses. One or two have happened to come to my attention comparatively recently. The chain stores will acquire a line of farm produce, for example,

pigs' feet, which is a great dainty with some people. They will buy the whole output of an abattoir and use them as a drawing card for their customers, a sort of advertisement. Instead of spending so much money in newspaper advertising they use this line to serve the same purpose. This competes with the regular meat trade and it affects the price not only of pigs' feet but of almost every cut in the animal. So that the chain store business, with its ramifications, is enormous. Just how it can be remedied I do not know, but I wish my hon. friend good luck.
I do not know whether the minister has tackled something bigger than he realized, but he has certainly undertaken a tremendous proposition, and no one can do anything but wish him well in his remedial endeavours.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), if I understood him rightly he took credit for the milk investigation-and I do not want to discredit it; it was quite outside its jurisdiction but it did something, and something is always better than nothing as a rule-for having put Winnipeg wise as to how to solve the milk problem there. Well, action had been taken in Winnipeg in this regard before the federal milk inquiry of last session. As a matter of fact, we had witnesses down from that very organization to tell this committee how the remedy was effected there. Maybe I heard the hon. gentleman wrongly, but that was what I gathered from him.
As respects the rest of the resolution, I hope the minister does not think that we are talking unnecessarily long on the problem. He should feel complimented; it shows that he bias touched something we are all thinking about. The whole press of Canada is talking about it, and if this proposal does nothing else than divert attention .from some of the government's shortcomings, they should be glad that we are devoting some attention to it. I hope they will proceed with all haste, and now that they are dealing with something that does come under their jurisdiction I trust that there will be some good results from the investigation, even though long delayed.
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battleford); I wish to make just a few observations on the motion now before the house. Subsection (d) of the resolution relates to the methods and system prevailing in -the marketing of live stock and animal products for domestic consumption and export. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veni-ot) proposed an amendment which probably is not essential provided the Prime Minister will tell us how wide the

Price Spreads-Mr. Vallance
scope of the committee will be in this investigation. From my point of view at any rate, it all depends upon the scope of the order of reference from the house to the committee. If we are not going to be allowed to investigate the capital structure of, say, the packing industry, then the whole thing is a fiasco. I speak as one who is interested primarily in live stock and animal products of the farm and unless we are permitted in this committee to investigate the whole capital structure of the packing industry we might as well not refer the matter to the committee.
I hope that when the Prime Minister rises he will assure us that the suggestion of the hon. member for Gloucester, indicated in his amendment, will not be necessary and that the reference will give the right to investigate the capitalization of these concerns.


Edward James Young: May I at the outset explain to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the reason I smiled when he said that dumping was a development of the last three years was this: I was reminded of the doleful tales we heard so often from this side when he was over here five years ago with regard to the dumping practice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say dumping in the last three years; I never used the word dumping.


Edward James Young: I understood the hon.
gentleman to use that word.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think the hon. gentleman wishes to misconstrue what I said. I said that there had been growing up a practice during the last three years, not only internally but in the external market as well, of selling goods at less than cost of production. I was not referring to dumping in the broad sense of the word.
Mr. MeINTOSH: Domestic dumping.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so.


Edward James Young: That I suppose is dumping as it used to be. Well, if it is true that the practice of selling goods at less than cost has greatly increased during the past three years, then it is equally true that tariffs have equally increased during the same period, and we are forced to the conclusion that this practice of selling at less than cost, which we are told will be disastrous, is one that must be encouraged by the high tariffs that prevail.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just the reverse.


Edward James Young: My friend says, just the reverse. He means that dumping causes tariffs to rise. It seems to me we have a vicious circle; one begets the other. The thing he deplores is a consequence of the policy he follows.
However, I must congratulate the government on the resolution; it shows at least that they have some glimmerings of wisdom and realize at last the truth of what we have been telling them for many years, that our trouble is that the spread between the price the producer receives for the thing he has to sell and the price the consumer pays is responsible for the fact that our people cannot buy the products of the factories. They cannot buy each other's labour, and that is responsible for much of the unemployment and distress that exist. Reading the resolution carefully I am not sure that the government has yet the right point of view. It seems to me that they are very largely overlooking the consumer in this resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at the last words:
"Not inconsistent with the rights of consumers".


Edward James Young: Yes, I shall deal with that
a little later. It seems to me that the vital question is not so much: What does the producer receive in dollars and cents for his product? but: What can he buy with that mone;1 when he gets it? If he receives, no matter what price for his product and then finds that the commodities he wishes to buy are at a price level he cannot reach, he is not assisted very much.
Not very long ago I w'as talking to a gentleman who had been farming in the west for many years. He told me that he had never been so well off as in the old days when wheat was selling at sixty to seventy cents a bushel; but, he said: "In those days I could buy a mower for fifty bushels of wheat and now the same mower costs me 200 bushels. In those days I could buy a binder for 250 bushels of wheat whereas now it costs 600 bushels. In those days I could buy a pair of overalls for a bushel and a half of wheat whereas now it would cost four bushels." The trouble to-day with our primary producers is that they have to pay so much for the products of the secondary industries that they are not able to buy them. Three or four years ago when this government took office, prices were declining rapidly throughout the world, and in particular prices of farm and natural products generally, and the government found itself pow'erless to stop this de-
Price Spreads-Mr. Young

oline. What was the logical thing for the government to do under the circumstances? It was to endeavour to see that all other prices came down along with the prices of primary products. But the government took the opposite view; they said: At least we can stop the prices of manufactured goods from coming down, and they legislated accordingly. They adopted a fiscal policy calculated to prevent a decline in the prices of manufactured goods commensurate with the decline in the prices of farm products. What was the result? In 1929 a dollar's worth of farm products in this country would buy a certain quantity of manufactured goods. In 1933 it required SI.62 worth of farm products to buy the same quantity of manufactured goods. That widening of the spread had the effect of putting our primary producers out of the market; they could not buy the products of the secondary industries.
We are now told that the mail order houses and chain stores follow unethical practices in their buying methods. It is generally conceded that the cost of merchandising goods, that is, of getting them from the producer to the consumer, is excessive. Perhaps that is due in large measure to the fact that we insist on too much in the way of service, or it may be to an expensive organization that we have for distributing goods. But the mail order houses were the first people to take a step in the direction of solving that problem; they were the first to help in reducing the spread between the price which the consumer pays and what the producer receives. This worked a hardship at the time on the local storekeeper. As a result he was driven to form chain stores and we have the mail order house and the local merchant organized into chain stores, buying now by a more economical method than that followed formerly and so bringing goods to the consumer at a lower cost than before. In that I think they are rendering a real service to the community.
Not many days ago something was said in the press about a speech delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), I think in Toronto, and one mail order house challenged him to prove that they had been guilty of unethical practices. If I recall rightly the instance he gave was something like this:	That company had
gone to a certain woollen mill in Scotland and offered them an order for some 250,000 yards of a certain kind of cloth at a price somewhat lower than the mill was asking. The mill at first refused to accept the price, but when the company's buyer went away saying: Very good, he reecived a telegram

a day or two later accepting the price. I cannot see anything unethical or wrong in that. Surely such a company has the right to bargain for those goods as best it can, and when it passes those goods on to the consumer with that saving of price, certainly the Canadian people are going to benefit. If you stop that kind oi thing, you say this, that prices must forever remain as they are; they must become rigid and never be lowered. It has been demonstrated beyond peradven-ture that the government is powerless to stop the decline in the price of natural products, those things that are sold on the world market. The logical thing to do then is to bring down the prices of other things proportionately so that people can buy them on an equal basis. But when you say that you will not allow the prices of certain commodities to come down, to share in the deflation, you are putting other classes in the community in the position where they cannot buy the products of those people. I think it was said by a witness in the milk inquiry last year that even if they got the milk for nothing, they would still have to charge seven cents a quart for it. What does that mean? It means that while the producer got nothing for his labour, certain other people had to have their full share. That is not equitable.
Let us read paragraph (a) of the resolution :
The effect of mass buying by department and chain store organizations upon-
Upon what?
-the regular retail trade of the country, as well as upon the business of manufacturers and producers.
Not a word about the consumer. Paragraph (b) reads:
The effect thereof upon the standard of living amongst those employed in such industries and organizations.
Nothing about the consumer. Paragraph (c) speaks of:
The relation between the flour milling industry and the bakeries of the country, and the effect of such relations on the baking industry of Canada.
Not a word about its effect on the price of bread. It seems to me that the essential thing is to look at the whole problem from the standpoint of the consumer. If you can get the goods into the hands of the consumer at a reasonable price, he will buy the goods and that will give employment to others. But if you pick out certain classes in the community, as is done in this resolution, and

Price Spreads-Mr. Reid
see that they do not suffer any reduction in their wages, the effect will be a rigiditf in the price level at certain points; it cannot be adjusted and the result will be that some people will not be able to buy the products of others. I hope the government in making this inquiry will not lose sight of the fact that the whole question should be studied from the standpoint of the consumer. Let me once more quote these words I have quoted before from Bastiat:
Study all economic questions from the consumer's standpoint for the consumer's interests are the interests of the human race.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution, so far as it goes, meets I believe with the unanimous approval of the house, but like some hon. members who have spoken I do not believe it goes far enough and I think this is the time when further suggestions should be made with a view to enlarging the scope of the inquiry.
I was particularly pleased to hear the subject of fish mentioned by some members on both sides of the house, and in that matter I would say that conditions peculiar to British Columbia fisheries are somewhat different from those prevailing in some other provinces. One hon. member spoke about one and one-half cents per pound being given to fishermen. The fishermen of the Fraser river were offered one cent for fish weighing from seven to ten pounds apiece. Another very peculiar instance in regard to the fishing industry is the fact that while our cannery men were offering our fishermen a certain price for sockeye salmon some of them were paying United States fishermen a higher price and I believe they brought 125,000 pounds of fish into this country which were canned and, I presume, will go out under the empire treaty to the old country. Strict notice should be taken of that phase of the situation.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) brought up the question of jurisdiction in connection with milk prices, pointing out that this was purely a provincial matter. For the information of the house and in particular the hon. member let me say that as regards the milk situation in British Columbia it is not provincial legislation that is troubling us now but federal legislation to enable us to have better and fuller cooperation so that prices to the farmers will be increased without increasing the price to the consumer. That undertaking has been given by the largest producers' organization in British Columbia, the Fraser Valley Milk Producers, and we trust that the Dominion government will take serious note of the milk situation in British Columbia.
The three great industries in British Columbia are fishing, agriculture and lumbering, and I would like to speak briefly of some conditions affecting the lumber industry which I think should be taken into account when, dealing with this motion. The Prime Minister has been very energetic and received great commendation for his work in helping to find a market for our lumber in the old country. But I would like to point out to him that there are certain factors prevailing throughout British Columbia which should be remedied if the industry is to prosper and the men engaged therein receive at least a decent living. At the present time in British Columbia we have some firms paying 40 cents an hour, others 30 cents, others 25 cents, and we have other lumber concerns with the same up-to-date machinery paying men in clothing only and a mere pittance in food. We have other industries paying the men on what is called a profit-sharing basis, and to me it seems an inhuman attempt to take undue advantage of the workers, because instead of the men being on a profit-sharing basis they are really sharing the losses of some of these firms. They pay them 12 or 15 cents an hour and the men are told that if there is any profit at the end of the month they will be given a share. But it has been noted that when profits begin to arise the men axe then given a straight wage of 20 or 25 cents an hour. But while the firm is having trouble and not making any profit they tell the men it would be a good thing for them to be on a profitsharing basis. I do not think the industry should foe allowed to pay such a low scale of wages. Two firms in particular, run by Hindus, I believe, and employing Hindu labour, pay only in clothing and a little bit of rice to the men who are working, and these firms have the same up-to-date machinery and can produce just as much per day as the other mills. This has the effect of bringing down wages of all other workers in British Columbia, until to-day I say without hesitation that the men working both in the lumber camps and in the mills are working at slave wages. If we are going to keep fighting for empire markets, especially in Great Britain, I think the Prime Minister might also well take note of firms using cheap oriental labour; it is almost a breach of faith in empire trade to send that material to Great Britain as Canadian produce. The serious part to me is the fact that it brings down the wage of all the workers in British Columbia to a level of bare subsistence; it is very serious indeed, because we all know that the purchasing power of a country comes chiefly from its wage bill.



Price Spreads-Mr. Bradette
Perhaps I will have more to say when we go into committee, but at the moment I am just drawing the attention of the house to these matters.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timis-kaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the resolution. The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) asks that the financial structure of the packing industry should be inquired into. I would like the inquiry to be enlarged to take in the financial structure of all our industries. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that presently some manufacturers are selling their goods at less than cost of production. I believe that is just as true of the bushmen and settlers in the lumbering and pulpwood industry. The right hon. Prime Minister last Monday told the house of the importance of the newsprint and pulpwood industry. Anyone who read the articles published in Saturday Night last fall and winter on that industry would be fully seized of the situation developing out of its financial structure. It is true that at present the price of newsprint in the United States is very low, I believe that last fall it averaged $34 a ton. The fact remains that things took place in	the financing and the
reorganizing of these great corporations which the government might well investigate. Apparently this inquiry is going to be set in motion primarily for the purpose of finding out about so-called sweat-shop conditions. I believe on that score alone that the resolution and the inquiry are fully warranted. By sweat-shop conditions we mean that those engaged in the industry are not receiving a fair remuneration for their work. I feel safe in saying that the present stress we have in our lumber industry in northern Ontario and Quebec is largely due to the faulty financial structure of some of the large corporations. Prices go with wages, there is no way of divorcing the two. During this depression, as during others, wages went down before prices of commodities, and when wages are low, buying power is necessarily curtailed, and it is no use trying to bolster up commodity prices unless there is first an increase in the wages of working men. In our own section I have seen one corporation engaged in the newsprint industry, which did not go into receivership, paying more for their pulpwood and to their men than other corporations that went into receivership on account of mismanagement of their financing department, and not on account of their producing organization, but I believe the government would be well-advised to make a

thorough examination of the actual financial structure of all the corporations of Canada. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the fact that in British Columbia they are also having this difficulty in the lumbering industry. I have vividly in my mind a statement made last summer, I believe during the world economic conference, when there was some protest against Great Britain buying a large quantity of lumber from Russia. I believe it was one of the Russian commissioners in England at the time who rightly said, Take the water out of your lumber companies stock, and your large overhead, and you will be able to compete with us. In many of our large corporations we have over-capitalization, and too great overhead, not so much in the management as in the administration. I made the point last evening, and I repeat it to-day, that the government should go into that so-called sweat-shop feature. We have that in our own section on account of the faulty financial structure of a lot of our large newsprint concerns. The statements I am making are supported by those of men prominent in finance and economics, contained in many of our financial papers during the last two or three years. I believe a lot of good would be done if a sweeping investigation were made. We are inclined to ridicule some of the policies of new parties, but I believe they do some good when they address themselves to making the people realize that in some instances stock has been watered to the extent of 400 per cent of the original capital invested. I believe on that score alone there should be very thorough analysis.
I am certain that inquiry will show that retailers as a whole, at least the independent ones, are not making exorbitant profits. It will be found that the margin received by the retailer is very small. If it were within the jurisdiction of the government to compel all retailers to sell for cash only I believe that would go a long way towards a solution of the retailers' troubles, and the consumers would be able to buy their goods more cheaply as well. That policy has been adopted by the chain stores, and it is one of the important factors in their success. I say that as long as you have credit extended in that industry there will be a large spread.
That is all I want to say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I strongly urge upon the Prime Minister that he enlarge the resolution so that it may be possible to have the committee at least analyse the financial structure of our large industrial corporations.

Price Spreads-Mr. Howden


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hope of adding anything to the debate that has taken place, but I should like to say that I ana glad to see that at last the government is getting down to the consideration of some of' the basic grievances that are troubling the people of this country to-day. Without doubt this action is long overdue.
May I tell you, sir, that the constituents whom I am sent here to represent are largely petty farmers and labourers. The petty farmers have lost their identity as such in the constituency of St. Boniface and have taken up wood cutting for a living. They have lost their herds and their farms; many of them are on relief, while others are cutting wood at fifty cents a cord, which is largely used in place of coal to heat the city of Winnipeg. The labourers also have lost their employment; to a large extent they are on relief. I believe the abuses that have obtained with regard to the spread between the price paid the primary producer and the amount for which the commodity finally sold is very largely to blame for this state of affairs. Some mention has been made of milk with regard to the city of Winnipeg. It is true that we had an extensive investigation into the price of milk, but unfortunately the primary producer in Manitoba is still getting one cent per pound for his milk, and milk is still selling for ten cents a quart in the city. It is true that the matter is under the jurisdiction of the utilities commissioner, but it would seem that he has no power to bring about a betterment of conditions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could get the power
from the legislature.


John Power Howden: I was going to say that
this is a sad state of affairs. Here is a commodity used all over the nation. In Winnipeg it comes under the utilities commissioner, but still we have failed to obtain any betterment in regard to the price or distribution of milk. The same thing is true with regard to other ordinary commodities produced on the farm. For poultry, eggs and beef the farmer receives practically nothing, but those of us who live in the city still pay a reasonably good price for these commodities. With regard to manufactured goods the price is not so low. I grant you that the prices of ordinary manufactured commodities have come down and that workingmen have suffered as a result, but the decline is not at all in proportion to the decrease in the prices received for farm products. I believe that in the production of ordinary commodities the price should be the 74726-14J
cost of production, with a reasonable percentage allowed the distributor, but unfortunately that situation does not exist at present.
The statement was made in this house today that the remedy is not with this federal jurisdiction. I might point out, however, that if the remedy is not with the federal jurisdiction and is in the hands of the provinces, the municipalities and the provinces are very largely dependent upon this federal authority for their living, so to speak. I think conditions might be imposed upon the provinces by the federal authority which would do away with some of the abuses to which I have referred.
I do not wish to labour the subject at further length. I congratulate the government upon having brought up at this time this very necessary and desirable measure.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, as the representative of a live stock area in northern Saskatchewan I could hardly be expected to refrain from taking part in this debate. This resolution touches upon some very important questions; when we consider the system in effect at, present and the methods adopted under that system with respect to the purchasing of live stock for domestic and export purposes, then I think we are approaching a problem that is closely connected with that of the prices paid for live stock in Canada.
After listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it would appear to me that some hon. gentlemen opposite are in doubt as to what can be done or what ought to be done. One hon. member waxed eloquent with regard to the sovereignty of parliament. After listening to him one would expect that there could be no doubt in the mind of any hon. member with regard to the power of the federal parliament to investigate the buying and selling of live stock, mass buying and selling on the part of departmental and chain stores, labour conditions and standards of living prevailing in certain industries and the public relations existing in the flour milling and baking organizations to-day in Canada. On the other hand, however, we had another hon. member express doubt whether or not the government has jurisdiction to go ahead with this inquiry, because these matters come under provincial jurisdiction. This is rather a peculiar position for supporters of the government to take.
I think we all recognize that the federal parliament has ample power to go ahead, and the important question in regard to the investigation mooted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in this resolution is whether

Price Spreads-Mr. McIntosh
or not the government is sincere. To my mind that is the main question before the house. It profiteth not very much if an individual is gifted with a sharp intellect, has his emotions highly developed and possesses great will power if, back of that development, there is not honesty of conviction and absolute sincerity. So I say again, is the government sincere in this investigation? If it is, this contemplated inquiry may amount to something; if it is not, as hon. members have stated this afternoon, it will amount to nothing. So if the government is sincere I think we ought to have the fullest possible investigation. If the investigation is not complete and well rounded out; if action is not taken on the evidence adduced, then I say that will help finish the government before the country, and really if the move ends in chaos and failure it ought to have just that effect.


James Herbert Stitt: I rise to a point
of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether or not the hon. gentleman who is speaking questioned the sincerity of the Prime Minister. I believe he did.


Mr. McINTOSH:: May I direct your attention, sir, to the fact that the hon. gentleman is not in his own seat?


James Herbert Stitt: As a point of order, may I ask if an hon. member of the house may question the sincerity of another hon. member?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If such a statement were made by the hon. member it would only be by inference.


James Herbert Stitt: The hon. member used the word.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not find the point of order well taken.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Now that this little
squabble is all over, we will proceed with the question of the day. I meant to say just what I said. If the government is sincere, and I am not going to say that it is not, then perhaps we will get results which will startle the country. However, before leaving the point may I state that I believe the government is not as non-partisan as some hon. members opposite would lead us to believe. I have been in touch with the problem before us for months, not only as a newspaper man but in other ways. I quite realize the seriousness of the problem brought forward by the government, and have been told time and again that whatever party or whatever man would take hold of the question, go to the root of it and expose the practices and limitations of buying and selling, in the broadest
fMr. McIntosh.]
sense of the word under a vicious high protection system, would bring a well-defined public opinion to the solution of this very grave state of affairs. Therefore I believe the government of the day, fully realizing that this is a political matter, is not so non-partisan a? some of its members would make us believe. So far as that is concerned, the opposition will have no desire to make any political capital out of the investigation. We will give our fullest support to it on the understanding that immediate and complete action will be taken on the facts and evidence brought before parliament.
If the government is so non-partisan and non-political with respect to this resolution, why did it not accept the resolution of the hon. member for Assiniiboia (Mr. McKenzie)? Why did it not accept the motion he placed on the order paper a year ago? Why did the government not take action two years ago; why this belated effort? Why. is the resolution of the hon. member for Assiniboia sidetracked and a new resolution brought in which has no broader meaning and will bring no result which could not have been brought about by the resolution moved in the name of the hon. member I have mentioned?
So far as the United States is concerned, what has the present government of that country done since it has assumed power, despite all its investigations, coding and actions of that sort? Has it not deliberately sidetracked the most important problems? Has it not left its pilfering high tariffs in effect? Has it not run away from the main problems? And has not all this coding, which even the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) does not like, all this manipulating, this twisting and turning for the last few months, have not all these things been done without touching the nationally economic tariff structure? Well, they will never get very far with a policy of that kind. They may get temporary results, but they will not get permanent results.
After all, the main problem facing this house to-day in connection with the motion before it is not contained in parts (a), (b), (c) or (d). The main problem is the high tariff structure of Canada-not necessarily the departmental and chain stores, the millers, the bakeries and packing establishments-and unless the government will take action to bring about freer distribution, internationally and nationally, we cannot expect conditions in Canada to improve. The government may go on investigating until doomsday, they may draw up commission after commission, give power after power and authority after authority, and continue giving such powers for the

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
next quarter of a century, and they will not get very far. Something more drastic is needed.
To my mind the people must take hold of this problem. The sum and substance of the motion before us is that unless the fullest investigation is made and the greatest good secured this great problem will have to be passed on to the people of Canada in the coming election, and if it is they will tear some of the tariff obstruction down, and bring about a distribution which will result in fairer prices to the consumers and prosperity to the nation.
In closing may I ask for the fullest and sin-cerest investigation and immediate action on the evidence produced before the committee, not two or three sessions from now, but right away. Unless action of that kind is taken perhaps the time of the house could be better spent in some other direction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, may I in closing this
rather protracted and wholly unexpected debate point out that the premises of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) are, unfortunately, unsound. Under the Combines Investigation Act there is no authority to inquire into paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). The Combines Investigation Act is limited to cases in which a combine is suspected to exist. The matter was carefully considered. Where the registrar has power on requisition from six persons or from a minister, to order an inquiry, is in a case where there is a combination. "Combine" is of course defined. That however is not the evil for which remedy is here sought. As has been so well pointed out, I was rather surprised the right hon. gentleman should have suggested that the Combines Investigation Act was ample for the purpose of this motion. The right to issue a commission under the Combines Investigation Act is for matters that are affected by that act, but not inconsistent with it, and the power that is asked here is to set up a commission for the purpose of giving effect to whatever desire the committee may manifest, for the purpose of procuring information. In connection with fish and other commodities I do not wish to say more than this, that if it is thought desirable the word "fish" may be added.


Mr. DUFF:: It is included.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe most men will
agree that modern science has demonstrated to us that the word "animal" comprises all forms of living organisms, as distinguished from vegetable. Under the word "animal" I find this observation:
We know now that in so far as life and living matter can be investigated by science, animals and plants cannot be described as being alive in different degrees.
The term used to be used just as it has been used in the present instance. The article before me states:
The common use of the word animal as the equivalent of mammal, as opposed to bird, or reptile or fish is erroneous.
Therefore the word includes fish, and I do not think it is necessary to move an amendment. However, I have no objection to its being done if it is so desired. In the dictionary at the table the word "fish" is defined as: "Animal living in the water".
That would include an animal living in the sea, so that there is no difficulty on that score.
Then, may I point out one matter which covers all the criticism which has been offered with respect to the deficiency of the powers of the committee. They are to inquire into the spread between prices received for commodities by the producer thereof, and the prices paid by the consumers therefor. That is, they are to investigate the causes of the spread. To undertake for a single moment to indicate in a resolution of this type what the causes are would, in my judgment, destroy its very purpose. When the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) suggested that there should be an inquiry into the financial structure, I would reply that such inquiry . would be involved in the investigation, because we all realize that one of the items in costing practices is interest on money, taxes and other items. The cost to the consumer of any commodity is the cost of the raw material; the cost of processing, we will say; the taxes; the interest on borrowed money, whether it be in the form of capital structure or bank loans, and other items that need not be gone into in detail. This committee is clothed with power to investigate the causes of the large spread. If the committee should determine, for instance, that over-capitalization is one of the causes; if they declared that the matters to which the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) last evening referred are causes, they would have power to investigate such matters. Incidentally I should like to point out to the hon. member for Last Mountain that every grievance in the way of combinations to which he referred last night arose under the late administration, and that is rather an odd thing. I do not charge the government with being responsible for it, but I only point out that it is a fact that
2U

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
they came into being under the late administration-if hon. members of the house who are interested in the matter will just take the trouble to trace them to their origin they will find that some of them came into being under our Companies Act as it now exists. But unfortunately, with our divided jurisdiction, many of them came into being under provincial companies acts, and I may add that it was completely established that the federal Secretary of State has no power, and this government has no power, to issue a commission for the purpose of investigating matters connected with the organization of a purely provincial company. Hence it was, when the blue sky law or the Security Frauds Prevention Act was passed and the privy council declared it intra vires of the provincial legislature, it did more than any other single thing in recent years to enable the people to have control over the issue of securities and to punish those whose securities had been sold upon fraudulent misrepresentation.
The other point that was made was as to the interest of the consumer being adequately protected. I would suggest to my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young), whose well known advocacy of the interests of the consumer found expression in the consumers league in days when he sat to the right of the Speaker more than to the left, that if he will observe the language of the resolution, it says "with fair and just returns to producers, employees, and employers, not inconsistent with the rights of consumers." It is idle to say that you can build on one alone; the rights of all must be considered. When the hon, member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) spoke I could not help but think I must suggest to him the desirability of bringing his complaints to the government of British Columbia, because the whole administration with respect to minimum wage is under the control of the provincial government, and rightly so. Sometimes there is a tendency to complain that the federal government has not control of these matters, but the theory upon which our constitution was created was that local matters which in the very nature of things the local government must know about and could easily deal with should be regarded as of domestic and local concern. And so it is that wages, property and civil rights, and these other matters to which the hon. gentleman referred are matters that must be dealt with by the provincial legislatures.
So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment that is offered by my hon. friend from
[Mr. Bennett.j
Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) is covered by the terms of the resolution, and I doubt its relevancy if it is proposed in the form in which it stands. The word "fish" I do not think now is necessary. I think my hon. friend from St. Boniface would say that it would have been necessary fifty years ago, but since modern science has dealt with protoplasm in the manner in which it has the division is merely between the animal and the vegetable kingdom, and fish would therefore be included as an animal product.
I can only add that it is the intention of the government in moving this resolution that the committee shall deal with these matters in the broadest possible terms. It is not a committee of the government; it is a committee of the House of Commons; and while the practice of the house is that the government shall always be represented by a majority on the committee, those opposing the government nominally, either the official opposition or those to their left, will have representation upon the committee. The language of the resolution is broad; it is general. The only criticism I have to offer with respect to some of the observations that have been made is that they have overlooked these words, "and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, more particularly to inquire into and investigate-


Peter John Veniot: May I interrupt the right hon. gentleman for a moment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Peter John Veniot: Do I understand the Prime
Minister to say that under the motion as presented to the house by the Prime Minister, and without my amendment, we can go into the points I touched upon in my remarks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt about
it, for this reason-


Peter John Veniot: Then I am ready to withdraw my amendment on that assurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want my hon.
friend simply to take my word; I should like his reason to be committed to it as well. The resolution says that a special committee shall be appointed " to inquire into and investigate the causes of the large spread between the prices received for commodities by the producer thereof, and the price paid by the consumers therefor." Now every cause that lies between (a) and (b) can be inquired into, and one of those causes obviously is the question of the capitalization.


Peter John Veniot: What led me astray was
that certain things are specifically mentioned

Price Spreads-Mr. Mackenzie King
in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), and I thought that such specification might prevent other matters from being inquired into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those words "and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing," were written in with my own hand. I think there is no gentleman in this house who hears those words who can say that that is not the language that is apt, under our system of draftsmanship, to confer the widest possible powers upon anybody to whom any question is, in the language of the Scottish courts, remitted, or as wre say, referred.
Without going into the matter at any further length, in view of what has been said I think it has been abundantly established, and I want it to be accepted by the house, that it is intended to give the widest possible opportunity for dealing with these problems within our legislative jurisdiction. Whether or not there may be a limit I cannot say. That is all I can possibly suggest.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Has the hon. member for Gloucester the unanimous consent of the house for leave to withdraw his amendment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amendment is not withdrawn as yet, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say a few words upon it before it is.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to detain the house; indeed, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I had not intended to speak again, and I would not do so now, had he not spoken. But, in the course of his remarks, the hon. gentleman said that there was a difference between the American legislation respecting trusts and combines and the Canadian Combines Investigation Act, in that the former American legislation was based upon opposition to combines as such, whereas the present legislation is based upon a recognition that combines are inevitable, and that it is rather at the abuse to which combines are likely to give rise than at combines as such that legislation is directed and for which remedies are provided.
I stated that when the Canadian Combines Investigation Act was introduced the position taken by the government at the time was that combinations as such should not be regarded as illegal, that the Canadian act differed in that particular from the legislation then existing in the United States; also that the same was true of the Combines Investigation Act which was reintroduced in 1923 in Canada. Both these enactments were based on the theory that this is an age of world-wide competition and that combination is inevitable and as such should not be regarded as of itself an evil. On the other hand, it was recognized that large combination makes for great power in the direction of affairs and that all such power involves the possibility of abuse. It was and is against the abuses of combinations that the Canadian Combines Investigation acts were framed.
It is much to the credit of Canada that the position which this parliament has taken from the outset with respect to combines should be (he one which, after some twenty-five years of legislation on the subject, the United States has come only this year to recognize as the right one. While, as the Prime Minister says, from the mere statement that an act is intended to have a certain purpose, it does not necessarily follow that that purpose is attained; nevertheless, where the provisions themselves bear out what is said, the statement with regard to its essential features made at the time of introduction of a measure does help to throw light on the matter. If that statement is not in any way questioned when the legislation itself is under review, it is a factor which must necessarily be taken into account in the construction of the statute.
I have in my hand the debates of January IS, 1910, at the time at which the Combines Investigation Act was introduced. Sir Robert Borden was then leader of the opposition, and Sir Robert asked for an explanation. I was, at the time, holding the position of Minister of Labour in the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and in reply to Sir Robert Borden I made, in part, the following statement:
The legislation differs in some particulars from legislation of a like nature which has been introduced in other countries in that it is not aimed against combines or mergers as such, but rather against the exercise on the part of combines, mergers or monopolies, in an unfair manner, of the powers which they may get from that form of organization. This is an age of organization and not merely of local or national competition but of world-wide competition and any industry or any nation which wishes to hold its own in the field of competition must do much in the way of perfecting organization.
I have read this in order that the record may be complete, as well as to indicate what really has been the main (Objective of the legislation dealing with combines, mergers and trusts. It has not been against large organization of industry as such, but rather against the abuses to which vast organization and
216	COMMONS
Price Spreads-Mr. Mackenzie King
combinations may give rise, that the legislation has been directed. I have in my hand the legislation of 1923, and it will be observed that the very definition of "combine" at the outset recognizes that there may be combinations which are not illegal and are, therefore, not affected by the provisions of the act. It is only the class of combines referred to specifically as having certain of the features mentioned in the definition -that comes within the scope of combinations that would be affected by, the legislation. "Combine" does not mean that any combine is a combine affected by the provisions of the act, but only such combine as falls within the definition of the word "combine" as set forth. I quote:
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) The expression "combine" in this act shall be deemed to have reference to such combines immediately hereinafter defined as have operated or are likely to operate to the detriment of or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others; and limited as aforesaid, the expression as used in this act shall be deemed to include-
Among the provisions included are the following:
(ii) preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production; or (iii) fixing a common price or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage or transportation; or (iv) enhancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental storage or transportation; or (v) 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 (vi) otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce.
These are described as combines, coming within the provisions of the act. The words, " preventing or lessening competition in, or substantially controlling within any particular area," production and so forth, and the words, " otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce " are, it seems to me, sufficiently broad to cover anything that is set forth in the motion of my hon. friend with respect to the classes of interference with trade into which it is proposed to inquire.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is overlooking the governing words. There must be a combination, and that is more than one thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The provision is with respect to a combine that in any way prevents-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it that prevents? It is a combination that does that; that is what the statute says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any organization at all, whether two or more people, uniting together for a specific purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should say that a board of directors themselves, if they agreed that the organization which they controlled should do something that would affect trade adversely would constitute a combine within the meaning of this act. However, the point is largely secondary because my reference to the Combines Investigation Act was only with respect to the machinery it provided for investigation; it was not intended as a substitute for what is proposed by the motion. The reason I spoke of the Combines Investigation Act was, more particularly, to point out that in my opinion the government, if it had wished to do so and were sympathetic generally with the purposes of the act, would have been able to find within its four corners legislation that would have justified it in investigating, and which would have enabled it to investigate in advance of this session any matter referred to in the motion before the house. Take the terms of the act with respect to the machinery required to set it in motion:
Any six persons, British subjects, resident in Canada, of the full age of twenty-one years, who are of the opinion that a combine exists, or is being formed, may apply in writing to the registrar for an investigation of such alleged combine. . . .
It is not necessary that a combine shall actually exist. If half a dozen persons are of the opinion that there is a combination in industry which is operating in any way to restrain or injure trade, that is all 'that is required to set in motion the whole machinery of the act. But even that much is not necessary from the point of view of the ministry. Another section provides:
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 do not hesitate to say that, if I had been Minister of Labour and had wanted to find legislation which would have enabled me to investigate any of the matters referred to in the motion, that I would have found sufficient scope in the authority given me by the act of 1923 to instruct the registrar under

Price Spreads-Mr. Mackenzie King
the Combines Act to proceed with an investigation. If the inquiry justified the belief that there was a combination which was restraining or affecting trade in some manner, then there is in the act authority to proceed further with the appointment of a commission to deal with the matter. That was the point which I was seeking to make so far as the Combines Investigation Act was concerned. It was not to substitute this act for what is being proposed at the moment by the motion; it was simply to state the belief that the government might have been that much farther ahead in having ready for submission to the house legislation necessary to meet any of these evils, ii it nau started inquiries under the act with the power given to the minister as it is provided in the legislation.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that there had been a very large number of investigations under the combines act. I have forgotten the figures, but he surprised me very much as he quoted them.. I think what he had reference to was the number of applications which had been made and possibly the number of some slight preliminary inquiries. I have followed rather carefully the proceedings under the act and my recollection is that there have been something like fifteen substantial investigations under its provisions. Of that number, seven were initiated at the time the late Liberal administration was in office and were completed within that time. In addition, three were started, making ten altogether that owed their . origin to that period; the three thus started under our administration were completed during the time the present government has been in office. Five in addition were initiated under the present administration. I mention that only for the purpose of accuracy in the record.
May I say a further word in order that there may be no misunderstanding of my attitude or of that of the party on this side of the house? We have repeatedly stated-and indeed the legislation that has been introduced under the former Liberal administration shows the evidence of our belief-that we believed there are many evils of a class which publicity would do more to cure than penalty. Certainly evils which are in the nature of anti-social practices, if that term may be used to cover what I think we all have in mind, namely, the kind of thing that enables the mean man to profit by virtue of his meanness, are. perhaps more effectually cured by publicity than by aught else. Anything which will throw light upon these anti-social practices is, I believe, wholly in the public interest. Certainly the kind of practices set forth in the resolution as introduced by the government, constitutes a class of evils from which this country is to-day suffering to a great degree in common with other countries throughout the world. I doubt very much if there is a single evil that more affects the well-being of consumers than those agreements which artificially fix or control prices and one way or another restrict and hamper trade. The internal trade of our country has become honey-combed and enmeshed by secret understandings and aga'eements. So far as the Liberal opposition is concerned, we heartily welcome anything that will throw light upon this class of evils.
I can say for the official opposition that its members will join very cordially and wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister and his friends in endeavouring to make the investigation just as thorough as it can possibly be made.
My criticism, in so far as there was a criticism of the government's proposal, was that I thought it was surprising that it should be in the fifth rather than in the first, second, third or fourth session of this parliament that the proposal for an inquiry should be made; that I felt that the motion as drafted did not go far enough; and that special reference should have been made to and emphasis placed upon the necessity for the investigation of the financial organization of industry, the wreckage that has followed as a consequence of the way in which some financial operations have been carried out in connection with business, and the effect of those factors upon the prices at which commodities are being sold to consumers.
As to the point raised by the Prime Minister just before six o'clock, I assume that he, of course, will be accorded the right to reply. I have no desire to prevent him from replying and he is most welcome to do so, but I should like to know from Your Honour whether, according to the rules of the house, any hon. member who has moved a motion of this character has the right to reply after he has spoken on the motion itself.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As I understand the
matter, since an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Mackenzie), that is the subject before the house and members may address themselves to that subject. If the amendment is
Price Spreads-Mr. Neill

dealt with or if, as the hon. member for Gloucester suggests, it is withdrawn, the original motion is before the house and the Prime Minister has not yet closed the debate. When he was speaking just before six o'clock he was speaking on the amendment.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on something the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said just before six o'clock. He told the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who had been complaining of wage conditions in the lumber industry in British Columbia, that his remedy was to go to the provincial authorities, they having control of wages. That is, strictly speaking, correct, but there is a backwash to the subject that brings it back to the jurisdiction and to some extent to the responsibility of the Prime Minister. He said that the province was the place to go to in order to ask for the enforcement of the Minimum Wage Act. I may say that just that has been done; I did it myself. The new government had hardly had time to get photographed before I applied to them.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Before they came to Ottawa.


Alan Webster Neill: Long before that. The answer was favourable; it was that so far as they had had time to consider the matter it was their intention to revise the Minimum Wage Act, to improve it to some extent, to remove from it the handicap of the technicality that had been discovered, and to enforce it. But I know exactly what the answer or one of the arguments against action will be. Some years ago, prior to the Tolmie government taking office, a minimum wage of forty cents an hour was established in the sawmill industry. After the Tolmie government took office, it was found owing to a technicality that was discovered, the act was not enforceable in its existing form. No attempt was made to remove the technicality and the whole act lay in abeyance as it does at the present time. But the minimum wage at that time was forty cents; now the wages are thirty cents, twenty-five cents, twenty cents and as low as eighteen cents an hour in the mill. The wage of eighteen cents an hour probably indicates an oriental, but he takes the place of a white man. As I say, I know what the answer will be. The mill men will reply that it will be impossible to pay greater wages than those indicated owing not so much to conditions of the lumber market as to its location so to speak. .That is to say they have to send their product to the United 
Kingdom, which is a good deal like trying to make water run up hill. Coincident with that was the loss of the United States lumber market, to which up to two or three years ago we sold from British Columbia alone $20,000,000 worth in one year. At that time the duty on lumber going into the United States was $1 a thousand. It has been suggested-I think it is common knowledge-that a spirit of retaliation grew up in the United States because we put heavy duties against American products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so. They did not increase the duty, I suppose the hon. gentleman knows.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, they put on a tax of
$3; it does not make any difference whether it is called a duty.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: All the difference in the world.


Alan Webster Neill: I think it was called an excise tax, which was applicable only to the foreign imports; what is the difference? At any rate whereas before Canadian lumber used to pay $1 per thousand feet, we will not say by what name the imposition was called,- now it is $4. It was put on for a limited period, to expire in June, 1934, and we had high hopes that before it expired there would be some measure perhaps of reciprocity. I am on record in Hansard as urging on the Prime Minister before he went to Washington, the need for reciprocity with the United States on lumber and fish. However, that fell through, and the president of the United States, I am sorry to say, has extended this impost for another two years.
Then the lumber industry had to turn to the British market, where it is heavily handicapped by many circumstances. One is the long haul, something like 7,000 miles as compared with a few hundred to the States. That makes a difference of between $6 and $8 per thousand in competition with lumber from say Finland or Sweden, which is something like 50 per cent of the value of the goods f.o.b. our wharves. That is a tremendous handicap. Also there is the time lost in getting bills of lading through and getting the money back, and until recently there was a heavy loss in exchange, which has now been done away with. And there is the further fact that the market did not suit us. We want to sell our third class lumber. We had a ready and greedy market for it in the northwestern states, the hard up farmer wanted No. 3 lumber and we could supply it. Anyone can sell No. 1 lumber. But the British buyer did not

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
want cheap lumber, and it could not stand the cost of the long haul. He wanted first-class lumber, and also wanted it cut to standards of lengths and thicknesses different from our standards. We could not supply them out of stock; we had to have the orders specially cut, in some cases with special machinery. The United States market used to take eighty per cent of our product, but now that market is practically all gone. In 1933 we were 318,600,000 feet short of taking up the slack that we lost in the United States market, although we had an enormous increase in the Australian, Chinese and British market. It is on record, I have it under my hand from the lumber association, that the United States in 1933 took from us 551,000.000 feet less than in 1930. Of course some of that loss is due to the depression, but it indicates how much we feel the loss of that market. The lumbermen say, with some degree of truth I think, that these conditions of market in the United Kingdom do handicap them heavily in paying a wage which I think they themselves admit would be a proper one. You cannot conceive that 18 to 25 cents an hour for eight hours a day is a living wage, with our standards of living in the west.
What would be of more value to us in British Columbia than this United Kingdom market would be reciprocity with the United States in fish and lumber. I beg the Prime Minister to keep that in mind. Someone said the other day that that is not possible. But anything is possible; I think I heard a suggestion of whisky against hogs in connection with the United States and another country. If one such exchange can be arranged perhaps another can.
As far as this particular resolution before the house is concerned I heartily agree with its purpose; I compliment the Prime Minister on having brought it in, and hope it will be successful.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the consent of the house the amendment of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) is withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if I may conclude the debate, I do not desire to trespass upon the time of the house except to correct, as a matter of record perhaps, as my right hon. friend would say-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not like to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I would call the attention of the house to the fact that if the Prime Minister speaks now he closes the
debate. Does any other hon. member wish to speak on the main motion


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire only to correct some misapprehensions.
The common law of England declared in what was known as the Great Mogul steamship case, that all restraints of trade and associations are of course not illegal. Associations of farmers, of workingmen, of manufacturers, of producers, it mattered not who, were not illegal; and the common law to that effect still prevails largely in England. On the continent, of course, cartels are largely favoured. There are two world cartels that are very well known by all those who have to do with trade in these days; one has to do with chemicals and chemical products, and the other with steel. The one with respect to steel is perhaps not quite as effective as the one that has to do with chemicals. However, when it became apparent, shall I say, about the middle of the nineteenth century, that in new countries combinations were operating to the detriment of the consumer to such an extent that they could no longer be endured, legislation was passed by many countries. In the United States the Sherman Act was passed, aimed at ending combines. The Supreme Court of the United States dealt with the great tobacco case, and with the United States Steel case, under the Sherman Act, and with many cases that arose out of combinations in that country.
In this country, as the right hon. gentleman said, in 1910, while he was Minister of Labour, an act was introduced respecting combines that adopted the British common law principle, namely that all combinations were not illegal nor per se bad, but only if they had certain effects; one for instance being unduly enhancing prices, another unduly restraining trade-and very frequently the word "unduly" appeared in consequence of the recognition of the legality of combinations on the one hand and the desire to prevent them from bringing about an improper condition in the body politic on the other. There were two or three notable prosecutions in this country in the criminal courts under the provisions of our criminal code. One was in Brantford; one was against the grain exchange in Winnipeg; one was against the lumber combine in western Canada. When I was much younger than I am now I defended that action. One paragraph in the articles of association, in my judgment when I first saw the case, was fatal to their contention; it was upon that article that they were found guilty and fined, and the combine for the moment

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
disappeared. There have been, of course, several combines in this country that have been held to be not illegal.
In 1923 the present act was framed and placed upon the statute book. Its legality was upheld, if my memory serves me aright, by the privy council. One of the questions that naturally suggests itself is why none of the things to which the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) referred last night were the subject matter of inquiry under this act during the seven shears from 1923 to 1930. I tried to check them up; I speak subject to correction, but I think every one he named came into being between 1923 and 1930, and there was not a single inquiry under the act with respect to one of them. I invite hon. members of this house to look at the statute, to look at the speech of the hon. member for Last Mountain and to look at the dates when these various organizations came into being, and then ask himself that question. The truth is that in days of, shall I say, abounding prosperity-


Edward James Young: That is it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -so as to please my friends opposite, when we still had a tariff,
I would remind the hon. member for Wey-burn you had perhaps fewer demands for inquiries under the statute, but does anyone . in this house who read the history of the cement reorganization not ask himself why the government did not institute an inquiry under this act? I can point to other cases. Were the government ignorant of the circumstances under which the bakeries came into being as subsidiaries of the milling companies? Were they, or were they not? So far as my memory serves-and I speak again subject to correction, for I have not looked into these matters at all and am relying only on my memory-the Maple Leaf Milling Company established a subsidiary in the days of Mr. James Stewart, and that made it essential for other milling companies who desired to sell flour to bakeries also to establish subsidiaries.
That is the bread item. Why was no inquiry under the combines act initiated in that case? Why was no inquiry ever suggested with respect to it? There are two cases. I am not going to take the time of the house to-night to go over them all, though I could readily do so. The truth is that from the time the act of 1923 was enacted, so far as my information goes at the moment, 330 applications were made, and of those 142 have been dealt with since 1930, although the act was in force for seven years before the present government came into office. With respect 
to the fifteen cases to which the right hon. gentleman referred as being important, the truth is that eight of them came up for final determination and consideration during the present regime. They were: (1) moving pictures; (2) radio tubes and sets; (3) the bread inquiry; (4) the fruit basket inquiry; (5) the tobacco inquiry; (6) the British anthracite coal inquiry; (7) the rubber footwear inquiry, and (8) the gasoline inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Three of those were instituted before this government came into office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is correct in saying that three of these inquiries were commenced before the late government resigned office. The present registrar was appointed by the late administration, and I suppose it is known to most members of this house that the government has no jurisdiction over him. We do not set in motion the machinery in connection with any inquiry, neither can we control it. When six citizens, as mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, ask the registrar to institute an inquiry he does so. Then he makes his report, and then the minister has certain responsibilities.
When the matter has reached this stage, as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) indicated this afternoon, under the constitution the provincial authorities who are charged with the administration of criminal law determine whether or not on the facts an indictment shall be preferred. If in the opinion of the law officers of the crown in any province affected it is concluded that an indictment should be preferred, the attorney general of the province assumes the responsibility of taking the necessary action. That was done recently; the case being sub judice I shall not further mention it. It was so with respect to the plumbers' case here in Ontario; it was so with respect to the moving picture case, also here in Ontario, the indictment being preferred by the attorney general of this province.
This afternoon the hon. member for Bonaventure referred to the long campaign carried on by the late Mr. Maclean in support of the proposition that W'e should have power to institute proceedings on .behalf of the federal government. In the United States, as you know, they have their federal marshals and federal officers for the .purpose of carrying on federal proceedings in the courts. Mr. Maclean urged very strongly that we should have such power in this country. That campaign never resulted in any action being taken to amend the constitution, and doubtless it

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
will be within the memory of some of the older members of this house that when difficulties arose in connection with the prosecution of other members of this Commons House of Parliament it became necessary to arrange with the provincial authorities for the appointment of counsel to conduct the prosecution, the necessary instructions being given by the federal authorities.
That is the position at the moment, and during the short time we have been in office we have had this large number of inquiries brought about by complaints being made to the registrar, the evidence taken and the reports made. There is no settled jurisprudence as to what is the proper interpretation of the sections referred to by the right hon. gentleman, and I hope he will pardon me if I say that the courts have decided that you cannot look to the debates in the House of Commons for the purpose of interpreting a statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I realize that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Therefore what the intention was is not made at all apparent by what may have been said by those who introduced the measure; the courts, by applying the ordinary canons of construction to the language used, must determine the meaning of the statute under consideration. I say frankly that in my judgment the proposals we have made to the house in this resolution could not be met by the provisions of the combines act. I think on reflection the right hon. gentleman will agree that it is quite impossible to say that directors, meeting together as directors of a company, could under any circumstances commit an offence which would be in violation of the provisions of the combines act. The directors of the organization are the organization, and the organization does not combine with itself. In other words a combination means more than one; I think that is the way it was put in some of the cases. That being the case, you will observe from the language that has been used in the resolution submitted to the house that what was sought was not only an inquiry such as has been suggested by the right hon. gentleman but also a determination of the extent to which the power in a single organization may be utilized to the detriment of smaller organizations depending upon its trade for their existence.
That is the point that is at issue, and speaking merely as a citizen I am bound to say that I regard it as an extremely difficult problem to determine to what extent the size of corporations shall be restricted or restrained by legislative acts, and when the point arises when it may be said that size constitutes menace. There are striking illustrations in the commercial world of large corporations being decidedly beneficial to communities by increasing efficiency, reducing overhead unit costs and being able to pay better wages to those who work for them. Those of you who have taken the trouble to read the late Lord Leverhulme's Six Hour Day will perhaps recall that in his lifetime he practically created a single corporation that had control of I might almost say nearly the whole of the soap industry of Great Britain, and a substantial part of the soap industry of the world.


Mr. AHEARN:: Matches.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the hon. gentleman
is wrong as to that. He was not interested in that.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: He was in that corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I be permitted to
say that the hon. member who has introduced the subject is not at all familiar with it, or he would not have introduced it at the present moment.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: I accept the right hon.
gentleman's remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me proceed. The
effort here is to provide a committee with power to investigate all the matters incidental to the spread between the cost of production and the price paid toy the consumer. I realize that the observations made this afternoon as to the magnitude of the task are perfectly sound, but I believe that by providing for the appointment of a commission by the committee of, say, a single man, to make a definite inquiry with respect to the wages paid in a definite industry, for instance the clothing industry, or in some other industry, and reporting back to the committee, it will be enabled quickly to arrive at conclusions with respect to some of these matters. And if an article appearing in one of the trade journals to which my attention was directed inquiring as to who owns industry is to be taken as having a basis of fact, there should not be much difficulty in ascertaining what the effect is of mass organizations and chain store buying.
I think nothing beyond this can be said, that apparently the attempt this afternoon was to deprecate this effort and to suggest that it had behind it a political background. I leave it to any hon. member in this house who has been familiar with conditions in Canada during the last three and a half years,

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
I leave to any fairminded gentleman to say whether or not he thinks that was the proper time in which to launch an investigation such as -this. The president of the United States in his program indicated that as recovery proceeded, certain other developments would follow, namely improved social conditions as to hours of labour, wages, compensation and matters of that kind. As I have already indicated, we believe that there are signs of permanent improvement in the world, and we desire as far as we may^ entrusted as we are for the moment with power, to utilize it in such way that as recovery proceeds the benefits which follow should accrue to society at large in this country of ours and that the evils to which we now refer should not be engrafted upon the community as it recovers from its present depression. That is the reason the motion is now made. The march of recovery should be divorced entirely from those, shall I call them, excrescences which have grown up during the last fifteen or twenty years and which, in my judgment, have been so injurious to the body politic.
There was only one point referred to this afternoon which in my view is of such character that it may present difficulties to the inquiries of the committee. I refer of course to the financial structure of organizations based uipon provincial laws, and having n-o roots under the federal law. At a conference we had with the provinces in 1933 we endeavoured to induce them to believe that it was desirable in the national interest that we should have uniform companies acts, and it will be a matter of some satisfaction to members of this house to -recall th-at in 1933 all the p-remi-ere agreed to that proposal. We have prepared a draft act which is now in the possession of the various provinces so that they may determine to what extent they are prepared to march with us in -providing uniform companies acts. That is the position a-t the present time. The real difficulty in connection with tire financial structure has been not violations of companies acts but, in my judgment, an absence in those acts of provisions which' will ensure absolute publicity as to what the re-al facts are. I agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said i-n respect of the reorganization of an existing enterprise. W-hen returns of a company are so great that it is in a -position to reduce its prices to the consumers, it should do so. If it is reorganized on a new capital structure based upon an increased number of shares that would permit of a reasonable return being made because of the large profits derived, it should be provided, as it will be in

the act we suggest, that there shall be clearly stated that n-o reorganization of such enter-prase eh-all take place unless there is disclosed that there were paid for this enterprise by the new company blank dollars and that its reorganization contemplates the creation of blank number of new shares upon which it is contemplated that money shall be earned. I could give you case after case, notably one I have in mind where great success followed the efforts of this concern in the enterprise of its promoter seizing upon it and buying it up, selling it to the publi-c on the basis of, shall we say, a six or seven per cent return based updn the returns theretofore being maintained over a period of years.
I need hardly remind this house that there are thousands of men and women in Canada to-day who have been practically ruined because of the shares they bought in various enterprises in this country during the last seven years. It is a blot upon this country's financial history. When we desired to investigate, because of complaints made to the Secretary of State, we ascertained they all had provincial charters, and it was beyond our power to conduct any inquiry into the formation of -those companies and their financial structure.	That is one of the
difficulties with which we have to deal, and I think I may say to this house frankly that the premiers of the various provinces showed a very great disposition to act in cooperation with the federal power in securing, if possible, uniformity in our companies acts. But during the last few years the action taken in connection with the sale of shares and the power that the privy council said undoubtedly the provinces had, namely, to supervise the sale of securities within their respective jurisdictions, has had a marvellously good effect in every particular.
I think all the provinces have now enacted that legislation which originated in the province of Alberta, the validity of it having been sustained by the decision of the privy council.
One word more. One deprecates a discussion of the affairs of another country, but I feel quite certain this afternoon that the sudden rush I observed in the press gallery to record the words of wisdom of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), and send them by telegraph, as to the approaching failure of schemes of the president of the United States for resuscitation of industrial life in his country, will have a marked effect upon other parts of the country within the next few hours. I feel undoubtedly that will be so. But, apart from that and the effect it will have upon the

Price Spreads-Mr. Bennett
financial world at large, I do not think the contribution he made questioning the good faith of those who are responsible for those measures will be considered a very serious contribution to this discussion.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: May I ask a question?
Is not the whole public faith in this measure bound up in speed-how fast we can get it through the Commons and how fast we can get it through the Senate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think possibly the hon.
gentleman is confusing two things. I am not sure just which he is confusing with the other, but I do invite my hon. friends opposite and to my right to secure as nominees to this committee those who they believe will best serve the purpose which we all have in mind.
It is the purpose of the government to ask one of its members to act upon that committee, and I hope that in due course he will be elected as chairman. I assure the house that every effort that can be made towards securing evidence as to what the conditions are will be made. If we could forget that it is of greater concern to the Canadian people that curative measures should be provided than that party advantage should be gained by discussions in this house, I think it would be well. I merely make that observation.
I should like to correct my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) who, in his anxiety to blame the retaliatory action, as he called it, of the United States with respect to lumber upon some action that had been taken here, as usual lost his sense of perspective. The real truth is that the president of the United States, as is well known, was opposed to the action that was taken, and it is well known that the house was. But it is also well known that, the late Senator Jones succeeded by methods that he himself described at the moment in inducing the Senate to add to the tax bill of that time a provision whereby a tax of S3 per thousand feet was placed upon lumber that camp into the United States from British Columbia and elsewhere, and it was to expire at a given date. President Hoover was opposed to it and the house was opposed to it, but- the senate attached that tax provision to the measure, and rather than veto it and take the risk that was attendant upon such action as was stated in the public press at the time, the president allowed the measure to go into effect. There was no question of attaching blame upon the government for that action. The tax was imposed in that way, and it had no relation to any tariff legislation that took place 'here, for it was not tariff legislation itself. The result was what
Senator Jones desired to bring about, a lessening of the importation into Washington of Canadian lumber. That is what he sought and that was the result. Those who live in the northwest and a number of builders in cities along the coast were annoyed that it should have happened, but it did. As perhaps the hon. gentleman knows, the excise act has not been opened, as they say, in the congress of the United States for the purpose of making any amendments to it, and until that time comes I suppose it will not be possible by discussions here to bring about a change in the laws of another country.


Peter John Veniot: Before the Prime Minister sits down, may I ask if that American tax did not apply to all Canadian lumber, not simply to British Columbia lumber?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It affected all Canadian lumber, and lumber imported from any other country into the United States. I spoke of British Columbia lumber because that is what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was interested in, and also because of British Columbia lumber going to the state of Washington for which Senator Jones was acting. But the tax of S3 per thousand feet on lumber applied to lumber imported from any country.
I commend this resolution to the house.
I had not thought that it would engage the house in any extended debate, but the fact that it has, has probably served some useful purpose. If it has given us a clearer appreciation of the seriousness of the matters at issue and a more earnest desire to bring about a solution of these problems, even in the fifth session of this parliament, that will be better than failure to have done anything for seven years after the statute in relation to combine was passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not wish to interrupt the Prime Minister, but perhaps he will allow me one question to complete the record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister left the inference that if it were discovered as a result of an investigation that a combine existed in violation of the provisions of the act, the one and only remedy was to turn over the whole matter to the provincial authorities to proceed by way of indictment. Is it not a fact tljat there are other remedies provided by the act which the federal government itself can take in the way of reduction of duties, revocation of patents and proceedings under the criminal code?
Central Bank


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are other means after the province has failed to discharge its duty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean previously, without any reference to the province at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot institute
criminal proceedings except through the instrumentality of the province and the machinery they control. That was the difficulty to which Mr. Maclean referred. The question of reducing duties, revoking patents and matters of that kind is well understood. That can always be done by federal action. The federal government can institute criminal proceedings-I know one case in which it did -but it must be done in conformity or cooperation with the provincial authorities because they control the administration of criminal justice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall make a motion with respect to the naming of the committee after it has been settled by the whips whether a larger number than eleven should comprise the committee. Eleven is considered the maximum number for a special committee if it is to do efficient work, although there is a strong body of parliamentarians who believe that seven is the ideal number; but that is impractical in a country the size of Canada, with the official opposition, our friends to the right, and the government having to be represented on the committee, and therefore we have suggested a committee of eleven.



CENTRAL BANK


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a central bank in Canada, and to provide for the appointment and salaries of the officers and staff of the bank and the appointment and fees of the directors, and to make such further provisions in respect to the functions, powers and administration of the bank as recommended by the Royal Commission on Banking and Currency in Canada.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Reid: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the dispatches appearing in the press regarding the entry of Canadian cattle and eggs into the British market, what efforts were made by the Dominion government to bargain with the authorities in Great Britain for the entry of our produce into that market, and also has the government any information to the effect that steps are likely to be taken shortly by the British authorities curtailing the quota of Canadian cattle and eggs for the British market?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the question had better stand as a notice. The fact is that the Canadian quota with respect to a cattle, eggs and things of that sort is dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain after discussion with representatives of the Dominion of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last evening the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was not in his place when it was suggested that we would make a formal motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the purpose of taking an item in supply in order to forward the business of the house and enable supply to be taken at a later date. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) directed my attention to the rule, which provides that the Speaker shall leave the chair on Thursdays and Fridays without question put. Obviously that is after he has left it for the first time, and my reading of the rule is that if a formal motion is made, that he do now leave the chair, which of course leaves the whole subject matter open for debate, he may do so on any day, whether it be Thursday or Friday. But after the house has gone into committee of supply, neither on Thursday nor on Friday will a motion be made; the Speaker will leave the chair, but no matter can be discussed in supply which has not been considered on a day other than Thursday or Friday. I think that is the correct interpretation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry' I was not in the house at the close of the pro-

Business of the House-Procedure
oeedings last night. I had left word that, if the question of supply came up by any chance, I thought it would meet with the approval of hon. members on this side, rather than lose time altogether, to permit supply in one department to be gone on with provided the department was named and there were no other business with which the house could proceed. I have been looking at what took place and I observe that the Prime Minister said that he was of the opinion a formal motion could be pult and the house could resolve itself into committee of supply.
I believe this would require unanimous consent on a Thursday or Friday, where no item in supply had been previously called. I should think otherwise there would have to be notice in advance of any motion. I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to standing order No. 57, which reads:
The house will appoint the committees of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Excellency's speech.
At the time the Minister of Finance moved for the appointment of these two committees, nothing was said on this side, no exception was taken at the moment. I think exception should have been taken, that the motion should not have been made until after the address to His Excellency had been agreed to. Having slipped that stage, if I may use that expression, I think we should hardly be justified in going a step further and again transgressing a rule, which evidently was intended to protect hon. members as regards adequate time in which to prepare for the subjects that are to come up for disoussion. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will not press the matter and ask us to take up supply to-night, seeing more particularly that there still remain several other numbers on the order paper, any one of which might now be proceeded with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Standing order No. 57
was considered when the motion was made by the Minister of Finance. We read the rule to mean that in any event the motion must be made as soon as the address has been agreed to, and cannot be deferred to a later day. But there is nothing to prevent its being made earlier. You set up your committee as soon as the house is in order; but in any event you must set it up as soon as the address has been agreed to in answer to His Excellency's speech. That is the construction which we put upon the rule, although that does not mean that it is correct. It was certainly, however, what we believed 74726-15
would be regarded as the reasonable interpretation to place upon it. The committee of ways and means and the committee of supply are committees that must be set up at the beginning of every session under our general system of procedure, and the rule means, we take it, that as soon as the address has been adopted it must be done in any event. But that does not preclude its being done before that. That is the view we entertain. With respect to the other matter, the only reason I suggested last evening for our going formally into supply to discuss an item in finance, in justice and in public works, was that if the occasion necessitated there would be three departments that would be open for consideration by the members of the house, though we would not pass any item to-night but merely consider it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it not the Prime Minister's conception of Rule No. 28 that it is absolutely impossible on Friday to go into any estimates unless they have been previously called on a day other than Thursday or Friday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what I tried
a moment ago to say to you, Mr. Speaker. Undoubtedly it means that you cannot consider on Thursdays and Fridays estimates that have not been considered on a previous day. But as, on Thursday and Friday, the Speaker leaves the chair without motion put, it is always competent, when there has been no supply, to make a motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, which then leaves open all the rights and privileges that belong to any member to make a speech or move a motion in amendment. Obviously that was what was meant, but if there is a doubt there is no point to-night in taking up time discussing it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we had better hold to the rules as we have understood them heretofore. I hope the Prime Minister will not press the matter this evening.


Right Hon.   S@: I notice that standing order No. 28 has been interpreted by some in the way the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has construed it, but as a matter of fact I am perfectly certain that that was not the intention of the order at all. In the old days you could not go into supply on any day of the week without a motion, and of course that gave an opportunity to every member to move an amendment, to air grievances, and so on. That was considered as perhaps delaying the busi-

The Address-Mr. Brown

ness of the house too much, and when this clause was put in it was for the purpose of enabling the government to go into supply, without motion, on Thursdays and Fridays, to avoid that difficulty. Then, in order to satisfy the members of the house, it was provided that no items should be taken up on Thursdays and Fridays that had not been already before the committee on some other day; but there was never any intention of taking away from the government the power to move into supply on Thursdays and Fridays in the ordinary way, making a motion which could be debated in the usual manner. I admit that it is possible to interpret the order as some hon. members have interpreted it, but I am perfectly certain that such was not the intention of the order in the first instance; and I submit to the house that it is carrying the argument rather far to say that on Thursdays and Fridays an ordinary motion to go into supply cannot be made by the government, to which motion any hon. member can move an amendment, or debate, or under which he may raise any grievance he may have, as he would on any other day of the week. It is not taking away any privileges from any member of the house if the government has the power to move, in the ordinary way, to go into supply on Thursdays and Fridays, and I am sure that this was the original intention of the rule. Perhaps the wording of the rule was somewhat defective; it was not made as plain as it might have been.


Charles A. Stewart: During the eight and a half years that I was a member of the government we never, by implication or otherwise, proposed any motion to go into supply in regard to estimates that had not been already brought in by motion on the first three days of the week.


Jean-François Pouliot: Quite often the cabinet
ministers leave their chairs without questions being answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be done on the first Thursday or Friday, whatever might be done any other day. On the first Thursday or Friday that would certainly be the case.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gobeil for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening, of the session, the amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King and the

amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. J. L. BROWiN (Lisgar): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity offered me by the motion ably moved by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) and equally ably seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), to make a few comments upon some of the matters referred to in the speech from the throne. First let me say that it is very gratifying that the recent interprovincial conference affords us some evidence that the people of eastern Canada are beginning to appreciate the peculiar difficulties which, for various reasons, confront the western provinces. It is unfortunate, therefore, that there should still seem to be in the minds of some the idea that the people of the western provinces have been unduly extravagant in carrying on their public business; that they have been more extravagant than have the eastern provinces. I should not have referred to this matter at this time had it not been for the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). I think therefore this is a fitting opportunity to place before the house some of the facts in regard to the financial conditions of the western provinces as compared with those of the east. I do not think I can do this better than by quoting from an editorial in one of the Winnipeg papers in reply to certain statements made by the Ottawa Journal and the Financial Times. The editorial reads:
There would be none of this talk if these journals knew that the record of Ontario, in regard to increase in current expenditure and in regard to increase in bonded indebtedness, is worse than the records of the western provinces which they have 'been berating. The current expenditure of Quebec has also grown much faster than that of the western provinces. This will all be news to the journals that have been criticizing so glibly, and it will be news to many other people; but it is perfectly true. If those journals had taken the trouble to look up the records, they would have found that current expenditures increased as follows in the provinces named:
1911	1931
Ontario	
$9,916,934	$54,846,994Quebec	
6,424,900	40,854,245Manitoba	
4,002,826	14,491,673British Columbia.. 8,194,803	27,931,866
It wall be seen that the rate of increase in ordinary expenditure was nearly twice as high in the two eastern provinces as in the two western provinces.
Saskatchewan and Alberta, being much younger provinces, organized only in 1905, the rate of increase in expenditure, due to their very rapid development, was naturally high and

cannot fairly be compared with that in the east. But the comparison for the last decade shows a higher rate of increase in the eastern provinces than in those two prairie provinces. The figures are as follows:
1921	1931
Ontario	$28,579,688	$54,846,994Quebec	
14,624,088	40,854,245Saskatchewan.. ..	12,151,665	18,202,677Alberta	
13,109,304	18,017,544
Thus, the increase for Ontario was about 95 per cent, for Quebec nearly 200 per cent, and for both the western provinces less than 50 per cent.
Now turn to the increase in bonded indebtedness, and the comparison between the records of Ontario and the four western provinces is seen to be even more strikingly in favour of the west.
Richard Bedford Bennett: As regards Ontario, that of course includes the hydro.


Mr. BROWN:: I shall mention that later.
The figures are as follows:
Ontario	
Manitoba.. .. Saskatchewan .
Alberta	
British Columbia
1916	1931
$52,411,401	$499,986,000
30,396,274	94,201,735
24,292,044	89,123,725
29,000,200	116,801,572
21,153,146	116,050,610
These figures do not include money borrowed on treasury bills nor, in the case of British Columbia, do they include the railway debt of nearly $70,000,000. But even with those additions, British Columbia's debt increase is not relatively any greater than Ontario's, while the increases of the other western provinces are relatively far less than that of Ontario.
Much of the Ontario debt is for the provincial hydro and for highway improvements. Much of the debt of the western provinces is for telephone systems, provincial hydro systems, highway improvements and public buildings.
Since Ontario has spent money far more freely, both on curent account and on capital account, than have the prairie provinces, the Ottawa Journal would be better occupied in criticizing the "reckless extravagance" of its own province than in attacking the records of the western provinces. Nothing could equal the soaring expenditure of its own political friends who have been in office in Toronto for the last ten years.
Those figures ought, I think, to disabuse the minds of any who are still under the impression that the western provinces have been more extravagant in the management of their public affairs than have the eastern provinces. I said that the western provinces have passed through peculiarly difficult times. Not only have we had to suffer in common with all Canadians from the general world depression, but for a series of years-and the end is not yet-we have had the twin plagues of drought and grasshoppers. The depressed condition of world trade for which this government must bear a share of responsibility-
74726-15J
The Address-Mr. Brown


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh!


Albert Joseph Brown: The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had not been listening until I made that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I had.


Albert Joseph Brown: I say again, then, that the depressed condition of world trade for which this government must bear a measure of responsibility-I think that is moderate language - would in itself have struck a severe blow at western agriculture. But it would not in itself have necessitated the relief measures that have been found necessary to provide men and women and children with food and clothing and to provide fodder for starving live stock. Here let me pay tribute to the people of eastern Canada, working in most cases through their churches, which the mayor of Winnipeg, who often talks foolishly, says have failed.


Edward James Young: In that case he did.


Albert Joseph Brown: But I wish to pay tribute to the people of eastern Canada, who have so generously-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Albert Joseph Brown: -given of their means and sent many carloads of food and clothing to relieve distress in the stricken area.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Albert Joseph Brown: My own immediate district has not suffered as severely as have many other districts. But I made a tour through the western and southern part of my constituency after harvest last fall, and I found conditions in many cases deplorable. I found them such that only extreme suffering could result during the winter season. Perhaps the statement made by the premier of Manitoba will impress upon the minds of eastern people the real condition in which the western provinces find themselves in this time of distress. Speaking at the United Farmers' convention in Portage la Prairie in November last, Premier Bracken made this statement, that the income of the three prairie provinces during the last four years was $1,800,000,000 less than during the preceding four years. Think of it!


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the income of the provinces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not of the governments, of the people.


Albert Joseph Brown: The general income of the people of the provinces.
The Address-Mr. Brown


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that must be wrong.


Albert Joseph Brown: Is it any wonder, if that be true, and I do not think there is any reason to doubt it, that the revenues of our municipalities and provincial governments have been so reduced that it has been absolutely necessary for them to appeal for help?
The Prime Minister quoted many figures the other day to show that general trade conditions are improving. I am not disposed to question those figures; they may be perfectly correct. But I want to emphasize the point made last night by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) that the improvement has not yet reached the farmer. I listened in a few days ago to a conversation among a group of farmers, and the consensus of opinion was that conditions are worse today in that old settled oommunity in southern Manitoba than they had ever been-worse than in the hardest pioneer days through which we passed more than fifty years ago. One of the difficulties facing the people to-day is not onty that municipal and provincial revenues have been reduced, but there is a tremendous personal burden resting upon the farmers. The municipalities and provincial governments naturally cannot get' revenue when the source of that revenue has almost completely dried up. The great problem that confronts us to-day is, what are we to do with that great burden of debt? We have our debt adjustment boards, I think in all three provinces, certainly in Manitoba; but up to the present all the authority that has been given to them is to' secure a delay of proceedings, to prevent creditors from taking immediate drastic action. There are those who tell us that these debt adjustment boards are doing more harm than good, that they are drying up the sources of credit so that farmers cannot borrow a dollar. I am not yet prepared to adopt that view. But there can be no question that these methods cannot be continued indefinitely; at some time we must have a showdown.
What is to be done? I fully appreciate the difficulties of the situation, I fully appreciate the fact that we cannot divide debtors and creditors into two distinct classes and say to one class: You must forego the debts that are due you from the other class. I fully appreciate the fact that the loan companies are largely financed with the money of men and women who have put their life savings into these companies. I appreciate the difficulty, but there is a problem that the people of Canada must face at some time. Much is being said to-day about the farmers' need of

short term and intermediate credit. In my judgment there is nothing that would justify a farmer in borrowing money to-day except to meet some extreme emergency or to refund a debt at a lower rate of interest. There is no single agricultural activity into which a farmer can enter that would warrant his borrowing a single dollar with any hope of making sufficient profit to repay the principal with interest. That is the situation that confronts the people of western Canada to-day.
I want to refer now to the wheat agreement. This agreement is being enthusiastically advocated in some quarters and strenuously opposed in others. I shall try to speak moderately, but I will say this, that I look upon it with a great deal of fear. My fear is that an agreement of this kind, instead of remedying the difficulty, will simply encourage the importing countries in the uneconomic policies that they are pursuing. To try to meet one economic ill, or something that has resulted from uneconomic policies, by adopting another plan of doubtful economic wisdom is to my mind a very uncertain experiment.
Granting for the moment, however, that the scheme be theoretically sound, it seems to me that the difficulties involved in putting it into practical force are almost insuperable. I asked the Prime Minister when he was speaking on the subject what steps the government were taking to give effect to the agreement. His reply was to the effect that no steps were necessary at the moment, that there would foe no need to do anything until there was an indication that the quota would be exceeded. I cannot see how the agreement which he has made can be carried out unless the government is prepared to take charge of the whole thing, the buying and the selling of the wheat. Not that I am particularly in favour of that, but I do not see how it is possible to give effect to the agreement unless they do that. Are we to go on simply in a haphazard way until the time comes when the quota has been almost reached and then have the government step in and take control? It seems to me that would be absolutely unfair to the different exporting countries. Certainly the matter of export comes within the jurisdiction of this government.
When we come to deal with the question of reducing acreage or putting the individual quota back to the farm the difficulties seem to me to be still more insuperable. That, of course, must come within the jurisdiction of provincial governments. Various propositions have been advanced, I know, but there has been no scheme advanced so far as I have heard that is not open to many grave

The Address-Mr. Brown
objections. I know the prairie premiers went home from the recent conference with the intention of making an investigation into the situation and deciding on action later. When they make that investigation, here is what they will find: they will find that for certain reasons there will be a very large reduction in acreage. They wild find that there are many districts, in which drought conditions have prevailed for a number of years, where large areas of land will not be cropped for the reason that the owners of that land will not furnish seed. I know that condition prevailed to some extent last year. They will find that there are many farmers owning their own land who will not be able to buy seed, and that the municipalities and provincial governments will not be in a position to furnish them with seed. For that reason large areas of land will not be put under cultivation. They will find also that the menace of grasshoppers will make very doubtful the wisdom of venturing to any great extent into the sowing of wheat.
Sometimes we are told that farming is a gamble. I do not like to hear that word used in this connection, because it confuses the minds of men as to what gambling really is, but it is a term frequently used. I think we can say, however, that there are many districts in which the grasshopper menace is so great that it would seem that a man would be almost as wise to throw his seed wheat into the sea as to put it into the ground, and for that reason I think they will find that many farmers in the infested districts will act on that principle in some measure and will not risk a very large acreage. They will find also that the conditions through which wc have passed in recent years, and particularly in the last year, have so reduced the supply of feed that there will be many horses found dead all over the prairies. I know that just at Christmas time a certain gentleman told me, in regard to a particular part of my own constituency, that in a seven mile drive he counted eight dead horses. Just before I left home I was told of a man who had lost four horses, and the reports that come to us indicate that hundreds of horses will die during the present winter. With these conditions prevailing-and they do prevail; I am not making any exaggerated statement-I think the prairie premiers will find that it is a matter of very doubtful wisdom to speak of acreage reduction at the present time. Indeed I think they will be very glad to find an opportunity to drop the whole thing.
Now I should like to make a few comments with regard to some of the speeches that have
been made throughout the country. The Prime Minister made a speech in Toronto to which my right hon. leader referred. I did not see as full an account of that speech as did the right hon. leader of the opposition, but I was very much surprised at one brief statement which I read. Speaking of the Laurier preference the Prime Minister was reported as saying that for thirty-five years successive governments have endeavoured to correct the injury that was done to Canadian trade. Those may not be the exact words, but the effect of his remark was that for thirty-five years successive governments had endeavoured to correct the injury that was done to Canada. It seems to me that was a very strange statement to make, when we remember that some of these governments, representing certainly a large proportion of the Canadian people, did not believe that any injury had been done to Canada by those preferences which were granted to Great Britain.
Why will not hon. gentlemen opposite try to get our point of view? We get their point very easily. Their point of view is that the greatest crime that a man can commit is to bring some cheap goods into Canada. We do not hold to that principle. We believe that it would be quite possible to bring some cheap goods into Canada for the benefit of Canadians. Wherefore why should we wlm hold that view consider that an injury had been done to Canada by the preferences granted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
The Prime Minister was also wrong when he said that successive governments had endeavoured to correct this so called injury. My understanding is that successive governments did not endeavour to do so. Why should the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which was in power until 1911, endeavour to correct this so called damage? In my judgment there is no evidence that any such endeavours were made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
evidently has not read the last memorandum from Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Albert Joseph Brown: I shall refer to that in a moment. Neither did the government of the present leader of the opposition make any endeavour to correct that so called injury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. gentleman read the proceedings of the 1923 economic conference?


Albert Joseph Brown: I will speak about that. It is true that the Prime Minister, by referring to those things which he has just mentioned,
The Address-Mr. Brown

in his speech defending the Ottawa agreements did, by partial quotations, by statements taken apart from their context and apart from the circumstances under which they were spoken, seem to convince himself, and endeavoured to convince the people, that these governments had tried to correct this so called injury. There is one thing, however, that Liberal governments never did, or else I am greatly mistaken. They never endeavoured to force Great Britain to change her fiscal policy. I think that is a statement that cannot be contradicted, in spite of those things to which the Prime Minister referred so frequently in the course of his remarks, and to which he has now directed our attention. I say again that unless I am tremendously mistaken, and have been mistaken all these years, no Liberal government ever endeavoured to force Great Britain to change her fiscal policy.
That is what hon. gentlemen opposite say they have done. In my judgment there is no warrant for the Prime Minister to say, "We have succeeded where others have failed." Hon. gentlemen opposite say they induced Great Britain to change her fiscal policy; that is the boast that has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite in the last few years. I am not so sure that they will be always glad to boast of that fact. There may be some reason at the moment to believe that Canadian producers of farm products are receiving some benefit in the British market, but mark this: the British agriculturists have tasted blood. They have tasted protection; they are demanding more, and under the present Minister of Agriculture they are being encouraged to demand more. It is true that in the meantime he is being held back by the Ottawa agreements, but there is every reason to believe he regards those as only temporary. At the present time he does not hesitate to place duties upon empire products that are not included in the agreement. There is every reason to believe that at the very first opportunity he will yield to the demand of the British agriculturist for more protection. That is the situation. Then, I read the following from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 16, 1934:
These plans were exposed to general view in a speech Mr. Elliott delivered recently in the south of England to the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs. He spoke about the government's anxiety to "improve agriculture" in Great Britain. "We have taken some drastic steps," he said, "but they are nothing to the steps we are going to take in the immediate future." Mr. Elliott then said:
If we are going to live on our own resources we need to know how to do it. Unless the
[Mr. Brown.1
farmers of this country can produce food all this movement will be stopped, but it will not stop until we have had a lot of terribly nasty food at extraordinary high prices, because we are determined to make it go, and will not admit defeat for a long time. It is up to you to see that the young people know a lot about farming, because it is up to them to produce the food in the future.
Let us make no mistake; as I have said, British agriculturists have tasted blood and they are going to demand more. At that time will hon. members who have boasted that the Prime Minister induced Great Britain to change her fiscal policy be as pleased as they seem to have been in the past? The situation is very well stated in these words:
British agricultural protectionism dates from the time when the Canadian government, leading the dominions, asked Great Britain to put duties on foreign foodstuffs. Having tasted protection against foreign competition, the British farmers want protection against empire competition too, and they are being officially encouraged.
When I was preparing my remarks I was not aware that the matter with which we have dealt all afternoon would be up for discussion. I did not take any part in the debate this afternoon, but at this time I will venture just a few words. When I read the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) I was struck with one phrase; he spoke about unethical methods of carrying on business. My attention was attracted by his remarks concerning millers and their relation to the bakers, and they brought to my mind a story about a man who was appearing before a magistrate for driving his car recklessly. Defending himself, he said: " I tooted and tooted and tooted." The magistrate replied: "Why did you not stop your car?" "Well," he said, " that is one on me; I never thought of that." That man never thought of doing the obvious thing. I wondered whether this government would be willing to do the obvious thing and, instead of tooting and tooting and tooting, take steps to correct the evils which naturally grow up under the protective system from which we are suffering to-day. That is all I wish bo say in this connection at the moment.
Some hon. members have been making speeches throughout the country, and I am sorry there are not more of them, particularly those from Manitoba, in their seats. Not only have the greater lights been talking, but some of the lesser lights have been making speeches. I do not use the term "lesser lights" in any offensive manner, because I realize that some of the so-called lesser lights have in them the possibility of becoming

The Address-Mr. Brown
bright and shining lights. Among those hon. members I would not give second place to the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis).
It would seem that this hon. member has been making speeches, and the point he has been trying to impress upon his hearers is that he is not a high tariff man. I read the following:
Mr. Erick F. Willis, M.P. for Souris Manitoba, was delightfully frank in his address to the Conservative Business Men's Club in Toronto.
Mr. Willis told his audience-and it must have been something of a shock to most of those present-that he represented the new type of Conservative which "makes the party a young man's party" and which does not believe in high tariffs and "all the things which historically the party was supposed to stand for."
Well, here is a new party. The province of Manitoba seems to be destined to be closely connected with new parties. In a large measure the personnel of the Progressive party came from Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Crerar.


Albert Joseph Brown: I have no apologies to
make, so far as that is concerned. The leader of the C.C.F. is also from Manitoba, and now we have a new Conservative party organized in that province. I imagine the hon. members from Manitoba and the rural members from Saskatchewan will be glad to join this party because not one of them would go out into any constituency in Manitoba and defend high tariffs. Let me say to these hon. members that when they come face to face with the electors they will not be asked whether they are in favour of high or low tariffs. They will be asked: " Are you in favour of the tariffs of this government?" That will be the question, not the question whether tariffs are high or low. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) stated in the course of his address: "We will 'be told that the tariffs are high. We admit they are high." Well, they admit they are high, and yet these hon. members from Manitoba are going across the country stating that they do not believe in high tariffs. When I read this statement in the press I begin to wonder just what the attitude of these men really is.
There are motions of want of confidence in the government now before the house. In his motion the right hon. leader of the opposition states that the government has lost the confidence of the country and I believe he stated there was reason to believe they had lost confidence in themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not that the government has lost confidence, but that " Your Excellency's present advisers " have lost confidence. Under the British North America Act his advisers are the whole of the privy council, and that means that they have a lack of confidence in themselves.


Albert Joseph Brown: I wondered when I read
about the new party whether they also had not lost the confidence of some of those members who had hitherto been their supporters. However my mind was disabused of that point when the hon. member for Souris sent me the usual documents to be signed in the fixing of pairs. I found that he still paired with me, and is in support of and not in opposition to the government. So that while hon. members opposite talk a great deal about not believing in high tariffs they still support the tariffs which have been imposed by this government. Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite this question:	Are they in
favour of a duty of twenty-five per cent on agricultural machinery? That is a question they will have to answer. Are they in favour of what was done as a result of the imperial conference, namely the placing of a twenty-five per cent duty on cream separators, and a duty on barbed wire? I would not object to carrying on a campaign with these gentlemen; they would never get away with some of the statements they are trying to put over on the people.
It was my intention to make a few comments concerning the speech made by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel). I agree in very large measure with the speech that he made, but he also is in somewhat the same position as some other hon. gentlemen. He told us of the difficulties of the farmer and stated that the farmer had to have a large equipment with which to carry on his work, just as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) did two or three years ago, when he put on Hansard a splendid list of the implements that a farmer had to buy. But the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, like other hon. gentlemen, will still continue to support a government that imposes high tariffs which result in keeping agricultural machinery and all the equipment which the farmer must have at a higher price.
We can only meet the present situation, Mr. Speaker, and this will not bring us immediate relief, by first of all taking a step in the right direction. I know that times are going to be difficult. I do not think that there is anything this government can do, or a government of hon. gentlemen to my left,
Questions

or a government even of this party, that will bring immediate relief. But we can set our faces in the right direction. The last three or four years we have not been going in the right direction. We must make a rightabout face and take steps at once to put into effect the principles that will remove the restrictions from trade and allow trade to move freely between the nations of the world. Not until then will any such methods as are being attempted to-day bring about any effective measure of relief.
There was another matter to which I was going to refer, but I see that my time has almost expired, and I shall have to defer my remarks until another occasion.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, I
understand that it is agreeable to the ministry and all sides of the house that the debate be now adjourned and that we call it a day. I accordingly move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: I congratulate the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Motherwell) on the excellence of his speech, and move that the house do now adjourn.


Charles A. Stewart: What is
the business for Monday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The order paper. Monday is private members' day.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Monday, February 5, 1934