Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma) moved:

That the recommendations contained in the second report of the tSpecial Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring forthwith as to the prices charged throughout Canada for foodstuffs, clothing, fuel, and other neces-

saries of life, etc., presented to the House on Thursday, the 26th day of June, be concurred in. (See Hansard 26th June for this report.)

He said: In moving for the concurrence of the House in this report, I wish to say just a word in regard to the manner in which the report itself was brought in and to the conditions under which it was prepared. In that connection I may say that in reality itr may be looked upon as a minority report, for the reason that the principle involved in the recommendations was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman of the committee. I may say, further, that subsequent to the passing of the resolution under these circumstances, the validity of the chairman exercising the right of that casting vote was questioned. However, whether the report comes before the House as a minority or as a majority report, those who support the recommendations feel so strongly the desirability of having something done along those lines during this session of Parliament, that they would have been perfectly willing to present the recommendations as a minority report.

Passing to the recommendations contained in the report, the first question that arises is: Is there any necessity for such a tribunal as the recommendations refer to? And that involves two additional questions: First, can such a tribunal as is suggested be of such service to the internal trade o'f this country that it will be to the general advantage of all our people? And, second, have we at present any machinery that can be used for Ithe purposes outlined in the recommendations, and which would avoid the necessity of creating a new tribunal or some additional machinery?

In answer to the first question, I would say without hesitation that there can be no question but that something is required in connection with carrying on the internal trade of the country to satisfy all of the people that they are getting even-handed justice. In the first place, the internal trade of this or any other country is the most important trade that we have, and it cames more closely into the lives of all our people than anything we can possibly have in the nature of external trade. To illustrate that, I will cite just one case, because I want to be exceedingly brief. The question of distribution of foodstuffs, clothing, and all the great variety of commodities that enter into the necessities of life, is of the utmost importance, and we naturally ask what is the best channel through which these commodities can pass from the producer or the manufacturer to

the ultimate consumer. It would be a simple matter to find any number of men who would be ready to tell you at once that our present system is inadequate, that it is cumbersome, that it is too expensive; but it would be an exceedingly difficult matter to find one man who would point to a method or practice that would result in an improvement. But my conviction is that a group of experts, working under the authority of such a tribunal as we have suggested, would very readily get to the bottom of the whole question and point out defects where there are defects, and also point out methods that the people themselves could put into effect to remedy any of these defects and bring about very much more stable and better conditions. It will be conceded that there is nothing so much in the minds of our people as the conviction that profiteering is having a marked effect in enhancing the already abnormal cost of living. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not express my personal opinion whether these convictions are well founded or not, but the fact that they do exist and that, without question, they are at the bottom of a great deal of the unrest which prevails throughout the country imposes on the Government and on Parliament the immediate responsibility of removing them as far as possible; and my judgment is that nothing will so adequately tend to remove these convictions, to remove from the minds of the people the feeling that they are being unjustly dealt with, as to place at the disposal of the public an independent tribunal to whom all men in all walks of life can appeal whenever and wherever they feel that injustice is being done in a commercial way. The committee that has been inquiring into these subjects has received petitions from all classes of people from all over Canada-consumers, co-operative associations, retail merchants, wholesalers and manufacturers-asking that just such a body as we have recommended be set up in order that all matters pertaining to internal trade may be inquired into and in order that the people may feel that they are getting a square deal.

I would like to cite two specific instances -they might be multiplied to any extent that any one wished to go-in order to emphasize my point. Within the past two or three months there have been two or three sharp rises in the prices of boots and shoes. As far as we have been able to determine, these rises have been due directly to the very great advance in the cost of leather, and this, again, has been brought about by

the fact that a very large part of the available domestic supply has been bought up for export. The balance still remaining has, therefore, been so far enhanced in price that still further advances in the cost of boots and shoes are bound to come unless something is done to bring about a reduction of the cost of leather. Again I say that I am not going to enter into any discussion of the question whether these advances are just or unjust; but if we had such a tribunal as is recommended here, that question could be immediately inquired into, and the public would be in a position to know, without delay, whether or not they were being fleeced. If it was found that they were being fleeced, a remedy could be applied.

Mr. MARGIL:

By whom would the remedy be applied, by the Government, or by the tribunal?

Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:

By the tribunal. The recommendation is that the tribunal shall be independent; at least, that is our understanding of it.

Mr.W. F. MACLEAN: Would that tribunal have power to enforce its own laws, and would it have the machinery to enforce them?

Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:

That is, without question, involved in the recommendation. The tribunal must be independent and must have within itself the power to make regulations.

Mr. MURPHY:

But how about enforcing them?

Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:

I will give another instance. Evidence was brought to the attention of the committee showing that a woollen product the cost of the manufacture of which in 1914 was $4,374 a dozen was sold to the consumer at $9 a dozen, or 75 cents for each article.

Mr. MORPHY:

What kind of wool; where was it from?

Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:

Canadian wool. The production cost of that article in 1919 was $10.50 a dozen, but the consumer is paying for the article $30 a dozen, or $2.50 for each article, a direct increase of 100 per cent in the spread between the cost of production and the cost to the consumer. These cases might be cited indefinitely, but I have just pointed to two in order to emphasize the point I wish to make; that there is a real necessity for some machinery which will provide that abuses of this kind may be immediately investigated.

I think I speak the mind of most of the men who have been working with me for nearly four weeks on the committee when I say that it took us a very short time to come to the definite conclusion that something else besides a Parliamentary inquiry is necessary. We might keep on forever disclosing these things, but unless something is placed in the hands of some one that will make action possible, these inquiries will do more harm than good, because they simply disclose the condition and create unrest without making any effort to supply a remedy. I cannot conceive oi anything that would be very much worse.

The whole matter is now before the House to be dealt with as the House deems best. My own judgment is that we could do nothing better before the session comes to a close, in an effort to allay the unrest that is sapping the very foundations of our national life, than to make the people feel that there is at their disposal a tribunal of some kind that has the power to act, and will do so. There is no question that the personnel of such a tribunal will determine its value, but our experience with the Railway Board has been of such a nature that we might with a great deal of confidence look forward to the accomplishing of much good in this country by such a board as we have suggested.

Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):

Mr. Speaker, I rise at first to a point of order. The report of the committee was voted under very peculiar circumstances. As a matter of fact, the report was voted down by six members of the committee as against five in its favour.

I want to make at first, the declaration that we have the utmost confidence in the integrity and the well-meaning of the Chairman of the committee. He did not mean to do anything which was against the rules; he even took the trouble to inquire from the clerk of the committee what the rule was on the point in question. But his information on the point of order which was raised by members of the committee was bad. He took it for granted that the Chairman of the committee had the right to vote, and had also the right to cast a further vote in the case of there being an equality of vote. I need not deal very extensively with that point. It is well known that the rules of the House in this regard apply to all committees, except, as is provided by Rule 105, in respect of committees on private Bills. The Chairman, therefore, of any committee other than a committee on private Bills has no more right to vote than

the Speaker himself has in the House. But in this case the Chairman of the Committee first voted in favour of the report, and then cast another vote, which made the count seven to six, whereas the actual and legal vote was six to five against the adoption of the report. I submit, therefore, that the report which purports to be the report of the Committee on the Cost of Living is not the report of that committee; and that it should be sent back for further consideration.

But there is something further to be said in this connection. Not only is the report illegal and not only should it be disregarded by the House and sent back to the committee for further consideration, but it is inconsistent in its wording. It says:

Tour committee have been engaged continuously from the &th day of June last to the present date in obtaining all information possible from witnesses and all available sources, but have not yet reached a point in the investigation that would warrant them in submitting final conclusions.

The committee put it clearly that, although they have been engaged from the 5th day of June in hearing evidence, they have not .been able to consider the matter sufficiently to reach final conclusions, and yet the earnestness of the chairman and the minority to put their own conclusions in the shape of a report is such that they insist upon it, and press it through.

To my mind it is premature and will be illusory.

It is premature because we have not studied the matter sufficiently to reach final conclusions, and the machinery suggested to the House will mean an additional and useless expenditure of $200,000 or $300,000 a year.

It is true that there is a great deal of unrest and discontent in the country on account of the huge profits which manufacturers and traders have reaped from the poor labourer, workingman and consumer as a whole. But it is also true that, during the last two or three years, the public at large in Canada are fed with the shields and doors of escape provided by the innumerable Orders in Council and by the no less innumerable commissions created by the present Government. The creation of a new commission will not do away with the cause of the trouble or of the unrest; we must find some adequate remedy, and, to my mind, the proposed commission will not provide it. A few facts will illuminate us in this respect.

There is such .a thing as a Commission on the High Cost of Living already in existence. Doctor McFall was the first

witness heard before the committee, and gave a lengthy evidence on that point. He succeeded Mr. O'Connor who had been appointed by the Government under the Labour Department, just for the purpose of inquiring into the causes influencing the cost of living. Mr. O'Connor, after a full investigation, reached conclusions in 1917, or some two years ago. He laid before the Government a report suggesting the institution of a tribunal or board which should be called the Federal Trade Board or the Federal Trade Commission. If the creation of such a Federal Trade 'Commission was a wise step to take towards reducing the cost of living, why did not the Government act on the report of Mr. O'Connor in 1917? The Government, however, found Mr. O'Connor too inquisitive; his report if adopted would cause trouble to the profiteers; it was not acted upon. Nothing was done except the dismissal of Mr. O'Connor.

The Commission on the Cost of Living continued to exist under the Minister of Labour. Many suggestions were made by the present commissioner, Dr. McFall; none of them was taken into account, and none was made the subject of any legislation brought to this House by the Government. As late as September, 1918, Dr. McFall found out that undue profits were taken by bakers and traders in bread in the city of Halifax. After full investigation he came to a Conclusion in February, 1919, and he at once reported to the Minister of Labour, recommending that legal prosecution be commenced at once. The minister had his report from February to the month of May, but no action was taken. The Minister of Justice has had that report, since May, but he did not move either.

Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma East):

Is the hon. member aware of the evidence that was given before the Cost of Living Committee by the Deputy Minister of Justice with regard to the matter?

Mr. VIEN:

Joseph FlaveJle. Others have also been rewarded by the Government. There is Mackenzie King.

Oh.

Mr. VIEN:

That is a slip of the tongne which happens frequently even with members of the Government. I ask that Hansard correct that error. Of course I meant to say Mackenzie and Mann. And the Bank of Commerce have also reaped quite a harvest of governmental rewards. Another man was also interested in cold storages, and one high up in official circles, and perhaps was he often paralyzed when it was time to act against cold storages, because of his associations. Who is this man? Mr. Shank, the secretary-treasurer of the Manitoba Cold Storage Company, took the trouble to give us the complete list of all the shareholders of that company, and among them we find Mr. Rod. Mackenzie, son of Sir William Mackenzie. We find Sir John Murray's estate; we find a man named Black, connected with the Ogilvie Flour Mills; and we find also Mr. Andrews, manager of the coal mine at Brule Lake, Alberta. But there is another name more prominent in Canadian politics -last, but not the least, we find the name of the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada for an investment of nine thousand five hundred dollars. This is a trifling amount to the Prime Minister, and I will not go so far as to say that his interest in this cold storage induced him purposely to adopt certain policies, but it is only human to be influenced by association, and it is only human to want to please friends with whom we are connected in a business enterprise. It is superhuman to do otherwise. I do not believe that a man in public life, much less in the Cabinet, who has to shape the policy of the country, should have any interest in concerns that influence the cost of living.

In view of all that, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House has only one thing to do and that is to refuse to entertain the report of the committee on the cost of living. The House should return it to the committee for further consideration and, if it dees,

I have no doubt that the committee will come to some other conclusion, which will produce better results than the suggestion now offered to the House. It is not necessary to create special machinery to have action taken before the courts of justice. We have courts of high jurisdiction all over the country. Why should not the Government introduce prosecutions in these courts when

IMr. Vien.l

such things are brought to their attention as have been disclosed before this committee, and a long time prior to its selection. If there have been unfair practices against the law of the country which have had the effect of enhancing the cost of living, it seems to me that it was the duty of the Government to bring the offenders before the courts. Such practices have been going, and are going on. The proposed commission will cost $200,000 or $300,000 to the country, but it will hinder the prosecution of the offenders, and fail to produce the desired effect. Therefore, I recommend that the report be sent back to the committee for further consideration.