Mr. RICHARDSON:

I had frequent intercourse with both these gentlemen, and I could see that they were not satisfied because this correspondence had not been laid on the table of -the House, especially as it furnished an explanation for partial failure to- accomplish as much as was expected. Parliament had called for it; all the circumstances, including the Hugg letter, and the arrangement to secure the resignation of all, had, I understand, been stated in the correspondence, and these two commissioners -were dissatisfied; they seemed unhappy; they got the impression, rightly or wrongly, -that they were not being properly treated. They believed that if Judge Robson had betrayed the board in the manner that they had -suspected and that, to some extent at least, seemed to be revealed by the correspondence-, that correspondence should have been made public, and if Judge Robson had done wrong, he should1 have taken the consequences of his acts. My judgment has always been that the Government made a mistake in not presenting that correspondence to- Parliament. I.t is after all ektremely significant that the judge should have appealed -to the Government that it would be unfair and an injustice to him to 'publish the correspondence. I understand that he represented that these men were at enmity with him; that they were actuated by extreme malice, and that he thought under the circumstances it would be unfair that this correspondence should be made public. I am satisfied that the Government had1 no improper motive in withholding the correspondence. I do not think they had; I

believe they were actuated with the idea that perhaps after all it was not fair to Judge Robson to publish the correspondence. I think they sincerely 'believed that Judge Robson, who enjoyed1 such an enviable reputation for honour and probity, had done nothing in connection with the board inconsistent with that fine reputation. I believe the Government entertained that view sincerely. I do not assert that the Hugg letter which is before us is proof that the judge was guilty of any wrong act, but to say the least it is a suspicious circumstance. The Government certainly had no reason that I could ever see for withholding the publication of the correspondence. I repeat that I believe the Government would have been -well advised to have laid the correspondence promptly upon the Table of Parliament and let Judge Robson take whatever consequences might follow.

Now, I talked quite frequently with Mr. Murdock, and I cannot help thinking that he did the public a service when, in his resignation, he presented the correspondence to the people of Canada. Mr. Murdock sincerely believes, so far as my judgment goes, that Judge Robson has betrayed the board. I believe that was Mr. O'Connor's view also; and they naturally felt that the Government should have made the correspondence public and sustained the board. When Judge Robson resigned, it is true, a reference was being prepared to the Supreme Court. But so far as the public knew,, the constitution of the board was perfectly natural and legal. It was my judgment that, from the public expectation, from the fact -that there was so much to do, and the fact that profiteering was still rampant in the land, the Government would have been well advised to appoint immediately a successor to Judge Robson and let the board proceed as far as it was able to. I believe it is still the Government's intention to do that, and it would be a profound mistake if a new board were not appointed. I believe that two or three- virile, honourable business men of probity can be -secured in this country to continue the work that the Board of Commerce was designed to perform.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Why not appoint Mr. Murdock himself?

Mr. RICHARDSON:

So far as my judgment goes, I would say you co-uld not get a better man-

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Hear, hear.

Mr. RICHARDSON :

[DOT]-as a member of the board. I would not go so far as to say that he ought to be the whole board, but the impression he left on my mind was that he was a perfectly honourable -and sincere man-

Mr. EEMIEUX:

Hear, hear.

Mr. RICHARDSON:

- who desired sincerely to -serve the people in the position he -held.

Mr. SAMUEL WILLIAM JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier):

Mr. JACOBS:

Is it fair to the publics that this letter should be suppressed? Is it fair to Mr. Justice Robson? I have the honour of knowing Mr. Justice Robson; I have the honour of reckoning him among my friends; and I feel perfectly confident that he would welcome any investigation that would clear his skirts of this entire affair. Mr. Justice Robson occupied a very high position at the Manitoba Bar. Subsequently he was elevated to the bench and sat on the Court of Appeal for the province of Manitoba. He was then taken from the Court of Appeal and made to fill the position of Chairman of the Public Utility Commission, and finally he was called to this position of Chairman of the Board of Commerce. Now, knowing Judge Robson as I do, I am positive that the Government was doing an injustice to him by attempting

to suppress this correspondence. In his letter of February 23rd-the letter which the Government considers it was not in the public interests to publish-there were two letters-we find this statement, which I shall also later refer to in connection with something I had to say when the board was organized last year. Says Mr. Justice Robsoni:

A profiteering measure to reach the distributing class, should, in my opinion, be local in its character and be administered locally. Federal machinery cannot reach the grievance effectually throughout all Canada. It seems to me further that the Act actually contains a provision which removes the last chance the consumer had to do anything for himself in reducing the cost of living. There never was before the Act anything to prevent a group of consumers from co-operating in -the punch are of necessaries.

M>ark this interference by the Government with the functioning of this board.

They took their chance of being able to buy. Buit a declaration of parliamentary policy crept into the Act, and a manufacturer or a wholesaler -is not bound to sell to classes who were noit accustomed to purchase from such manufacturers and wholesalers. This was designed to head off co-operative movements, which were likely to make progress for the benefit of consumer members and, as I say, restricted a remedy which elsewhere has been of some effect In price Control.

That only backs up what members on this eide of the House had to say when this board was organized last year in the dying days of the .session. We put through this Act on July 4, 1919. We have almost reached the anniversary of it. But 'by a strange and singular circumstance it seems that the Board of Commerce has been made a sort of Cinderella amongst Acts of Parliament. The last thing we think of is the Board of Commerce and we rush things through. During the last few days of the session of 1919 we rushed this Act through notwithstanding protests received from boards of trade. I placed on Hansard last year at page 4553, volume 1, session 1, 1919, this letter from the Montreal Board of Trade:

The Montreal Board of Trade,

Montreal, July 2, 1919.

Deair Sir,-I am directed to ask for your support of this board's protest against the enactment of legislation creating a Board of Commerce during the last few days of the present session of Parliament, and without the public, who are so vitally interested, being afforded an opportunity to consider the provisions of the Government's proposal.

The following telegram was to-day addressed to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Premier-*

"Montreal Board of Trade .protests most strongly against passage of legislation creating Board of Commerce in closing days of session and without affording the public opportunity

of studying provisions of a measure of such importance. Board urges that Bill he printed and circulated as widely as possible and that consideration thereof by Parliament be deferred till next session."

X am, dear Sir,

Tours truly,

J. Stanley Cook, Assistant Secretary.

S. W. Jacobs, M.P.

These are wise words, but no heed was paid to them by the Prime Minister, or the .Minister of the Interior who had the Bill in hand. The boards of trade said it was impossible to give consideration to this Bill at the twelfth hour and here we have Mr. Justice Robson, who was chairman of the board, saying:

It seems to me further that the Act actually contains a provision which removes the last chance the consumer had to do anything for himself in reducing the cost of living. When Mr. Murdock stated that this Act was designed to thwart the will of the board and of the consuming public X do not think he was very far wrong.

Mi. MEIGHEN:

Where does he say that the (Act was so designed?

Mr. JACOBS:

I have been referring to

Mr. Murdock's letter.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Quite so.

Mr. JACOBIS:

Mr. Murdock says that, if not specifically, at least in effect. In any event the letter is now in Hansard and my hon. friend no doubt will carefully peruse it before he deals with the question of appointing the commission that I predict will be appointed. Judge Robson says:

A manufacturer or wholesaler is not bound to sell to the classes who were not accustomed to purchase from such manufacturers and wholesalers. This was designed to head off co-operative movements, which were likely to make progress for the benefit of consumer members and, as I say, restricted a remedy which elsewhere has been of some effect in price control.

All the members of the hoard, before they resigned,-and they all resigned,-agreed that this board was utterly useless and could not function because of inherent defects in the Act under which it carried on. It was born with the germs of death. Surely the Government is not serious in its statement that these charges made by Mr. Murdock are of such a vague and general character as not to deserve recognition at the bands of the Government? I rather fancy that the heavy work we have been through for the last two or three days in our effort to prorogue has probably dulled the intellect and wits of the Government and made them 'believe that what we are con-

sidering is a matter of no consequence at all and can be passed off by the Prim3 Minister with a joke as he attempted this evening.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Would the hon. gentleman 'be good enough to point out the charge specifically that he says creates a scandal in so far as the Government is concerned?

Mr. JACOBS:

I am surprised that my

-hon. friend should ask a question of that kind. The first scandal that I referred to when I rose was the scandal that the Government suppressed a letter of -prime importance to the public in which the honour and integrity of the president of this board is attacked. That is a scandal that ought to be investigated by the Government. The charge has been made by two members of the Board of Commerce that a third member of the board had betrayed the trust that was reposed in him and the Government never thought it was in the interest of the public that the public should know about this. Does the minister not believe that should be investigated. The conduct of Judge Robson in this matter is another thing that should be investigated.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That is one thing. The wisdom or unwisdom of not bringing down this letter under the circumstances may be a question affecting the Government's judgment but I do not think the hon. gentleman would say that it is a scandal.

Mr. JACOBS:

I suppose the Government is so far gone that no matter what they do it would not be considered a scandal. They axe in such a moribund condition that they care not.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

We will see about that.

Mr. JACOBS:

Has the hon. gentleman

read Mr. Murdock's letter containing a statement to the effect that the Board of Commerce could not function because of the interference of the Government, and does the hon. gentleman say that should not form the subject of an investigation?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That may be, but what is that which constitutes a scandal, assuming that it is true?