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.

How long did the

right hon. gentleman wait?

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Twenty-seven cents.

Mr. 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.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The United

States legislation, not the Canadian.

Mr. 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.