1949-11-23

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 23, 1949


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on question of privilege. I hold in my hand a copy of the Ottawa Citizen, dated November 23. On the front page, under the heading "Gas pipe lines bills again 'talked out' ", appears this statement written by John Bird:
After almost every Alberta and British Columbia member had spoken, up rose Bob Mayhew, Minister of Fisheries by title, but a British Columbia member above all else.
I	just want to correct the reporter's statement. There were ten members from Alberta who said nothing in the whole of the three hours' debate, and they took that position advisedly because they did not want to be blamed for talking out these private bills, or any such imputation made in respect to them. The Social Credit members in the house feel that these bills should be brought to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the documents to which I made reference in my remarks yesterday afternoon in the debate on the proposed amendments to the Combines Investigation Act.



STANDING COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. Bater (The Battlefords) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That the name of Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) be substituted for that of Mr. Rowe on the standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Riley be substituted for that of Mr. Leger on the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the undertaking given to the house on Monday evening, as reported at page 2040 of Hansard, I beg leave to table further correspondence with certain provinces with respect to the trans-Canada highway.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: May I ask the
minister whether the correspondence with the province of Nova Scotia is being brought down?


Robert Henry Winters: The province of Nova Scotia has not given permission to table tihe correspondence. In accordance with the undertaking given by my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) yesterday, I have communicated again with the appropriate minister in Nova Scotia, asking if his views are as previously stated.


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister a reply to his inquiry?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Under this heading these matters are not debatable.

On the orders of the day:


Percy Chapman Black: Has the
minister had a reply to his latest letter to Nova Scotia concerning the trans-Canada highway? If so, what was that reply, and is the province going to agree to have the correspondence laid on the table of the house?


Robert Henry Winters: I have not yet had a reply.


Mr. Green:: Has the minister sent a similar letter to Manitoba and British Columbia? I understand those were the other two provinces which would not agree to the tabling of the correspondence.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I have.

Questions CRIMINAL CODE



AMENDMENT TO ENSURE EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AS TO ETHNIC ORIGIN OR RELIGIOUS CREED

[Stage Direction]
On the order for introduction of bills:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 199, to amend the Criminal Code (discrimination).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The purpose of this amendment is to secure for every Canadian the equal right to work without being discriminated against because of his or her ethnic origin or religious creed. By defending this right, parliament will give legal sanction to certain sections of the universal declaration of human rights, for which the Canadian delegation voted at the general assembly of the United Nations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SURPLUS CROWN ASSETS ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 195 (from the Senate) to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Arthur Col-pron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Berengere Pare Fuller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Enid Dorothy MacRae Gauley.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has consideration been given by the government since the appointment of Mr. William Parker to replace Mr. E. J. Young, or since October 26, 1949 to representations from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce asking that western Canada be given increased and equitable representation on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Since the appointment of Mr. William Parker, no further consideration has been

given by the government to the request of the Winnipeg chamber of commerce for increased representation for western Canada on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company, as the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1936, provides that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railway Company shall consist of seven directors, and it is not the intention of the government to amend this act at the present time.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Has the Department of Fisheries a branch dealing with oceanography?
2. If so (a) where is it located; (b) what is the name of the person in charge; (c) how many persons are employed in this work?
3.	Have any members of the branch done work on the Atlantic coast? If so, at what places?
4.	Has work been carried out on the Pacific coast? If so, at what places?
5.	Have exploration surveys been carried out in the Arctic? If so, of what nature?
6.	Is it planned in the near future to expand the oceanographic operations of the east (Atlantic) and west (Pacific) coasts?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	The fisheries research board, as the scientific arm of the Department of Fisheries, has carried out investigations in the field of oceanography, both on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, for many years, particularly in connection with the studies of the biological aspects of oceanography.
During the late war the oceanographers of the board worked closely with the Royal Canadian Navy and the national research council in the field of physical-chemical oceanography. From this work the Canadian joint committee consists of representatives of the Royal Canadian Navy, the national research council and the fisheries research board, and the hydrographic and meteorological services co-operate in the work of the committee.
2.	(a) The function of the joint committee is the further co-operative oceanographic research in Canada, to define policy and to direct the work of the two oceanographic groups. The Atlantic group is located at the Atlantic biological station, St. Andrews, N.B. The Pacific group is located at the Pacific biological station, Nanaimo, B.C.
(b)	Mr. H. B. Hachey, chief oceanographer, St. Andrews, N.B.
(c)	Four persons in the Atlantic group and six in the Pacific group, as on November 15, 1949.
3.	Yes. The Atlantic group, following the planned program of the joint committee and with the assistance of vessels and personnel

211S
Inquiries of the Ministry
supplied by the Royal Canadian Navy, the national research council, the Department of Fisheries and the hydrographic and meteorological services, have made oceanographic observations in the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Scotian shelf.
4.	Yes. The Pacific group, following the planned program as in (3) and with similar assistance, have made oceanographic observations on a number of points off the British Columbia coast, including Chatham sound, strait of Georgia and Alberni canal. Observations were also taken at a number of shore stations, and off Swiftsure banks.
5.	Yes. By the fisheries research board in Ungava bay, where an investigation of the fisheries resources of the eastern Arctic has been in progress since 1947.
Oceanographic observations were also made in Hudson bay during the Royal Canadian Navy cruise there in 1948.
During the summer of 1949 oceanographic observations were made during a joint United States Navy-Royal Canadian Navy cruise in the Bering sea.
6.	Yes. As soon as trained oceanographic personnel and ships are available.


BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Mr. Church:: 1.	What action, if any, will be taken by the government to prevent the Bell Telephone Company imposing a surtax of ten per cent on all bills?
2.	Is it within the powers of the transport board at present to allow the Bell Telephone Company to take this action now?
3.	What action has or will be taken in the matter?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	The company's application for an interim increase of 10 per cent will be duly heard by the board of transport commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Act.
2.	Yes.
3.	See answer to No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
FILMS FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What is the total expenditure in each of the years 1946 to 1949 for the production and processing of films for any government department or departments by commercial firms, giving particulars of the said commercial firms and the amount paid to each?
2.	Did the national film board make any decision during said years that it considered the use of commercial firms for the production of films advisable in the public interest? If so, in what case or cases, on what date or dates did it so decide and for what reason in each case?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Pouliol:: For a chart of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, indicating positions, grades, names and salaries.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: have a question to ask the Minister of Labour, which in his absence I shall address to his parliamentary assistant. Has the Minister of Labour had a communication from the Canadian Legion and labour organizations in Vancouver in regard to the growing unemployment situation, and asking for a government program?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know as soon as possible.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), as reported at page 2022 of Hansard, asked if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are supplying houses to the Department of Mines and Resources for immigration staff in Montreal and Toronto. The answer is no.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Mines and Resources, arising out of an article which appeared last night in the press. Why are certain personnel of the immigration branch being moved to Toronto and Montreal before Christmas? Why the rush?


Hon. Colin Gibson (Minister of Mines and Resources):: That question was asked the other day, and I think it was then stated by Mr. Speaker that the question should be placed on the order paper. However, the reason is that the immigration branch is opening district offices in central and eastern Canada. That has been announced, and employees were informed some three months ago. While some of them may be required to move before Christmas, it will be advantageous to many of them if they move their families before or during the Christmas
2116	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry season so that their children may begin their school terms in the new localities after the Christmas vacation.



MERCHANT SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I have a question to ask the Minister of Transport. Perhaps in his absence one of the other ministers would deal with it. A press dispatch today indicates that an agreement is being negotiated with respect to merchant shipping between the United Kingdom and Canada. May we have a statement in that regard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know nothing of such an agreement. I shall make inquiries, and if there is any information I shall be glad to give it to the house.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I ask the Secretary of State if he will see that the omission from sessional paper No. 53-1, tabled by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) yesterday, is rectified, and that the document entitled "Memorandum of talk with chairman" on June 21, 1943, is included, so that the sessional paper may be complete and intelligible?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: shall inquire into the matter.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask a question of the Minister of Justice? Yesterday he tabled a return to a motion for the production of papers moved on November 14. There was another motion, moved on the same day, asking for letters, memoranda and communications from Mr. Donald Gordon or any member of the staff of the wartime prices and trade board to the flour milling industry or any flour milling company authorizing the making or maintenance of price agreements between December 1, 1941 and September 15, 1947, or subsequently. Do I understand there are no communications, and that nothing further is to be tabled?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that, up to date, in examining the voluminous files we have not turned up any such written communications from either Mr. Taylor or Mr. Gordon. However, there is still
rMr. Gibson (Hamilton West).]

a very great deal of examining to be done. I was going to speak to my hon. friend about this and suggest to him-I believe he has already agreed in another instance-to remove any reference to other officials of the board-


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -which would cause a very extensive inquiry.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood that that was in connection with the other return.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; I think it was in connection with both.


Major James William Coldwell: I am satisfied.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the reason why we could not bring down the return before. In order to be able to say that the information had been given, we would have to go through all the files. As a matter of fact I had hoped to have an opportunity to speak to the hon. gentleman about this, but I did not have time yesterday to do so.



ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN BY NATIONAL FILM BOARD

Mr. Speaker:: May I make a brief announcement? I have been requested by the national film board and the Canadian Press to allow them to take a photograph of the house while it is in session. At previous parliaments pictures have been taken, at a time when many of the members sitting on committees or attending to other business have been out of the chamber. I am suggesting to the film board and the Canadian Press that the picture be taken next Wednesday morning at eleven o'clock.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) continues his remarks I should like to draw the attention of the house to a ruling which I made earlier in this debate on a question that was raised as to whether the whole of the McGregor report was debatable. On that occasion I ruled that the whole report was not debatable, but only those portions which were relevant to this bill. I ruled also that it was permissible only to debate the principle of the amending bill which is before the house,

and not the principle of the Combines Investigation Act. I stated also that frequently some leeway was allowed-I think the word I used then was "licence"-and I have allowed considerable leeway. We have had an extended debate, and, unless the house thinks otherwise, it would be my opinion that we should conform more to the rules and procedure of the house and discuss only those portions of the McGregor report which relate to this particular bill.


Mr. Knowles:: It does seem to me that if this ruling is to be applied against the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) there should be some clarification. Perhaps, sir, you would permit some discussion of the point before-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute-before it becomes necessary for Your Honour to discriminate between different members. There are others in the house who may wish to discuss the matter as the hon. member for Lake Centre is discussing it, which I think he has a right to do. I am prepared to speak to the point now or at any other time.


Mr. Speaker:: I hardly think that further discussion is necessary at this time. I had allowed a full discussion when I made my ruling. I assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I shall do my best not to discriminate between hon. members.
I think hon. members will realize that I am in a difficult position. It is going to be hard for me to determine just when an hon. member is referring to a section of the report that relates to this bill and when he is not. All I can do at this time is to ask the co-operation of all hon. members.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to keep within the purview of your ruling in the discussion of so important a matter as the various amendments to the Combines Investigation Act that have been presented to the house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I feel sure you will agree, sir, that in discussing those amendments we should be permitted to review some of the events of the last year in relation to the Combines Investigation Act as it was, with a view to ascertaining whether, if these amendments are allowed, there will be any assurance that they will be enforced and that the law will be upheld, rather than the practice followed which has prevailed during the last year.
At the time of adjournment yesterday I was endeavouring to answer in general language
Combines Investigation Act some of the statements made by the Minister of Justice as to why the law as it was, and as it still is, had not been enforced, had not been lived up to, had not been implemented so far as publication was concerned. The section having to do with publication is one of the most important provisions of the act. Indeed I think it was the former prime minister who said that publicity in connection with combines investigation was the antiseptic that was required in order to secure enforcement.
I suggest that when the government introduces these amendments parliament has a right to be assured that if they are approved-in a general way we accept the necessity for the amendments, reserving the right to discuss whether trial by jury should be taken away-they will be enforced. In considering these amendments one must necessarily take into consideration the events that have occurred and the answer given yesterday by the Minister of Justice to the question as to failure of the government to carry out the provisions of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how far the hon. member intends to proceed with his references to the clause in the act relating to publication, but there is nothing in the bill before the house amending that section, or, as I can see, relating to that section. I am not objecting to a reference to the clause, but I do not think it is debatable.


John George Diefenbaker: I always bow to your rulings, Mr. Speaker. Surely opportunity-I advance this by way of argument-should be afforded to hon. members to answer the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Justice when he dealt at length with the excuses for the failure of this government to publish.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. member that that opportunity was given to the house yesterday. When the Minister of Justice spoke on the amendment he did not close the debate, and other hon. members could have answered him at that time. As I said before, it is going to be difficult for me to keep hon. members in the straight and narrow path, shall I say, so far as this bill is concerned, but I think I have expressed the principle which should be followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am raising a point of order, and I expect some hon. members to boo. But members of this house still have rights, and I think that this point should be cleared up.

Combines Investigation Act In fairness to Your Honour I do not think it should be something that is left to you to decide. It seems to me that the house itself should reach a decision as to what are the rights of hon. members in these circumstances.
I would point out, sir, that when you gave your ruling on November 14 on the point raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the discussion had been only with respect to the point that the Prime Minister raised. I would remind you that the point raised by the Prime Minister was whether or not we should discuss on the second reading of the bill any matter that had been discussed on a motion to go into supply. When you ruled, sir, that that point of order was not to be sustained, you gave an alternative objection to wide latitude, namely, the principle of relevancy to the second reading of a bill. The restrictions you suggest that the hon. member for Lake Centre should now observe arise from the suggestion Your Honour made that on second reading of an amending bill we should confine the discussion to the clauses of the act that is being amended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I say to the hon. member for Lake Centre that I do not recall at the moment whether my ruling was appealed. If my memory serves me correctly, no one took exception to it, and I do not think I should be asked to change it now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not asking you, sir, to change it.


Mr. Speaker:: After a ruling has been made, no further debate is allowed. I think the hon. member for Lake Centre will agree with me as to that. My ruling could have been appealed, but it was not, and I do not think I should allow further discussion of it at this time. The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of your ruling-and there was no appeal from it-I now move in amendment to the motion for second reading of the bill, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"While this house is at all times anxious to assist in remedying any defects in the law with respect to combinations in restraint of trade that operate against the public interest, it regrets that His Majesty's ministers have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of publication of reports under the Combines Investigation Act and that before inviting parliament to enact the said bill have failed to give any assurance that there will be no similar breach of the constitution in respect of this or any other act passed by the parliament of Canada."


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to say that the amendment is out of order from the point of view of common sense. I appeal to the common sense of all hon. members, including the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The first part of the amendment indicates that the hon. gentleman and his seconder are anxious that a remedy should be provided to restrict the operation of combines, and yet by the amendment and their speeches they delay that being done. The amendment comprises three suggestions made by Mr. McGregor. He was either right or wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If in the opinion of the hon. gentleman he was right, hon. members opposite cannot oppose the legislation. They have no common sense.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to me that the amendment may be out of order because it does not relate to the bill. I think the hon. member is moving his amendment under citation 657 of Beauchesne. Even if it came within that reference, it would still have to relate to the bill. May, thirteenth edition, page 391, makes it quite clear that "the principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such proposed resolution". I rule that the amendment is not in order. Shall the motion carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, have you made a ruling already?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely in this house we have the right to argue a case.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought I gave the hon. member the right.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest of deference, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Far be it from me to try to prevent an hon. member from expressing his opinion if he thinks a motion is in order. I waited, and the hon. member did not rise. I think I should hear the hon. member for Lake Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been no change in this regard since 1858. In that year a similar amendment was presented to the British House of Commons; it is to be found in the Commons Journals, 1857-58, at page 65. It is also quoted in May as still being in effect. The entry to which I refer reads as follows:
The order of the day being read, for the second reading of the Conspiracy to Murder bill;
And a motion being made, and the question being proposed, that the bill be now read a second time;

An amendment was proposed to be made to the question, by leaving out from the word "that" to the end of the question, in order to add the words "this house hears with much concern that it is alleged that recent attempts upon the life of the Emperor of the French have been devised in England, and expresses its detestation of such guilty enterprises; . . .
These are the significant words.
. . . that this house is ready at all times to assist in remedying any defects in the criminal law which, after due investigation, are proved to exist, yet it cannot but regret that Her Majesty's government, previously to inviting the house to amend the law of conspiracy by the second reading of this bill at the present time, has not felt it to be their duty to make some reply to the important dispatch received from the French government . . . and which has been laid before parliament."
That amendment is in almost identical words with the present one. I submit, having regard to the fact that ever since 1858 it has remained on the Journals and has been quoted with approval as an example of an amendment on second reading, that my amendment is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to add two or three other examples of procedure in the United Kingdom parliament in addition to that which the hon. member for Lake Centre has quoted.
On the 12th of April, 1866, the question was proposed that the Representation of the People bill be read a second time. An amendment was proposed that all the words from the word "that" to the end of the question be left out in order to add these words:
This house, while ready to consider, with a view to its settlement, the question of parliamentary reform, is of opinion that it is inexpedient to discuss a bill for the reduction of the franchise in England and Wales, until the house has before it the entire scheme contemplated by the government for fne amendment of the representation of the people.
It seems to me that is a very close analogy. In this instance the parliament at Westminster did not want to discuss one section of a question until it had before it the entire scheme. We in this house feel that we should not be confined to the discussion of just a few clauses of the Combines Investigation Act without having an opportunity to discuss the entire administration of that act, especially at a time when an important provision of the act has been violated.
There was a similar instance in the United Kingdom parliament on June 23, 1853; and I quote from the Journals:
The order of the day being read, for the second reading of the government of India bill:
And a motion being made, and the question being proposed, that the bill be now read a second time;
An amendment was proposed to be made to the question, by leaving out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the
Combines Investigation Act words "in the opinion of this house, further information is necessary to enable parliament to legislate with advantage for the permanent government of India; and that at this late period of the session, it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it disturbs existing arrangements, cannot be considered as a final settlement," instead thereof.
There, I suggest, is another close analogy. The House of Commons at Westminster did not want to discuss part of the problem related to the government of India when the whole problem was not permanently settled. We here feel that we should not be restricted to discussing just the few sections of the Combines Investigation Act which the minister has brought in; rather we should have the right to discuss the whole administration of the act, particularly at a time when an important provision of the act has been violated.
Another case occurred in the parliament at Westminster on May 28, 1891. This is a long amendment; therefore I shall summarize it. It had to do with the fisheries off the coast of Newfoundland. The government had brought in a bill dealing with that question. In the meantime the house of assembly in Newfoundland had passed a certain resolution, and the request of the mover of the amendment to the motion for second reading was that any discussion of this bill, dealing as it did with only one phase of the whole question, be deferred until the representations of the house of assembly of Newfoundland had been taken into consideration.
On this whole question I also direct attention to an interesting sentence at page 509 of Bourinot, fourth edition. This is one of the pages to which Your Honour referred in giving a recent decision:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure, The Senate has a rule on the subject:
"64. The principle of a bill is usually debated at its second reading."
The Commons have no rule on the subject, but the practice of the house is always to discuss the principle of a bill at this stage.
I emphasize this for Your Honour's consideration: this House of Commons has no standing order or rule which says what is to happen on second reading. We have citations, we have excerpts from Speakers' decisions, and we have had comments made from the floor during the years, but there is no binding rule. Common sense, if I may quote the authority from Temiscouata, would seem to suggest that what is in order is anything relevant to the bill before the house. The bill before us, as the title makes clear, is a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act. Surely that makes it clear that the Combines Investigation Act is now before us.
2120	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act
I would also point to two very short sentences in May, the first at page 298, coming under the chapter dealing with the same question not being offered twice, which reads: ... an entire bill may be regarded as one question, which is not decided until it has passed.
The other is on page 317, shortly after the famous "wholesome restraint" sentence, in these words:
This rule, however, does not apply to debates upon different stages of a bill . . .
My contention is that since the whole bill is to be taken as one, the discussion opened by the Minister of Justice yesterday, in speaking at another stage of this bill, is still before us, and that in effect the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre is pertinent to the discussion of the Minister of Justice yesterday.
Life is often like this. I confess that I had hoped myself to be in a position to move an amendment to this bill. That opportunity was acquired by the hon. member for Lake Centre, however, by virtue of his getting the floor before me. I mention that, not merely to record what I had intended to do, but to indicate the objectivity of the position I am taking. From my personal standpoint it might be better if this amendment were ruled out of order, which would give me a chance to move one of my own, but I am taking an objective position. I contend that the rights of members of this house, to whatever party they belong, should be defended when they are called into question. I feel very strongly that this amendment-this motion of censure, as it is-which has been moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre, should be regarded as in order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The observations made by the last two preceding speakers would be quite relevant to the matter now before the house,
I think, if the leader of the opposition (Mr! Drew) had not previously moved an amendment to the motion for second reading of the bill, and if that amendment had not been disposed of. But I suggest that the facts in this instance are these.
First of all, on a motion to go into committee of supply, we had a debate upon the substantial subject matter of the flour report and the actions of the government in relation thereto. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, however, at that time nothing was recorded in the Journals covering that debate; therefore it was proper at a later stage to refer to the same matter again in a subsequent debate. That second occasion was provided when the leader of the opposition moved in amendment that the said bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be 

referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, with instructions that they have power to send for persons, papers and records, and that in addition to other recommendations in respect to the subject matter of the said bill they should also have power to report upon the extent to which the effective administration of legislation relating to restrictive trade practices has been or is being prejudiced by the action of the government in failing to carry out the mandatory requirements of the existing law.
In other words the purpose-and the very proper purpose, from the standpoint of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition-of that amendment was to enable this house to discuss the flour report and the actions of the government in relation thereto. But, sir, once that discussion had taken place, and at very great length; once the house had voted upon that amendment, then surely any attempt under some new formula or some different language to bring the same subject matter before the house for a third time would be out of order. On that ground I suggest that the amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre should be declared out of order.


Mr. Drew:: Before you reach a decision, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the amendment I moved called for a direct reference of the subject matter of this bill to a committee of the house. That was its declared purpose.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With instructions.


George Alexander Drew: With an indication from the house as to the terms of reference to that committee, which is in keeping with the rules. May I add that the use of the words, "the subject matter of the bill," instead of a reference to the bill itself, was in keeping with the practice in that respect; therefore the amendment with which the house has dealt was one which would have had the effect of placing this bill before the committee. Although the Minister of Justice saw fit to interpret certain aspects of the discussion that took place as a motion that had the effect of an expression of want of confidence, this is an interpretation which in no way affects the declared purpose of the motion.
The house voted on the amendment, and as a result of their decision the bill does not go before the committee. An amendment is now presented to the effect that the house express its opinion on what has been done; that was not contained in the other amendment. It would only be by a very broad inference that the contents of this amendment could be stated to have been before the members of this house when they voted on the

other one. In the other one, the members were deciding whether or not this bill should be referred to a committee with the instructions that are an essential feature of a motion of the kind. This is a straight motion criticizing the action of the government in that respect, and I submit it is strictly in conformity with the authority that has been read by the member for Lake Centre. It is an authority of many years' standing which in this house and in other legislative bodies with the same system has been quoted repeatedly to show that it is proper to present a question of this kind to the house. I submit that the motion is in order, and in keeping with the rules and established practice.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say two or three words in connection with the points that have been made. In my opinion this amendment is in order. The first thing we have to keep in mind is that the question before the house is the Combines Investigation Act and the amendment of that act. If this bill had been brought before the house as an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, abolition of juries,-which is a section in the bill-then any debate and any amendment would have to be limited to that point. The broad title of the bill, however, is an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act; therefore, as has been demonstrated in this house on a number of occasions, the whole act is open. The Minister of Justice shakes his head.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Horizontally, too.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, and the time may arrive when I can demonstrate to the Minister of Justice that that is a ruling which has been made in this house. Since there is no definite standing order relating to this, the reference is citation 755 of Beauchesne's second edition. Let me read it:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill,-
Surely that is clear and broad.
-or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction-
The circumstances connected with the introduction of this bill are quite clear, and they are matters that are before us.
-or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress', or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
According to this citation, the amendment that can be moved at this time is so broad,
Combines Investigation Act Mr. Speaker, there is no possibility in my opinion of ruling it out. The mere fact that there has been another amendment on another principle cannot be taken now as a reason for ruling out an amendment that deals with an altogether different matter. I suggest to you, sir, that the amendment proposed by the member for Lake Centre is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the views of the members. May I say again that I regret that I started to give a decision without hearing the views of the members. I was under the impression no member wished to speak to the point of order. I have no intention of changing my practice of hearing the members when a question of order arises.
A number of points have been raised, but may I deal first with the reference to citation 755 of Beauchesne's second edition, which is 657 of his third edition. This reference has been read by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and it appears to be so wide as to allow amendments which do not refer directly to the wording of the original motion. I think I should point out, however, that those amendments must necessarily be relevant to the bill which is before the house. May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition page 391, states, as I mentioned earlier, that "the principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such proposed resolution." In view of my ruling earlier today, no hon. member has satisfied me that this amendment is sufficiently relevant to make it in order. Moreover, a close inspection of the references made by the hon. members for Lake Centre and Winnipeg North Centre does not disclose anything to disturb that principle.
The hon. member for Vancouver East also said that the whole act is open to debate. I cannot agree with him. I gave a ruling to the contrary last week. He stated that he could refer me to other rulings. I could probably remind him that I gave a different ruling myself when I was Deputy Speaker, but since then I have had the advantage of the advice of the members of this house, and I find I was wrong then, but I believe I was right last week.
A question has been raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to the effect that this amendment is so similar to the amendment which was moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that it cannot be moved a second time. In reply to that argument, the leader of the opposition has stated that his motion was to refer the matter to a committee. He did not deny that the contents of this amendment and his amendment were practically the same. Let me remind hon.

Speaker's Ruling
members of the house that if the contents of this bill were referred to a committee, the committee would have to report back to the house and there would be an opportunity of debating that report and all that took place in the committee. The proposed amendment of the hon. member for Lake Centre is sufficiently, in material respects, similar to the amendment moved earlier in this debate by the leader of the opposition to be inadmissible.
For the reasons which I have given, I am ruling the amendment out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must respectfully appeal from your ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that Bill No. 144 be now read a second time. Mr. Diefenbaker moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:	.
While this house is at all times anxious to assist in remedying any defects in the law with respect to combinations in restraint of trade that operate against the public interest, it regrets that His Majesty's ministers have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of publication of reports under the Combines Investigation Act and that before inviting parliament to enact the said bill have failed to give any assurance that there will be no similar breach of the constitution in respect of this or any other act passed by the parliament of Canada.
I ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was not relevant to the act which is now under cohsideration, and also on account of its similarity to the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), which was recently before the house.
From this ruling the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and others appealed. The question is on the Speaker's ruling.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: I was on my feet when the point of order was raised. Do I lose my place because I sat down?


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order-


Mr. Ferguson:: Oh, sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman-and
when I say "gentleman" I refer to the hon. member for Lake Centre-has spoken already on the second reading and has moved an amendment. He can speak only once at that stage of the bill. While I regret that the standing order will not permit me the pleasure of listening to him speak once more on the same matter, I submit that the floor should be given to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the procedure followed in the house when an hon. member makes a motion, sits down, hands the written motion to the Speaker, as happened in this case, and the Speaker reads the motion, the member cannot speak again to the question. I call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) for the second reading of Bill No. 144 to amend the Combines Investigation Act. The first sentence in the explanatory notes to the minister's bill reads:
The amendments provided in this bill are designed to facilitate enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act, and of related Criminal Code provisions.
When the Minister of Justice introduced the bill on November 4 he opened with remarks which were substantially the same as those contained in the explanatory notes from which I have just quoted. As reported on page 1439 of Hansard, he said:
This [DOT] bill is designed to carry into effect three recommendations of the combines investigation commissioner which are designed to strengthen
45781-136J
Combines Investigation Act the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act and the related legislation contained in section 498 of the Criminal Code.
I think it is appropriate at this moment for me to emphasize the fact that it is indeed one of the duties of the Minister of Justice to see that the laws of this land are obeyed. In line with that duty it is appropriate that if he discovers any act under his administration to be not adequate for its enforcement, he should at some stage bring to the house a bill rectifying those shortcomings.
Chapter 106 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is an act respecting the Department of Justice. The duties of the Minister of Justice are set out in section four, and I should like to quote the first two paragraphs of that section as follows:
The Minister of Justice shall
(a)	be the official legal adviser of the governor general-
Note that that is the governor general, not the governor in council. The minister, as has been said so often by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), is the keeper of the king's conscience. To continue:
-and the legal member of His Majesty's privy council for Canada;
(b)	see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law;
As I have said, it is proper and appropriate for the Minister of Justice, when he finds that a statute under his jurisdiction is deficient in such a way as to make it difficult for him adequately to enforce it, to bring before parliament a bill that would seek to correct those shortcomings. However, in the light of the circumstances connected with the introduction of this measure-I am referring now solely to such circumstances as were known to all of us before the minister made his speech yesterday, and I shall not, sir, transgress your ruling; I will not try to discuss what the minister said yesterday, despite what I may think about the ruling-in the light of the circumstances that were known to us before that pitiful defence was made yesterday, the action of the minister in bringing Bill 144 before the house at this time is an affront to this parliament.
When was the notice given for the introduction of Bill No. 144? As will be seen from Votes and Proceedings, it was given just before the deadline of six o'clock on Wednesday, November 2. What had happened on Wednesday, November 2? At three o'clock that afternoon two questions were asked on the orders of the day, one by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), and the other by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar Wanted to know if there was in existence a report from the

Combines Investigation Act commissioner having to do with the flour milling industry and if so whether it would be tabled, and the hon. member for Vancouver East wanted to know whether there was any truth in the rumour that Mr. McGregor had resigned.
Please note that there were some other things that this house knew before yesterday which are part of this whole circumstance. We know by reference to sessional paper 53-F, tabled by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) in response to a motion of mine, that there was on September 13 an interview between the Minister of Justice and a delegation from the Canadian Manufacturers Association having to do with the administration of and proposed amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. According to this sessional paper it would appear that discussion of the whole question of amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, some of which are before us and some of which are not before us, would be in order in this debate. I will not take the time to go through it except to say that on the basis of that sessional paper- and, by the way, the Secretary of State has admitted to me it is not complete and that there are supplementary returns to come down later-it is evident that the question of amending the Combines Investigation Act and the question of its administration and proper enforcement have been under consideration by the Minister of Justice for a long time. He has lived with this matter night and day since last January.
Without going into the details of the sessional paper at this moment, I come to the last point, namely, that on September 13 there was this interview between a delegation representing the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Minister of Justice. The burden of the interview is set out in a memorandum contained in this document, and it indicates that that organization wanted certain amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. It is also clear that they have been wanting them for a long time, and that they wanted them in the session of parliament of last January, February, March and April. But none of these considerations, none of these representations, and nothing arising out of the extended consideration that the minister gave to the problem prompted him at any time prior to November 2 to give notice of a motion for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act.
On September 21, as is now publicly known, my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), proposed to ask certain questions of the Minister of Justice. I need not go over what happened on that occasion, but it seems to me there is another point that should have led the minister to take


action on this most important matter. On October 22 there was the three-hour discussion in the minister's office in which four people were involved, the minister and three others whose names are well known. Even that did not provoke the minister to the point of introducing the bill now before us. On October 29 Mr. McGregor sent his resignation to the Minister of Justice, but even that did not do the trick. On Wednesday afternoon, November 2, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and then the hon. member for Vancouver East asked questions which were embarrassing, and lo and behold, when we get our copies of Votes and Proceedings for November 2, which reached our desks the next morning, we discover that action is at last the order of the day.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is not trying to take the credit for these amendments for his party, is he?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I can-December 4, 1947, in my letter to the prime minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the second instalment now.


Angus MacInnis: There is one thing that is certain. There is not much credit coming to the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, although I am also grateful for the help.
The point I am making in answer to the Minister of Justice is that the credit for provoking the minister to give notice of this bill goes entirely to what happened on the floor of the house. None of these other things did it, and I have not told the house the story I could tell if I went through sessional paper No. 53-F. Then when it becomes evident, because the minister is not able to answer the question on November 2, that there is something strange going on, notice is filed that afternoon that Bill 144 is to be introduced. The next day, Thursday, November 3, as is recorded in Hansard, we got the answers to the questions asked the day before. The answer to one question is a simple yes, that there is a report from the commissioner on the flour milling industry and that it will be tabled. The answer to the other question is likewise a simple yes, namely, that the commissioner had tendered his resignation. In the same exchange that took place on Thursday, November 3, I asked the minister if, when he tabled the report, it would be within fifteen days of the date he received it.

His most interesting answer was that the report would be tabled on Monday. I asked him when he had received it, and was given a further interesting answer, namely, "some time ago".
Then came the next day, Friday, November
4.	I felt it was only fair to the minister and to all of us that he should have the opportunity to tell us precisely when he received the report. Therefore I asked him that question, and it is recorded on page 1438 of Hansard. I want you to note, Mr. Speaker, that on page 1439 of Hansard there is recorded the introduction and first reading of the bill. Note how closely these circumstances are related. I should like to read from page 1438, as follows:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the Minister of Justice now in position to answer the question I asked yesterday, namely, the date on which the flour milling report was transmitted to the Minister of Justice by the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: December 29, 1948.
There was nothing more to be said; there it was. The Minister of Justice had been caught cold breaking the act. A few minutes later, as recorded on the very next page-page 1439 of Hansard- the Minister of Justice stands up in the house and asks for leave to introduce and move first reading of a bill to strengthen the enforcement of an act which he had admitted a few minutes earlier he bad broken. Was the house ever so grossly affronted and insulted as it was by the circumstances connected with the introduction of this measure?
It is my intention to move an amendment stating that very fact. I suppose I should expect that at some point someone will wonder whether my amendment is in order. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and everybody else, that it is. I am glad to note acceptance by the Minister of Justice, with his broad smile, that it undoubtedly is in order. I might as well move it now. May I say that in drafting the amendment I paid particularly close attention to citation 657 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which of course is taken from May's thirteenth edition. To paraphrase a part of that citation, it says that it is competent for a member at the second reading stage to move an amendment, and these are the words that I wish to quote directly:
. . . expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution. . . .
The reference is to the measure. In other words, it is quite clear that a member of the house has the right, on the motion for second reading of a bill, both to speak and to move an amendment expressing opinions as to any
Combines Investigation Act circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the measure then before the house.
Having said that, I take it that the terms of the amendment which I shall propose will be obvious; because even at the risk of labouring the point I have made it clear that I feel, and I think most hon. members of the house feel, that the circumstances connected with the introduction of this measure constitute an affront to parliament. This is particularly so, as I have been able to point out, because of the fact that it is on the very day that the embarrassing questions are first asked that notice is filed that the bill is to be introduced, and it is on the very day that the minister is caught cold in the admission he has broken the act that he stands up in the house and moves to introduce a bill for the stated purpose of strengthening the enforcement of the act, the breaking of which he has just admitted.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think I shall read my amendment now, but on second thought I will not move it now and thus make the mistake made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. In other words, I do not think I had better send it to you yet; that might end my right to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: You will end everything if you do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My amendment, when I move it, will be in these terms:
That Bill No. 144 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of this measure, namely, the action of the government in seeking amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, for the stated purpose of strengthening the enforcement thereof, at the very time when it has just been discovered that the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the government, has deliberately violated section 27, subsection (5). of the said act, is an affront to parliament, and that further consideration of this bill should be deferred until this house, by this amendment, has censured the government for violating the said act by failing to make public until November 7, 1949, the report of the commissioner under the said act with respect to the flour milling industry, which was submitted to the Minister of Justice in its final form on February 23, 1949, and which he was required by law to make public not later than March 10, 1949.
I had this amendment here on my desk yesterday in slightly different form. The one change I made was with respect to the dates at the end of the motion. Before the Minister of Justice spoke yesterday I would have had the last part read "which was submitted to the Minister of Justice on December 29, 1948, and which he was required by law to make public not later than January 13, 1949." However, I am prepared to accept the minister's statement yesterday, in the two and a half hour defence he made, that he did not have that report in its final form until February
2126	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act 23, 1949. I think that is being very lenient. If I were in court for speeding at fifty miles an hour and I said to the magistrate, "But, Your Honour, my speedometer said thirty,"
I do not think it would do the trick. I believe the Minister of Justice should be bound by the date on the report, which he himself said on November 4 was the date he received it. But I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to admit that he was busy up in Manitoba-


Mr. Lesage:: On a point of order, I would ask the hon. member if he is speaking to his amendment before he moves it.


John George Diefenbaker: That was why I was ruled out.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I think the hon. member is speaking to his amendment before it is moved. If he is speaking to the motion for second reading, I respectfully submit that he is out of order. He must move his amendment before speaking to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I rather agree with the hon. member. If the amendment the hon. member proposes to submit to the house is not in order, then of course it is not in order for him to speak to it.


Alphonse Fournier: That is why he is
speaking in this way.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is some question whether or not the amendment is in order, that must be decided now, and the hon. member must not speak to his amendment. I think that is only fair; and in view of the ruling which prevented the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) from speaking, I do not think I should permit the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to spSak to an amendment which may be out of order. It is true that was more or less of a technicality, when the hon. member for Lake Centre sat down and handed in his amendment, but I could not permit him to proceed then in any event. Nor can I at this time permit the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to discuss an amendment which may be out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I moved an amendment. A question of order was raised; Your Honour stood, and I have always been deferential, so I sat down. Because I did so, I was ruled out. I make that statement in reply to Your Honour now. I never fail to sit down when the Speaker stands. Your Honour stood; I sat down, and then I was ruled out.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that is a correct statement. The only thing the hon. member has not mentioned is the fact that he sent his amendment to me, and when it was handed


to me I rose and read it to the house. Then, of course, the amendment was before the house. I am sorry the incident occurred, but without the unanimous consent of the house there was nothing I could have done which would have permitted the hon. member to speak again.


Angus MacInnis: Speaking to the point of order that has been raised, surely no amendment or motion is before the house until it has been read by the Speaker. If it is not before the house, the hon. member cannot be ruled out of order for speaking to it. He has read the amendment he intends to move, but it is not yet before the house; and it must be taken in relation to the subject matter of the speech he is making.


Alphonse Fournier: We all listened attentively to the amendment being read, but we have not received an official copy of it. The hon. member read his amendment at length-


Major James William Coldwell: The amendment he thinks of moving; but he may yet change it.


Alphonse Fournier: I would expect the action to follow the thought in this connection. One does not read a proposed amendment without intending to move it. It seems to me this amendment is out of order, but the hon. member is such an expert in procedure that he is trying to discuss the amendment-


Mr. Casselman:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid there cannot be a point of order here.


Alphonse Fournier: If the amendment is out of order, I cannot conceive that the hon. member should be given another fifteen minutes in which to discuss it. We know what the amendment is, and it contains statements which are not according to the facts and which were rebutted and refuted yesterday in the speech of the Minister of Justice. That is the basis of the proposed amendment; and when it is read by the Chair we shall discuss the question of its legality.


Major James William Coldwell: If the minister is going to refer to the speech of the Minister of Justice yesterday, I take it we shall all have the same privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister was speaking to a point of order; but as one hon. member has said already, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must deal at this time with matters relevant to the main motion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I clear up just one point, on a question of privilege? It will be necessary to refer to my remarks yesterday in order to do so. In the course of his remarks

on his amendment my hon. friend stated that I deliberately violated the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, with the approval of the government. I say, sir, I did not deliberately violate the Combines Investigation Act, and I insist that my hon. friend accept that statement and withdraw the imputation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are several things here, with some of which I shall agree in order to get along. I shall deal in a moment with what the minister said. First may I say that, if Your Honour does not stop me, I intend to speak for a few minutes more on the second reading of the bill, but not in reference to my amendment. Then when I reach the point where it seems necessary to argue the things set out in my amendment, I shall move it and send it to Your Honour.


Alphonse Fournier: I doubt if the hon. member is right in that attitude, since he has taken the precaution of saying "if I am not stopped". At this point I do not think he can go back and speak to the proposed amendment, but must limit his remarks to the motion for second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My good friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is getting excited unnecessarily. I said I would go back and confine my remarks to the second reading, and when I thought I could not talk longer without getting into this amendment, I would move it and send it to the Speaker to decide the point.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I come back to the question of the circumstances relating to the introduction and prosecution of this measure. Surely that is germane to the bill. I draw attention to the day on which notice was given. Surely it is germane to the bill to note the day on which the bill was introduced and given first reading, and to note other circumstances connected with it at that time.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, I cannot be asked to withdraw the imputation, which the Minister of Justice asked me to withdraw, about the deliberate violation of the act. The minister has admitted it and has taken responsibility for it. At one stage of the game he was relieved of that responsibility by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who said the whole cabinet agreed to it. At another stage he was relieved by the Prime Minister, who said he bore part of the responsibil ity.
What the Minister of Justice is now saying, Mr. Speaker, makes the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of this measure more than ever an affront
Combines Investigation Act to parliament. If a minister would rise in the house and say: We broke the law, but we felt that the circumstances were extenuating, and we throw ourselves on the mercy of the house, this debate would not continue. My friends opposite are laughing; they think the whole thing is a joke. I say that this is one of the most serious things that has happened in the parliament of Canada, indeed in any British parliament, in a long time.
I have in my hand a quotation from a publication which is as strongly opposed to the Combines Investigation Act as any publication could be. It is the Letter-Review, about the most reactionary publication that comes to the desks of members of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: That is hardly a fair observation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend does not think it is fair. All right. My point is that the editor, who does not like the provisions of the act in question, says that nevertheless the government has no excuse for violating those provisions. Let me quote his remarks directly.
But the cabinet certainly was not justified in flouting the law by withholding publication. In the old days, at least in Britain, the government would have gone down to defeat on the admission that it had deliberately broken the law.
I submit that I have made no misstatement, despite the request of the Minister of Justice to withdraw the imputation, and despite the statement of the Minister of Public Works that there are misstatements of fact in my remarks or in my amendment. I have said nothing that can be withdrawn, because I have stated plain facts which three ministers -the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister -have admitted. My point is that-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member please refer to the page in Hansard on which any one of the ministers has admitted any such thing? He has made a statement that the admission has been made; now let him show where it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is the first one I pick up. At page 2083 of Hansard, the following appears:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister say whether
at any point when he was thinking about this matter in January he saw anything in the law that gave him any authority not to publish it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is not an admission.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a clear-cut admission that the minister knew he had no authority not to publish that document.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member going to continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I should like to come back at three o'clock with more answers to the question the Minister of Justice has put to me. There are so many facets to this matter, however, and so many potential points of order to anyone who is interested, it keeps one rather busy collecting all the relevant material and it makes it difficult to find enough space on one's desk for all the things to which one might wish to refer.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock the Minister of Justice asked me to substantiate my reference to admissions that had been made by ministers of the crown. My statement was that it had been admitted that the Combines Investigation Act had been deliberately violated. I quoted one such admission just before one o'clock. I now have three or four more. At page 1500 of Hansard of November 7, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said:
Therefore I called the attention of the Minister of Justice to the situation and urged him not to table the report without further investigation.
I submit that was a deliberate decision. Later the same minister said, as reported at page 1503 of Hansard:
Many hon. members will say that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was not warranted in delaying publication of the report. I do not share that view. After having doubt cast upon the validity of certain conclusions contained in the report by some of his colleagues, of whom I was one, the report was held from publication with the full authority of the whole cabinet for further checking and consultation.
I submit that that too is evidence of a deliberate decision on the part of the cabinet, freely admitted by a minister. I turn now to page 1524 of Hansard, still November 7, 1949, where I asked the Minister of Justice this question:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister tell the house on what authority the government relied when it made the decision to violate the provisions of section 27 (5) of the act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it relied upon the fact that any democratic government is answerable to the people of the country for its acts.
There is no denial of the fact that it made the decision to violate the provisions of the act, but rather an attempt to justify the deliberate decision that had been made.
On page 1526 of Hansard of the same day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in concluding his remarks, said:
And I now feel it is only fair to the Minister of Justice that I should inform the house that he
IMr. Knowles.]
had discussed these matters with me, and I had concurred in the line of conduct he was adopting. I should bear, therefore, a portion of the responsibility, if there is responsibility, for attempting to carry out the implied or expressed undertaking given to Canadian industry that if they did their best to help us win the war, they were not going to be pilloried afterwards under the Combines Investigation Act.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Is the hon. member assuming that all this happened before the fifteen days provided by the statute had elapsed, or that it is something that happened afterwards, and after the delay had elapsed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a fair question. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it makes no difference whether it was a decision, before the fifteen days had elapsed, to ignore the provisions of the act, or whether it was a deliberate decision taken after these fifteen days had elapsed, to continue violating the requirement to make public the report that Mr. McGregor had submitted to the minister.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must move my amendment. May I be quite frank to the house and say that if I carry on after moving the amendment I shall be speaking to it. Thus if any hon. member feels it is not in order, I admit that that will be the place to raise the point of order. May I say that during the noon recess I made a slight change in the wording which I read out this morning, for reasons that will be obvious.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That Bill No. 144 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of this measure, namely, the action of the government in seeking amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, for the stated purpose of strengthening the enforcement thereof, at the very time when it has just been discovered that the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the government, has deliberately violated section 27, subsection 5 of the said act, is an affront to parliament, and that further consideration of this bill should be deferred until this house, by this amendment, has censured the government for violating the said act by failing to make public the report of the commissioner under the said act with respect to the flour milling industry within fifteen days, as required by law.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think my amendment is in order, and I should like to go on; but if there is any doubt, this is the time to clear it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has moved his amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have.


Mr. Speaker:: If you had not I was going to be forced to inform you that your time had expired.

This is the third amendment of censure that has been presented to the house. On its face this amendment proposes to censure the government. It seems to me that the amendment moved by the leader of the apposition (Mr. Drew) included censure. I shall be glad to hear representations from hon. members. I might say that it has been my custom to hear representations when questions of order are raised.
Sometimes I have thought that we have had a rather protracted debate on questions of order and as to the regularity of motions. I trust hon. members will make their remarks as brief as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are some points which can be dealt with briefly, because they are not in dispute. From what Your Honour has said I feel that there is no doubt as to the correctness of the form of the amendment. It comes clearly within the provisions of citation 657 which permits a member to move an amendment on the motion for second reading of a bill expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution.
Form No. 93 in Beauchesne's third edition also provides for an amendment which asks for the further consideration of a bill to be deferred until such-and-such has been done. Thus there is no doubt as to the form of my amendment. Also I think there is no doubt as to its relevancy, because in the very words of citation 657 it does relate precisely to the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of the measure; indeed that wording is in my amendment.
The only question which, I take it, is raised by what Your Honour has just said is as to whether or not it is substantially similar to the amendment moved the other day by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew). In reply to that may I point out first of all that this is the first of the three amendments-and if I am not correct I shall stand to be corrected-in which the word "censure" appears. I believe I am correct in that. The amendment of the leader of the official opposition was that the subject matter of the minister's bill be referred to a committee, and that the committee have power to discuss the extent to which the violation of the provisions of the act was interfering with its enforcement. This is the first amendment in which it has been specifically asked that the house should censure the government, right here on the floor of parliament.
With regard to this whole question as to the similarity of motions, may I read briefly from May, thirteenth edition, beginning at
Combines Investigation Act page 295, under the chapter headed, "The Same Question or Bill may not be Twice Offered in a Session", where it states:
It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule. Thus, in the session of 1845, no less than five distinct motions were made upon the subject of opening letters at the post office under warrants from the Secretary of State. They all varied in form and matter, so far as to place them beyond the restrictions: but in purpose they were the same and the debates raised upon them embraced the same matters.
I submit that the mere fact that my amendment might produce debate upon the same matters as did the amendment of the leader of the opposition does not of itself make my amendment similar to his. Further I would point out that there have been quite a number of precedents in the House of Commons where amendments which were seemingly similar but substantially different have been moved, and which have been the occasion for continuing debate in the same general field.
I would remind hon. members who were here in the session in November of 1944, when the conscription issue was before us, that a large number of amendments were moved, some of which were ruled out of order, and others not. They were similar, and dealt with the same subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: They were not similar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They dealt with slightly different aspects, and the debate carried on, all of it in the same field of discussion.
But even more striking is what happened back in 1926 when the so-called customs scandal was before the house. On June 22, 1926, Mr. Mercier moved a motion for concurrence in the report of the special committee dealing with that matter. An amendment was moved by Mr. Stevens, as reported at page 461 of the Journals for that year.
At page 465 I find that Mr. Woodsworth moved a subamendment, and Mr. Meighen raised a point of order with respect to that subamendment. Mr. Speaker reserved his decision until a later sitting. On Thursday, June 24, as reported at page 469, Mr. Speaker ruled Mr. Woodsworth's subamendment in order.
Then later, as recorded at page 475, Mr. Woodsworth's subamendment was defeated on a vote. Then on Friday, June 25, as recorded at page 477 of the Journals, Mr. Fansher moved another subamendment, against which a point of order was raised on the ground that it was similar to the one Mr. Woodsworth had moved. But by a vote of the house that amendment was declared to be in order.
I shall not take time to read all the details, because they are lengthy. If I were to do so I would be acting contrary to Your Honour's
2130	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act suggestion. However if I did Your Honour would see at once that there is considerable similarity as between these two subamendments, and it was the similarity of Mr. Fansher's motion to Mr. Woodsworth's which was questioned, unsuccessfully. Later, Mr. Fansher's subamendment, having been ruled in order, was agreed to by a vote of the house.
In the course of that interesting session there was a change in the House of Commons at which time Mr. Meighen became prime minister, with Sir Henry Drayton as acting house leader. But the debate went on. Another subamendment was moved to the amendment, this time by Mr. Rinfret on June 29, 1926. A point of order was raised by Sir Henry Drayton, and Mr. Speaker ruled that that subamendment was in order, despite its similarity to previous subamendments. Mr. Geary appealed from Mr. Speaker's ruling, with the result that the ruling was sustained and the subamendment of Mr. Rinfret voted upon. Later, Mr. Garland moved another subamendment which was accepted and agreed to, and finally Mr. Stevens' amendment, as amended, was agreed to, and finally the motion as amended, amended and amended was agreed to by the house.
I studied that volume carefully. That is certainly an instance of a long debate ranging over the same general field, but with sufficient difference in the successive amendments moved that the House of Commons at that time accepted them as being clearly in order.
May I now point out one further and striking difference between the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition and the one I have now moved. The earlier amendment asked that the bill be not then read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to a committee. As everyone knows, the effect of an amendment of that kind is to dispose of the bill so far as debate in the House of Commons during the current session is concerned. The only way that bill could get back to the house after its subject matter, not the bill, had been referred to a committee would be for the committee to recommend its reintroduction as a new bill.
But my amendment does not mention referring the subject matter of the bill to a committee. It is in keeping with the terms of citation 657 and the propositions following thereafter which are to the effect that such an amendment only delays consideration of the second reading, and does not do away with it altogether. In other words my amendment could carry, and it would still be in order, after an expression of the opinion of the house on the circumstances connected with


the introduction of the bill had been recorded, for second reading of the bill to be moved again.
That is a very substantial difference, namely that the amendment of the leader of the opposition referred the subject matter to a committee, whereas my amendment is a proposal that the house record its opinion right here. And I add this further comment, that if the amendment of the leader of the opposition had carried it merely asked the committee when considering the subject matter of the bill to consider the extent to which the enforcement of the act was being interfered with by the alleged violation.
On the other hand my amendment asks that the admitted violation of the act be censured, right here on the floor of parliament. I submit there is more than a substantial difference and that theory, citations and precedents are all in favour of the acceptance of my amendment as clearly in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect may I say that Your Honour astounds me. You astound me because you have remained awake when so many dusty and forgotten precedents have been quoted. For the time being I shall not argue that the amendment is out of order, but I do say that it is out of place, that it is untimely and that it is uncalled for. I think it is more logical than the amendment sponsored this morning by the hon. member for Lake Centre. The hon. member said that we are anxious to go on with this legislation, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a more logical mind. He abstained from saying that he was anxious to have the legislation passed, and I congratulate him upon saying that. This reminds me of a fire brigade and how it acts when there is a fire alarm. The firemen are supposed to rush down and take out the fire equipment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking to the amendment, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I was under the impression that the hon. member was speaking to the amendment. I am considering at the moment whether the amendment is in order, and I should like to hear any further representations that hon. members would like to make.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you will permit me to continue, sir; I am not through.


Mr. Speaker:: I can only permit the hon. member to speak at this time to the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, Your Honour. I am referring to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said with reference to the

delay in the second reading of the bill. I heard him say distinctly that it would not interfere with or cause any delay in the second reading of the bill. It is in reference to his statement made while sponsoring the amendment now before the Chair that I am using this metaphorical language.
It is quite easy to take Beauchesne, Bouri-not or May and quote precedents that date back for scores of years and bore the Chair and the house in so doing. In my opinion a little time could well be taken to make a common-sense comparison. Instead of quoting a dusty Bourinot, a dusty Beauchesne, a dusty May or any of this dusty stuff, I want to appeal to the intelligence of the house; I want to do that rather than weary the exhausted memories of hon. members. We have had enough of that. Let us consider this matter like human beings and not like bookworms.
In making my comparison I am appealing to the intelligence of the house. A building is afire and the firemen want to get there as quickly as possible, but what are we to think when it is found that a pile of rocks and timber has been placed right at the door of the fire station to prevent the fire truck from going out? That is just what the hon. member for Lake Centre has done; that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is doing now, and for purely political reasons. They do not want the government to go ahead with this legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one short reference to the dusty precedents the hon. member has referred to. I am sure that if my hon. friend shortly becomes a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, as some expect he will, he will not be talking about dusty precedents but will be following them.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad I called my hon. friend a gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: I have acted as such when referring to my hon. friend.
I refer particularly to May at page 390 as a basis for my submission that the amendment of my hon. friend is in order. There is no way in which what is stated on pages 390, 391 and 392 can be read except that it favours the amendment in question. My hon. friend referred to the various amendments moved at the time of the customs scandal investigation, and that is one example. Again in 1872, and this has not been changed since-


Mr. Speaker:: I have not May before me, and I do not know what section the hon. member is referring to.
Combines Investigation Act


John George Diefenbaker: This reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move, as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill; or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction or prosecution-
Then turning to page 392-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is that all of it?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall read it all, if you like. It continues:
-or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence, or, in the Lords, the opinions of the judges. The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such proposed resolution, which must, therefore, "strictly relate to the bill which the house, by its order, has resolved upon considering."
Then there is cited as an interpretative case the case to which I referred this morning, which came up in 1857, when the Palmerston government was defeated as a result of an amendment very similar in terms to the one now moved by my hon. friend. I quote from page 392:
It must be borne in mind, however, that the resolution, if agreed to, does not arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion.
That answers the hon. member for Temis-couata. No impediment is being placed in the way of passing these amendments; it is merely an expression of the attitude toward the government or any of its ministers in relation to the subject matter of the bill. I continue:
The effect of such an amendment is merely to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second' time-
The word "now"' is in italics. And then later:
The house refuses, on that particular day, to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal: but the bill is not otherwise disposed of.
And again:
Thus the amendment to the second reading of the Conspiracy to Murder bill, in 1857,-
This is the bill to which I made reference this morning:
-being also a vote of censure-
What is the difference between this present amendment and the one that I moved and the one moved by the leader of the opposition? -being also a vote of censure, was not only fatal to that measure, but caused the immediate fall of Lord Palmerston's ministry.
The wording of the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) falls within citation 657 of

Combines Investigation Act Beauchesne, is supported by May, and I know of no case where this right has ever been denied in any British parliament. As to the instance in 1858 when Palmerston's administration was destroyed, the amendment if it had not been a proper one certainly would have been ruled out of order with men like Cobden, Palmerston, Disraeli and Gladstone in that parliament, but they accepted it as a proper amendment, it was voted on and the administration was defeated.


Jean-François Pouliot: Canning was opposed to it.


John George Diefenbaker: He was not there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think anyone is arguing that, if the present amendment or the one moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) had been moved as amendments to the motion for the second reading of the bill, they would not have . been in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to have one point clarified that the hon. member for Lake Centre raised. I believe the amendment he referred to was an original amendment and not an amendment to an amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not hear you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe it was an original amendment and not an amendment to an amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: The one in 1858 was just a straight amendment. The ones referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the series of four, and I have that volume here-


Mr. Speaker:: I was referring to the matter which the hon. member for Lake Centre raised. Thank you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was saying, if the present amendment had been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as an amendment to the motion for second reading of the bill, I do not think any member of the house would argue that it was not a perfectly proper amendment in every way. But that is not the whole story. The amendment now moved is moved after the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has been disposed of, and in connection with which he invoked this same citation, 657, Beauohesne, third edition. I may say that, as nearly as I could follow the reading of May by the hon. member for Lake Centre, the language in Beauchesne is identical with that of May.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The opposition leader's
amendment was made under 668. There is quite a difference.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The section which the hon. member for Lake Centre quoted from May- and I followed him-is exactly the same as citation 657 in Beauohesne, third edition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point is that my amendment is moved under 657, but-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is my hon. friend raising a point of order with me?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the leader of the opposition moved his amendment under 668.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What does citation 657 say? It reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question,-
It refers to certain matters, but I shall name only two.
-or expressing opinions as to any circumstances, connected with its introduction, or prosecution . . .
That is what the present amendment in part does. Further on there are these words: ... or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
I suggest that the substantial subject matter of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and the substantial subject matter of the amendment which has now been moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, the flour report of the combines investigation commissioner and the actions of the government in relation thereto, has already been the subject of debate in this chamber on a motion to go into committee of supply. On that occasion, by reason of the fact that there was no motion connected with it, it was considered that that particular debate, for purposes of subsequent points of order, had not taken place. This same subject matter has also been the subject of debate on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition.
The whole substance of the entire question has been considered at great length. There has been an opportunity for members to vote upon it and they have voted upon the whole subject matter. Therefore I suggest it is not competent later on, by invoking the same citation 657, with some other formula of language, to have a third debate upon the same subject matter. If that should be the proper interpretation of citation 657 then those who have some ambitions to get home for Christmas had better give them up, because one could go on moving other variations of this formula and produce other debates all on the same subject matter.
I would distinguish in this way the cases which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cited in connection with the customs

debate to which he referred. Even on the face of his argument as he stated it this afternoon, he was talking about a case where there had been a motion for second reading, an amendment to take some other action, then a subamendment to the amendment which was debated and disposed of, and then another subamendment moved and held to be in order. But, Mr. Speaker, the nexus, if you like, that was the foundation for the declaration that the second subamendment was in order was the fact that it was moved in relation to an amendment which was still on the order paper; whereas in the present case what was by any reasonable test a motion of want of confidence in the government, the amendment of the leader of the opposition, has been fully disposed of. Once there has been a full and adequate discussion of that subject matter-as it happens, for the second time in this chamber -and members have had an opportunity to vote upon the amendment and the amendment is voted down, then I submit it is not competent to raise any further amendments dealing with the same substantial subject matter. If it were in order to do so, we could have a whole succession of amendments almost without limit.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to say a word. I have not taken part in the previous discussion because I felt that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was handling it exceedingly well. I want to deal with this matter in the reverse order to which the minister dealt with it. I should like to discuss first of all his argument regarding the moving of further amendments when others are disposed of. Let us look at the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. When one amendment is disposed of, another can be moved, and so on down the line. I do not think his argument has any effect. As to his other two arguments, first of all let me deal with his contention that the matter was discussed on a motion to go into supply. It is true that the matter was discussed on the motion to go into supply, but it was not disposed of; the sense of the house was not taken on it, and that had no bearing on any subsequent debate.
With regard to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I submit that it was substantially different from this. It did not seek the judgment of the house on the action of the government. All it did was ask the house to send this subject matter to a committee. This is the first time an amendment has been moved asking the house to express its judgment upon the
Combines Investigation Act action of the government with respect to the non-publication of the combines investigation report. This amendment is entirely different from anything we have had up to the present time. On every other count it is in order. I think that is generally admitted, as it has been admitted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) himself. I submit that it is in order on the other ground as well, that this is the first time a definite vote of censure on the government has been moved, and I believe the opinion, or judgment if you like, of the house should be taken upon it. I say to the government I think it would be far better to permit the house to express its judgment on this matter than to try to prevent that being done by raising points of order.


Mr. Speaker:: First let me say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that I feel not only the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but all those who have taken part in the discussion on the question of order, to use his own words, have discussed it exceedingly well.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with that.


Mr. Speaker:: As far as I am concerned in reference to all these questions of order, I have not come into the house with a closed mind. I have listened to the discussion and have made up my mind after hearing it, and I am grateful to hon. members for the assistance they have given.
A number of points have been raised during this discussion, and I do not know that I can go over them all. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said this was the first time the word "censure" had been mentioned in an amendment or motion. No doubt that is true, but when speaking yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) stated that the government accepted the previous amendment as a motion of censure, so it was then open to hon. members to discuss it as such.


Major James William Coldwell: Non-confidence.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel quite sure he also used the word "censure", but in any event it would have the same effect. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also read from May, thirteenth edition, at page 295, with respect to varying the character of a motion. It occurs to me that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition included at least part of the amendment now before the house. There is similarity as between the two amendments but, as I said before, there is also the inclusion in the former amendment of at least part of the present amendment.
A number of hon. members have suggested that this matter has not yet come before the

Speaker's Ruling
house, but that the amendment of the leader of the opposition suggested that it be referred to a committee. As I stated this morning, if a matter is referred to a committee that committee reports back to the house, so in any event it would be before the house.
The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to May, thirteenth edition, at page 390, which is referred to in Beauchesne, third edition, as citation 657. I will agree with the hon. member that this amendment, to the extent that it relates to the circumstances under which the bill has been introduced, is correct; but I think it goes further than that. The Minister of Justice has pointed out that the amendments referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Lake Centre, which were allowed, were in each case subamendments relating to amendments. They were related to an amendment then pending.
In view of all I have said I can perhaps sum it up by saying that the proposed amendment in part relates to circumstances attending the introduction of the bill. It would therefore appear to be admissible under citation 657 of Beauchesne. However, in part it also amounts to a motion of censure of the government on substantially the same basis as did a previous amendment moved during this debate, upon which the house has already reached a decision by a recorded vote. I would refer hon. members to citation 357 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads:
No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by its vote on a former amendment.
Since the proposed amendment is defective in part I must rule the amendment as a whole out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour will appreciate that I regret doing so, but I must appeal your decision.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
On the motion for second reading of Bill No. 144, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act, Mr. Knowles moved, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis, the following amendment:
That Bill No. 144 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the circumstances connected with the introduction and prosecution of this measure, namely, the action of the government in seeking amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, for the stated purpose of strengthening the enforcement thereof, at the very time when it has just been discovered that the Minister of Justice, with the approval of the government, has deliberately Violated section 27 of the said act, is an affront to parliament, and that further consideration of this bill should be deferred until this house, by this amendment, has censured the government for violating the said act by failing to make public until November 7, 1949, the report of the commissioner under the said act with respect to the flour milling

industry, which was submitted to the Minister of Justice in its final form on February 23, 1949, and which he was required by law to make public not later than March 10, 1949.
I ruled that the proposed amendment amounted to a motion of censure of the government on substantially the same basis as the previous amendment moved in this debate, upon which the house had already reached a decision by a recorded vote, and that though this proposed amendment was in part admissible it was out of order as a whole. From my ruling, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appealed.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, now we have again reached the debate on second reading of the bill. The matter has been discussed at full length upon the moving of many amendments. Everyone has said that he is anxious that action be taken. I, too, am anxious that action be taken. What I cannot understand is that those hon. members who, according to their language, seem to be most anxious to have the present situation remedied, have been precisely those who have put obstacles in the way.	v
Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Homuth:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not here to defend those who have been condemned by Mr. McGregor in his report. That is a thing of the past. Let us look to the future, so that the government may be able to take action against combines.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: When?


Jean-François Pouliot: Only after being empowered by the legislation before the house. The more this legislation is put aside by amendments and other obstructive methods, the later it will be that the government can take action against combines and bring before the courts those who have been guilty of any malpractice. That is a simple statement which can be understood by anyone, and which is already understood by the man in the street.
The day before yesterday I met some people who said, "We are facing a very grave situation now. What is wrong with the House of Commons? Why does not the government take action?" Yesterday afternoon I met the same people. They are average and good citizens, and they said, "You are taking your time in the house; why do you not take action and vote second reading of the bill?" When I went to lunch downtown today they said to me, "What is the matter with some members in the house who are creating obstruction all the time, when it is high time to vote second reading of the bill against combines?"
That is what the average man in the street says-and I am repeating it so that no hon. member will have any excuse for saying that we are ignoring it. We cannot ignore it, because it is true. I am not inventing anything; I am just repeating what is being said by many people in this city and throughout the country.
Either members in the opposition groups are satisfied with the bill before the house or they are not. If they are satisfied with it, then the only thing to do is to vote for second reading; if they are not satisfied the thing for them to do is also to vote for it, in order that the bill may be sent before the committee, on which occasion they may make practical, useful and constructive amendments, if they have any to suggest.
That being said, I shall add no more to it. I have said what I wanted to say, and have repeated what I thought the house should know. The only chance any faithful member of parliament has to do something or to accomplish something so as to proceed against combines is to vote second reading of this bill, and to listen to the calling of each section before the committee. I presume of

Combines Investigation Act course that they have read the bill and, having done so, they must have annotated it. Therefore they will have no excuse for depriving us of the benefit of their study, knowledge and practical spirit.
Just one further word in closing. Either Mr. McGregor was right or Mr. McGregor was wrong. He could not be right and wrong at the same time.


Mr. Hodgson:: Did you hear that on the street, too?


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. member to speak more distinctly; there is a lot of wisdom in what he says.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask hon. members not to interrupt.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, Mr. Speaker; but I appreciate it when I am interrupted provided I know what is being said. That is why I would be most grateful to the hon. member if he would repeat the same thing, but distinctly so that I could hear it.


Mr. Brooks:: He wanted to know if it was the man in the street talking.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to have it repeated so that with my limited knowledge of the English language I could understand it.
Hon. members who have spoken cannot at the same time be both for and against the bill. That is what happened when the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is otherwise well informed, said that he wanted the legislation to pass, but was at the same time obstructing its passage.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for Waterloo South was not here when it occurred, and what he has learned from hearsay is all wrong. This is most farcical and cannot be taken seriously. I hope the hon. gentlemen who have said that they are anxious to have legislation against combines will act with logic and vote for the second reading of this bill. If they want to compensate for the time lost in discussing amendments that were out of order they should let the bill pass on division and save some of the time that has been wasted.


Mr. H. O. While (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said during the past day or two with regard to procedure I am somewhat at a loss to know where I should start and where I should finish. It seems difficult to discuss the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act without referring occasionally to what has occurred in the past and trying to find a way to correct that in the future. The net result of some of the things disclosed yesterday by the minister is
[Mr. Pouliot.l
that every labourer or breadwinner in Canada has paid more for his bread than he should have over a long period of time. The minister referred to the flour milling companies and the squeeze that had occurred between the rise in the price of wheat and the setting of the ceiling price of flour. However, the milling companies were protected by subsidies and fixed floor prices and the result was that the only man being squeezed was the man who had to buy his daily bread.
Then it was said that the price of mill feeds was kept down. Mill feeds were scarce during that period and the farmers could not get them. Why? Because they were being exported at higher prices. That is why bacon, eggs, butter and milk were high in price or scarce, as in the case of butter. No wonder the people in the cities complained about the high cost of living. That is the reason, and that is why the workers in many industries went on strike for higher wages.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the second reading of this bill. While I support wholeheartedly the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to the action of the government, I am going to confine my remarks to the principle of the bill which I understand is the strengthening of the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act and to some related matters. The explanatory note reads:
The amendments provided' in this bill are designed to facilitate enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act, and of related Criminal Code provisions. They relate to court procedure concerning undue monopolistic trade restrictions and unlawful combinations in restraint of trade.
While we are supporting this bill to improve the enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act we are of the opinion that the act and the amending bill represent a Victorian and outmoded method of tackling a twentieth century problem. This attempt to improve the enforcement of this act will prove insufficient in the future. A careful examination of history in the United States and Canada will give some validity to my argument. We know the history of the development of monopolies in the United States and the efforts made by various United States administrations, commencing most noticeably with the administration of President Teddy Roosevelt, to control and restrain monopolies and to provide for fair practices in business.
The United States have possibly had more effective legislation in this regard than we have had in Canada, but a United States Senate committee report indicates that the tendency toward monopolistic practices has

increased greatly during and since the war. In view of the fact that a great number of these companies operate branch plants in Canada and have large investments in this country it is reasonable to suppose that the same state of affairs exists in this country.
Certain hon. members, particularly those of the Progressive Conservative group, have expressed a desire to return to the so-called free enterprise as it was known years ago. In my opinion that is a completely unrealistic approach to modern economic development. I give hon. members due credit for their sincerity, but the free enterprise that they envision is a thing of the past that has gone forever. Under our modern industrial and commercial civilization monopolistic development is inevitable and must be faced.
With the large amounts of capital required for the building up of industry, with the demand for natural resources, with the large number of employees employed and with the desire to establish assured markets, it is inevitable, and the course of events proves my contention, that monopolistic development has occurred in various fields, is occurring and will continue to occur.
We in the C.C.F. are concerned about monopolies, and in this we differ from our friends to the right. We realize that monopolies exist and are inevitable. We do not look backward to the return of so-called free enterprise and we face the situation from that point of view. We contend that monopolistic development under our present system of capitalism lacks social objectives. We admit that in many cases they produce efficiently, they prevent waste and things of that sort, but we submit that they must have social objectives.
They must come under the control of those who are responsible to the people rather than of those who are responsible to a board of directors and a group of shareholders. If that procedure is not effective, they must be brought under public ownership. Our objection to monopolistic development as it exists today is that on the whole it is based on the profit objective and usually lacks any form of social objective. We maintain that the first consideration in all economic development should be human needs rather than profits. We see the result of the profit objective in the development of our country. We have seen ghost towns created by the monopoly control of natural resources, the exploitation of timber and mines without any consideration for the future. We have seen monopoly control drive competitors out of business possibly by selling at a lower price for a temporary period. We say these
Combines Investigation Act practices are wrong and not in the interests of the Canadian economy or the Canadian people as a whole.
I am quite willing to admit, and my associates in this group admit, that monopolies are necessary in certain fields. They are necessary in the field of transportation. You could not have a dozen railroads operating across Canada. They are necessary in the field of communications. Even under private ownership, no one would suggest that we should have some ten or fifteen telephone companies operating within one province. They are necessary in hydroelectric development. They are necessary in the development of basic industries such as steel, and in the development of pipe lines and transmission companies of that type. It is admitted they produce efficiently in many cases. They prevent waste and overlapping and develop a certain sense of security for a particular group of people within the national community.
Our main objection towards monopolies and combines is that to date the motive has been largely a profit motive without a social objective. We in this group believe we cannot long allow a few people to have such wide powers in the development of our natural resources and the direction of our economic activities, responsible as they are only to boards of directors and shareholders. Therefore we advocate public ownership of monopolies where it is clearly to the advantage of the Canadian people. We advocate public ownership of certain monopolies where they will be controlled by people responsible to the people. I want to say that we do not claim there is any particular merit in socializing any portion of our economy just for the sake of socializing it. We do not believe in socialization for the sake of satisfying some doctrinaire point of view or doctrinaire conception. We simply say that public ownership should come into effect when it is obviously necessary and desirable, and is to the advantage of the Canadian people.
This is our approach to the question of monopolies and combines in Canada at the present time. We of the C.C.F. group, having in mind our natural resources and our ability to produce, believe that the Canadian people have a right to a secure and satisfactory standard of living. The C.C.F. group believe that every child born in Canada is entitled to the education that it is capable of absorbing, the education that it requires for the development of its talents and personality, to enable it to play the part it is capable of playing within the nation. We believe that the working people of Canada are entitled to secure and

Combines Investigation Act steady employment at wages which will produce a satisfactory standard of living, including a reasonable measure of comfort. We believe they are entitled to proper working conditions according to present-day standards.
We also believe that all those who are unable to earn their living because of ill health or sickness are entitled to be maintained on a proper standard of living with a reasonable degree of comfort at the expense of society where that is necessary. We further believe our older citizens are entitled to security with comfort in their declining years. Considering the natural resources of Canada and the capacity of the nation to produce, I do not think any fair-minded person would deny that these are reasonable and modest propositions in this day and age.
Therefore I say we approach the question of monopolies somewhat from this point of view. I may say that a monopoly means exclusive	possession	of certain	naturalresources,	exclusive	possession	of	certainprivileges,	exclusive	possession	of	certainmanufacturing processes, or exclusive possession of a market. We say that those in control must develop our natural resources according to conservation policies laid down by the government which will protect the present and future interests of the people of the country. Second, they must be willing to accept	fair labour practices,	sell their
products at prices that will be fair to consumers and to their competitors, and operate according to a code of business ethics established by law. In addition we say they must be willing to accept a rate of taxation that, over and above other taxes collected from the general public, will provide the Canadian people with at least the standard of living and security I have just outlined. If any monopoly in Canada is willing to operate under these terms and accept the social objectives laid down in this way, we see no particular purpose in bringing it under public ownership at this stage of our economic development. We also say that if any monopoly refuses to operate under these terms then that concern should be brought under public ownership.
I am sure if a reasonable proposal such as that was brought to the attention of the public, and the fact of the refusal of any monopolistic concern to operate according to that code was brought to the attention of the public, not only would we bring these concerns under public ownership with the support of those who adhere to our political and economic ideas, but also with the support of a large majority of the Canadian people. In my opinion we will have to go much further than the Combines

Investigation Act and develop a code of business ethics which will protect workers, consumers and competitors and will have over-all social objectives.
I wish to illustrate what I have said to the house by bringing to its attention the work of a monopoly with which I have had some experience, and in which I am particularly interested. It has developed within its sphere a code of business ethics and social objectives. It is a monopoly controlled by the many and replaced a monopoly controlled by the few. We have illustrations in our modern economic development of monopolies that are working to the public advantage. I can think of the Canadian wheat board, vegetable marketing boards, tree fruit boards, and other monopolies of that type. Before concluding I want to demonstrate the possibilities for the development of monopolies with social objectives controlled by the many in the interests of the many. For a few minutes I want to refer to Tree Fruits Limited in British Columbia, which has a monopoly of the sale of tree fruits throughout the interior of the province, in British Columbia generally, and for export.
What did we find under what some of my hon. friends would term ideal free enterprise conditions, when competition was running wild? Only a few years ago we found unfair practices as between growers, unfair practices by shippers and shipping houses, unfair practices by brokerage houses, and very unfair practices by certain wholesale houses on the prairies, as well as by all those who formed what was known at that time as the fruit selling combine in the western Canadian market. As a result of the operation of that unrestricted free enterprise and free competition, large producing interests, business interests and whole communities in the Okanagan and Kootenay valleys were facing ruin. Because of the lack of any business ethics or a business code, the will and advantage of the majority was defeated at every turn, and the situation became almost disastrous.
Then the producers and various interests in the industry got together and saw the unreasonableness of this unsatisfactory state of unrestricted competition and the unethical nature of the whole process. They took what I would term a positive approach; they said, "We must build up a code of business ethics in the tree fruit industry from the producer to the consumer if we are to have stability within the industry and sell our products to the best possible advantage of all concerned." So they went to the British Columbia legislature, and the first marketing act was passed, setting up the law upon which this

monopoly was based. It received the support of a majority of the growers, and has worked to the great advantage of all.
The tree fruit organization itself is a nonprofit association returning to its members all receipts from the sale of fruit, less costs of selling. Here is an interesting thing. Every charge that goes into the cost of a box of fruit as it goes from the producer to the consumer is open to examination by the public. The cost of production in the orchard, the cost of packing and packaging, the cost of transportation and the cost of selling; every detail of the operation of that monopoly, with its social objectives, is open to public review.
What has been the result of the adoption of monopoly control of the sale of tree fruits in the interior of British Columbia, supported by a majority of the people and conducted on the basis of co-operation with social objectives? We have immensely improved methods of distribution. Instead of five carloads of fruit going to a town which requires only one, distribution is scientific and proper throughout the prairies. We have improved the quality, the grades and the packing. We have improved the inspection. We have reduced to a minimum the rebates for damage in transit. Even at the present time we have managed to reduce the actual spread between the producer and the consumer. We have lower costs of production and lower costs of operation. We have reduced waste to a minimum. We have brought about fairer returns to the producer; more than that, by creating a monopoly in that one field based upon social objectives, with a code of business ethics, we have brought about stability in communities that were facing ruin; we have given security to hundreds of fruit growers, and have restored the level of prosperity in districts that were in a desperate situation a few years ago.
I take this somewhat different approach to this question from that taken by other hon. members to illustrate what I think must be the coming development if we are to satisfactorily deal with monopolies. That is, in addition to amending the Combines Investigation Act so the law may be enforced against unfair practices and things of that type, we must build up a body of positive law in this country under which no monopoly can exist unless it is willing to accept social objectives and work to the advantage of the Canadian people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Combines Investigation Act
On section 1-Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct prosecutions.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
minister the reason for this particular section, which reads:
The Attorney General of Canada may institute and conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under this act, or under section four hundred and ninety-eight or section four hundred and ninety-eight A of the Criminal Code, and for such purposes he may exercise all the powers and functions conferred by the Criminal Code on the attorney general of a province.
I should like to ascertain the reason for this amendment, and also to ask the minister whether or not the amendments contained in this bill are the final amendments that it is anticipated will be brought forward. Perhaps, since this is the first section, some general discussion may be allowed, since I want to make reference to a number of matters.
First I should like to know what were the circumstances that made this section necessary. In 1946, when this act was last before the house, I moved two amendments, both of which were accepted by the then Minister of Justice, now the Prime Minister, which had the effect of placing in the hands of the individual in this country the right to take proceedings under the combines act. As the situation is today any person in this country may take such proceedings when and if he desires to do so. I mention that when dealing with this section in order to ascertain from the minister whether or not, when this power is placed in his hands, there will ever again be in Canada, a repetition of what took place in connection with the flour milling report. When I spoke on this subject I pointed out certain facts.
If this report had been published, as it should have been published, then any person in the country would have been able to take proceedings. The fact that it was kept from us, however, puts the attorney general of Canada in this position, that the suppression of that report was a denial of the operation of the statute. It took from every Canadian in this country who would have cared to take proceedings the right to do so. It had the result, and it is a serious result, of outlawing any action that might be taken against the flour milling companies.
We are called upon now to add additional powers to those of the attorney general of Canada. The attorney general did not use the powers he could have used against the flour milling companies. He has given various reasons for that, to which I intend to make reference later. When the attorney general asks for additional powers, the committee has a right to ascertain why it was that the powers he had were not exercised according

Combines Investigation Act to law. In so far as the failure to give publicity to that report is concerned, it amounted to the connivance and assistance of the attorney general of Canada in preventing or circumventing the operations of the combines act.
That is a serious situation, sir, for it is the same attorney general who now asks power to allow him to institute and conduct any prosecution, and to exercise all the powers and functions conferred by the Criminal Code upon the attorney general of any province. By hiding that report, the attorney general became a party to placing certain individuals in this country above the law. I cannot express, sir, the degree of my alarm that in 1949 the attorney general of this dominion should operate as he did in this case. Will the combines act be enforced with no greater zeal by the attorney general, when he gets the powers requested in this section, than it has been during the last year? I have known the attorney general for a long time, and so far as he personally is concerned I have a high admiration for him. That the attorney general of Canada, the representative of the king's conscience, should have allowed himself to act as a pawn in the hands of powerful ministers in the cabinet, it is difficult to understand.
I asked him, when replying the other day, to tell me where in British history such a course had ever been followed before, that an attorney general had failed to carry out the mandatory provisions of a statute. There has been no answer to that. I asked him whether the result of keeping this report concealed had not been, in fact, to defeat the powers of the Combines Investigation Act? It was held up so long that it denied any person in this country the right to take proceedings. Will this section improve that situation, sir? I do not hold him personally responsible. He explained it. He was new. He came in among the great, sir. Never before in Canadian history did any minister of the crown ever reveal what took place in cabinet council, unless he was about to resign. He raised the blind just a little and gave us a glance.
The minister indicated that, while gallantly accepting the responsibility himself, the reason he did what he did was at the instigation of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). That minister held the trumps in that cabinet. Will the attorney general say that, if he gets this power, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will not push him around again? Why did they not publish it? There has been no denial

by the minister, and these facts are underlined by his speech, that the government broke the law. The minister says there are reasons why the law was broken. One of those reasons was that publicity would have been given, that publicity would have done harm and, in any event, certain arrangements were made during the days of the war.
Next, I asked him to answer this: When since 1763 did any minister in Canada or Great Britain ever interfere, in so far as a statute was concerned, in order to place any subject above the law? This strikes at the purpose behind this section.
I am going to deal now, sir, with the excuses that have been offered, and several excuses have been offered for the failure to act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think ihis is all very interesting, but I submit that in committee my hon. friend is required by the rules of the house to confine his remarks to the section which is under consideration, which in this case is section 1.


The Chairman:: Section 1 refers to the power to institute and conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under the act, but not to the publishing of a report.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall bow to your ruling sir. I do say to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who has raised this question, that, in my experience in this house, in committee a general discussion of the whole situation is allowed on section 1. What has the minister to fear by discussion? Why the fear? For the first time, too, today one who was interested in the motions raised the points of order, namely, the minister himself. I have never before heard a member of the bar, interested in rulings about to be made before a judge, himself advancing the arguments on his behalf. You can rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman; you can say that I cannot discuss these things. But when you make that ruling you make a ruling that denies the rulings of Deputy Speakers throughout the last ten years and made when we were in committee. I must bow to it.
The man who made discussion impossible, and denied freedom of speech on this matter, is the Minister of Justice. I cannot understand that attitude. To use Mr. Mackenzie King's expression, the antiseptic of publicity is going to be denied in this as it was denied me today by the Speaker on a technicality. I bow to that ruling. I say this. Under that section we place in the hands of

the attorney general even wider powers than he has today. I have no right to discuss how these powers are to be used. I have no right to ask the minister, sir, whether, if he receives these powers, he is going to allow the powerful within the cabinet to prevent him from exercising them.
This is one of the most serious debates that have ever come before any parliament. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that on reconsideration the Minister of Justice will not deny full and complete discussion on this subject, because we have not the answers yet as to what took place. I believe, sir, that if ever there was a matter that should be discussed, if the purpose of these amendments is to put teeth in the law, this is it. Teeth in the law are no good if the cabinet behind closed doors denies the operation of the powers that it already has in the Combines Investigation Act.
I will put it this way, in order to keep within your ruling, sir. If the attorney general is given these extra powers, will he give assurance to the house that never again will he as attorney general deliberately, to use the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, break the law and thereby protect those who were named as law breakers by the highest official of all under the Combines Investigation Act? I have never once suggested their guilt, sir; I would not do that.
Will the Minister of Justice assure the house, as he has not done yet-he showed little regard for the seriousness of what has happened-that in the future when reports are delivered to him, whether he regards them as incomplete or not, as long as the law is on the statute books it will be carried into effect? I was one of those, sir, who believed that it should have been modified. I raised the question in 1948. The then Attorney General of Canada pointed out that it was necessary in order to arouse public opinion. I said: "Well, possibly it might result in injustices." The answer of the then Minister of Justice was: "It is in the same position as the evidence on a preliminary inquiry, but above all it is necessary to publish in order to ensure publicity."
Will he give the assurance-and I am sure he will now after his experience of the last few days-that that section, or any other section of the law under the Combines Investigation Act, will never be circumvented by him again? It is not a difficult thing to answer. It is a very simple question. I ask him this also: Is it not correct that having held that report as long as he did, the result is that no action can be taken today against any of the milling companies? This matter, sir, all enters into the equation as to whether extra
Combines Investigation Act powers should be given. For extra powers given to the attorney general, and used as they were since January last, will be window dressing on the statute books of this country. The section reads:
The Attorney General of Canada may institute andi conduct any prosecution or other proceedings under this act . , . and for such purposes he may exercise all the powers and functions conferred by the Criminal Code on the attorney general of a province.
Even if that section had been on the statute books during the last year it would have been a mere scrap of paper. If all these powers he now asks for under section 1 (2) had been granted to him, will he say that anybody would have been prosecuted who has not been? Will he say that any prosecution would have taken place as against those named in the flour milling report? As far as that section is concerned it is a meaningless one, having regard to the amendments that were passed in this house in 1946, under which any person in Canada, whether the attorney general or anyone else, had the right to take proceedings.
Those are a few of the questions that I now bring to the attention of the minister. They are questions which are in the minds of the people of Canada today. You can pass laws; you can make amendments to the law; but if the unwillingness to enforce the law is as strong as that evidenced by the attorney general, directed as he apparently was by the Minister of Trade and Commerce since January last, any amendments are mere sham, mere window dressing, mere words.
One alarming fact that emerges from this debate is that the minister has given no indication that in the days ahead he intends to follow any other course than that which has been pursued in the last year. I am not saying that if these powers were secured consideration should not be given to what took place during days of war. But, sir, in that report there were offences disclosed before the war, before the wartime prices and trade board was set up, and after. I have the pages; they have been referred to on a number of occasions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does the hon. member mean September 15, 1947?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, well-


John George Diefenbaker: At the ending of the wartime prices and trade board regulations. Even if the government did not wish to prosecute for what took place during the war, they could have used the events during those days of war to keep the entire action within the period of limitations within which action

Combines Investigation Act could have been commenced. The chain was broken. The Prime Minister himself said the other day that where a number of offences take place over the years, if they are continuing offences, the two years runs from the last offence.
Was the Combines Investigation Act not in force during the days of war? Who gave anyone authority in those days to say that the act would not be in effect? Certainly Mr. Gordon never had that power, and the attorney general at that time did not have it. The only institution that had power to say that the Combines Investigation Act was suspended during wartime would be parliament -or the executive, under the terms of the wartime prices and trade board orders in council passed under that act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right; and that in effect is what was done.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not done.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh yes, it was.


John George Diefenbaker: That is just what was not done. The wartime prices and trade board was set up; but in no particular was there anything suspending by order in council the operations of the act during the period of war.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of which act?


John George Diefenbaker: The Combines Investigation Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh no-


John George Diefenbaker: No-and that is exactly the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not need an order in council; they just do it.


John George Diefenbaker: The point I am making is this, that during days of war the attorney general and the government could not suspend the operations of the Combines Investigation Act without the consent of parliament, or otherwise under the prerogative rights of the king to pass legislation within the provision of the war emergency act.
Surely, sir, parliament has a right to know this: Will a statute of this country, the Combines Investigation Act, ever again be suspended by the simple word or desire of anyone in this country, without the consent of parliament? For if it was done at one time it will be done again, unless the minister-so long as he is the minister-will give that assurance. I say parliament is entitled to that assurance.
I shall say no more at this time, except this: What has been done by the attorney general is in contravention of our constitution. Will such contraventions continue? Is there any way today whereby, if reports are received

from the commissioner, parliament will ever know it? Parliament relies upon the government to carry out the law. When the attorney general gets these extra powers will there be greater care in prosecutions than there was in the dental combines case? So far as that case was concerned,, there was no case because the prosecution did not prove the material facts.
Will this section strengthen the Combines Investigation Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not this section; section 3 will do that.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot discuss that yet.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: But not this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not particularly, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Not particularly?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I can set my hon. friend's mind at rest. He is asking a good many questions on this section, the purpose of which is quite simple. It is to give the Attorney General of Canada the formal as well as the present de facto right he has to conduct these prosecutions. But it does not really add any powers to those which the attorney general now exercises.


John George Diefenbaker: I see.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe that covers the point.


John George Diefenbaker: Then that comes back to what I said the other day, that it is a most unimportant section; and that when we begin to analyse the changes asked for in the bill we find that they are, as I described them, unimportant. However, I shall deal with section 3 when we come to it.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not wish to interrupt if my hon. friend wishes to speak. However, I have been asked a good many questions, and I am afraid I shall forget some of them.


Major James William Coldwell: All right, proceed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Lake Centre raised a number of points to which replies should be given.


George Alexander Drew: May I interrupt the minister in respect to one answer he has given, so that in his following answers he may bear it in mind. The minister has said that the passing of section 1 does not add to the actual authority the attorney general now has to proceed. Is that what I understood?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I said-


George Alexander Drew: The de facto right?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said the real purpose of this amendment is to give to the attorney general

the formal right to conduct these prosecutions, as well as the de facto right he has at the present time. I shall deal with that later in greater detail; but what I meant by saying that it does not add to his rights is that it merely formalizes the de facto rights the attorney general has been exercising through the years. I think any lawyer would appreciate the point. There is actually no increase in power. It just formalizes his status in the courts of the provinces.


George Alexander Drew: But I would point out to the minister that it does increase his power in respect of the Criminal Code, because at the present time only the attorneys general of the provinces can present indictments under the Criminal Code.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right, yes.


George Alexander Drew: This empowers the Attorney General of Canada to take proceedings which are now entirely in the hands of the attorneys general of the provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right. But I still say that these de facto rights to which my hon. friend has referred are in respect of prosecutions conducted by the Attorney General of Canada in the provinces in the name, and by courtesy of, the attorneys general of the provinces. But my point is that after the passage of section 1 the conduct of these prosecutions in the provincial courts, while it will not have to be taken in the names of the provincial attorneys general, will not be carried on with any greater actual powers of prosecution that those which the Attorney General of Canada now exercises.
Perhaps it would not be amiss if I were to deal with this particular point a little more fully right now. It has been the practice for some years when an investigation by the commissioner of the combines act results in the finding that a combine exists to follow the procedure outlined in section 31 of the act, which reads:
(1)	Whenever in the opinion of the commissioner an offence has been committed against any of the provisions of this act, the commissioner may remit to the attorney general of any province within which such alleged offence was committed, for such action as such attorney general may be pleased to institute because of the conditions appearing, any records, returns, evidence or report relevant to such alleged offence.
(2)	The Minister of Justice may instruct counsel to attend on behalf of the minister at all proceedings consequent on any information being laid for an offence under this act.
That is to say, the attorney general of the province may lay an information if he wishes to do so and we have the power to instruct counsel. The first proceedings in the tobacco case were carried on by the provincial attorney general, but they resulted in a stay
Combines Investigation Act of proceedings. About a year later further proceedings were again instituted by the provincial attorney general but the Attorney General of Canada instructed counsel to appear.
When a report comes in from the combines act commissioner the practice has been to send a copy to each of the provincial attorneys general in order to give them an opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to take action. In the majority of cases they do not desire to do so, and this for a number of reasons. The report has not been prepared by their own provincial civil servants. If they step into the matter they will be undertaking to prove something that the federal combines investigation commission has created, that is, a report on a particular industry. Their position in that regard is not ordinarily as comfortable as our position would be in prosecuting upon a report made by our own combines investigation department. What ordinarily happens is that after a bit they reply politely to the effect that they do not wish to proceed, and then we launch proceedings.
Where we start proceedings because the provincial attorney general prefers that we take that responsibility,, we conduct the prosecution, we pay the costs, but the proceedings are taken with the consent and in the name of the attorney general of the province in which the trial is to be held. The proposed amendment would dispense with the formality of asking the provincial attorney general whether he would consent to this course.
In the case of the two reports which have figured largely in the discussion during recent days, the flour and bakery reports, transactions of an interprovincial nature right across the country are covered. In a case of that kind it would be extremely awkward to say the least for a provincial attorney general to carry on a prosecution involving interprovincial matters. Every time a separate facet of the case was found to belong in some other province he would have to get another provincial attorney general involved and build up co-ordination with the other provincial attorney general or attorneys general in conducting the case. All that this amendment will do will be to give the Attorney General of Canada status by which he can commence action. It does not affect in any way the status of a provincial attorney general to commence action if he chooses so to do. As I said at the beginning, this amendment would formalize our present de facto powers of prosecution.

Combines Investigation Act
I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre when he says that this is a relatively unimportant section of the bill. It is not nearly as important as section 2 or as section 3, which is the most important. While I am on my feet perhaps I should deal with some of the questions which the hon. member for Lake Centre asked in a new form of crossexamination. He put his questions in groups and if I overlook some of them I hope he will remind me.
He wanted to know who gave anyone the authority to say that the Combines Investigation Act was not in effect during wartime. I think the simple answer to that is: "No one." If he thinks that that answer is unresponsive and not sufficiently revealing I should like to refer him to the letter from Mr. Anger, the legal adviser of the wartime prices and trade board, to Mr. McGregor, to which I referred previously. This letter will be found on page 2079 of Hansard. In referring to wartime prices and trade regulations passed by order in council under the War Measures Act, a statute properly passed by this government, Mr. Anger says:
The regulations have always provided that contravention or failure to observe any regulation or any order is an offence.
It is an offence to contravene or disobey any order of the wartime prices and trade board. Then he goes on:
From the foregoing it is seen that it is not only a formal order of the board or of an administrator that must be obeyed, but also any general or specific requirement or instruction of an administrator. It being clear that failure to comply with an order as defined is an offence, it is equally clear that obedience of such an order would be a good defence to any possible action brought under the Combines Investigation Act or the Criminal Code, if there were, in fact, any conflict between such statutes and an order. As has been stated before, however, our legal department and the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act concur in the view that there can be no such conflict, because orders are in the public interest and there is no liability under the above statute except in respect of acts which are against the public interest or to the detriment of the public, which is the same thing.
Perhaps the hon. member for Lake Centre suspects that Mr. Gordon or Mr. Taylor gave assurances of privilege or assurances that the Combines Investigation Act would not be enforced against John Doe Company Limited, but it was rather a matter of the officials of the wartime prices and trade board calling the attention of the John Doe Company Limited to the fact or the law, if you like to look at it as such, that if they comply with the order of the wartime prices and trade board then ipso facto they will not be prosecuted under the Combines Investigation Act. That is not an assurance of privilege or exemption given by an individual. That is a statement by an individual, either Mr. Anger, the legal adviser, Mr. McGregor, the enforcement officer, Mr. Gordon, the wartime chairman, or Mr. Taylor, the present chairman, of what the law is. The law would be the same whether they stated it or not. That being the law, if the John Doe Company carries out the provisions of the wartime prices and trade board order, then by virtue of that fact it cannot in doing so be a member of a combine detrimental to the public, and it cannot be prosecuted under the Combines Investigation Act.


John George Diefenbaker: If that be so, then why did you not publish the report? It would have done no harm because they were not liable anyhow.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will tell you the reason why we did not publish the report. When it came in I read it and I was much impressed with it. I thought it disclosed an offence, but I had no knowledge of this other background, nor did any of the other people who read the report and who had not had communication with the officials of the wartime prices and trade board. The whole basis for any action on my part in the matter has been that I did not want to jettison the report until I had been absolutely assured by the proper authorities that the actions which were recorded in the report as being on offence under the Combines Investigation Act were not those which were a mere compliance with the wartime prices and trade board regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: What do you mean by "jettison"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Suppose when this report first came in we had followed the course my hon. friend recommended about two minutes ago. Suppose we had said: These things are all covered by the wartime prices and trade board so we will just not bother with the report at all. That would be jettisoning it because to all intents and purposes we would do nothing under it. I was not prepared to do that until the officials of my department and I had gone into the matter and we had satisfied ourselves, and I had been satisfied beyond any peradventure of doubt, that what had been done was really in accord with the wartime prices and trade board orders. It is not a case of any person like Mr. Gordon, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Anger or anybody else giving assurance of any protection. It is simply that the law applicable to the facts of the case does not disclose an offence.


John George Diefenbaker: Do you believe that is the law?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I not only believe it is the law; I know it is the law.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you not put it
before a court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know it is the law for the reason that it is stated in ruling after ruling which we have turned up on these files, and I have read some of them into the record. If my hon. friend is not informed in the matter he can become informed by no more complicated device than just reading Hansard. If he has any doubt after reading Hansard he can go back to the records of the wartime prices and trade board and be further convinced.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not find Hansard so informing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The question has been asked who gave anyone authority to say that the Combines Investigation Act was not in effect? The answer is nobody; nobody made any such statement. All that they have said was that if the companies and the citizens affected by wartime prices and trade board orders complied with what those orders said, and if they did any act which furthered the substance of those orders, then by the law of this parliament, the wartime prices and trade board act and the orders in council passed thereunder, what they did was not' an offence under the Combines Investigation Act.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no wartime prices and trade board act passed by parliament.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite right. The wartime prices and trade board regulations were passed under another statute. It was the War Measures Act, a statute of this parliament.
The next point is that the hon. member said that the action of the government had taken away the right of citizens to launch proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act. I say that whatever effects may have flowed from any action we took in the matter-


John George Diefenbaker: Or did not take.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Any action that we took or any omission-


Stanley Howard Knowles: By deliberate decision.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If you mean the decision not to prosecute, that was deliberate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I mean the decision not to publish the report.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I do not admit that at all. I think that is a most ungenerous interpretation of the facts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it not a deliberate decision not to publish the report until November 7? Was it an accidental decision?
Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I submit I am really breaking my own principle here because I have raised the point of order that these discussions are out of order on the sections of the bill. I do not want to evade forthright questions like that, and I will answer these two upon the understanding I will not answer any more that are out of order. So far as the report is concerned our position is this. The manuscript copy which was delivered to my office in my absence on December 29, 1948, is not the report which was tabled in this house. In any event, on the facts it was a physical impossibility for anyone to comply with the section of the act. I would be prepared to go into any court, and on the facts stated there stand trial on the question whether there was an offence under the act, and be quite confident there would be an acquittal. The manuscript copy was not the report tabled in this house. The final report was tabled after five separate amendments had been made in the manuscript report, and there were further negotiations which could just as easily as not have led to other amendments because the facts I laid before the house indicated that Mr. Taylor had gone to Mr. McGregor and Mr. McGregor considered the matter further, not for a few hours but for two or three days, I believe. I have forgotten exactly-


John George Diefenbaker: How many hours of consideration were given to it in seven months?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just a minute.


John George Diefenbaker: All right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad to answer questions but not in the middle of a sentence.


John George Diefenbaker: No, that is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as the report is concerned which was finally tabled in the house, I did not receive it from Mr. McGregor as a final report concerning which I was sure that no more amendments would be offered until well within fifteen days prior to the time it was tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a most specious argument.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What my hon. friends are talking about is a technical offence under section 27(5) of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A most important section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the technical offence with which they are trying to charge me, and I say there is no offence so far as we are concerned. Our offence is with regard to a matter of propriety, with regard to the length of time that it took during the interval to try to arrive at some unity of opinion amongst these-

Combines Investigation Act


Some hon. Members:: The cabinet.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not the cabinet; not by any means. This would have been a very simple matter as far as the cabinet was concerned if they could have laid before them a set of facts upon which the executive officers would agree; but one group said, "Here are the facts," and another group said, "Those are not the facts at all."


John George Diefenbaker: Did Mr. Howe threaten to resign if you published the report?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John George Diefenbaker: It is true; the papers said so.


Mr. McCann:: Do you believe all you see in the papers? It is not true, and you know it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: By that last question the hon. member for Lake Centre is trying to trap me into a disclosure of the very type he was accusing me a few moments ago of making, in relation to cabinet secrecy. Well, on that point let me say that I have disclosed no cabinet secrets at all in this matter; that I am well aware of the very strong oath I took concerning cabinet secrecy, and that I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to observe it.
The facts are these. When the various amendments we are now considering came from the combines investigation officials they had to be considered by cabinet before they could be put into a bill as representing government policy, so I took the amendments to cabinet for that purpose. There would be no other way of getting their agreement. While those amendments were before cabinet, as so very often happens in a matter of this kind, various members of the cabinet had ideas of their own about how the act might be amended. These were suggested to me, but I preferred not to discuss them until I had been briefed by my officials. So I went back to what was really my combines deputy, since at all times there has been direct contact between the combines investigation commissioner and myself. My chief deputy is of course the deputy minister of justice. The penitentiaries commissioner in a sense is another deputy; the mounted police commissioner is another; and the combines investigation is another. I have direct contacts with all of these officials.
Following the practice which I think has been universally regarded through the years as not constituting any breach of cabinet secrecy, since otherwise government business could not be carried on, I disclosed to my deputy the points that had been raised in cabinet. There was no other way by which
[Mr. Garson.J	j' )
I could get from him the memoranda I had to have in order to intelligently deal with the matter in cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not even attempt to answer that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the month of June?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It would be some time after the first draft of these amendments, which came to us on April 7, 1949. We considered ten different drafts, and I certainly could not make any pretence of saying in reference to which of those drafts, some of which were before June and some after, these other suggestions were made. I am rather inclined to think they were made after June, but I would not be sure. At any rate, when I got them I took them back to Mr. McGregor. He considered them and gave me a memorandum which I took back to cabinet; and that memorandum was so convincing that we did not go further with those suggestions.
In his letter of resignation to me Mr. McGregor felt that the only way he could clear up the position between himself and myself, as a justification for the resignation, was by referring to some of those suggestions which had been made in cabinet and communicated by me to him in confidence. He made that reference, and when I received the letter I said, "Look here, this puts me in a very bad position. If these things are published it will look like a breach of my oath of cabinet secrecy". As I have already indicated in previous statements, he replied, "My letter of resignation to you is privileged. You do not have to produce it anyway, so it is quite all right for me to make this disclosure in that letter". I said, "That may be all right; you may think it is privileged, but this government could never dream of claiming privilege in respect of a document of this kind". As a result this is a case where, through no fault of any person concerned, there will have been some leakage of cabinet secrets. My hon. friend, who is so glibly accusing me of breaking cabinet secrecy-


John George Diefenbaker: I never accused you; I just said you lifted the curtain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You did it very skilfully, but that is the impression that would be given. The point is that no reference to any cabinet secrets has passed my lips in any of these debates, except that which arose out of Mr. McGregor's letter of resignation on the one hand, or from the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in regard to his position, which he had a right to make, on the other.

Now the hon. member wants an assurance from me that I will not repeat the offence he alleges against me. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thought my hon. friend had greater respect for my intelligence than to ask for an assurance of that kind. If he stops to reflect for a moment on the difficulties that he must know I have had to face in connection with this matter, he will feel quite sure that upon the lowest possible basis of self-preservation he need have no fear for the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was just going to say that; my hon. friend took the words out of my mouth. That is a trick question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If I say I will not do it in the future-


John George Diefenbaker: But you did it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -my hon. friend wants me to admit by implication that I did it in this instance. I say I certainly will not do it in future, but I say that without any admission with respect to having done it in this instance.
Then the hon. gentleman said we had taken away the right of the individual to lay a charge under the act. Whatever other results may have flowed from our action or omission in this instance, the result he charges in that regard has not flowed. The right of any person to take proceedings under this act is no greater and no less than it was before we announced our position in the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: And the period of limitation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I shall deal with that, too. My hon. friend would not have to ask me these questions if he were a little more diligent himself. He is a distinguished lawyer and can read the law as well as anyone can. If he would take the trouble to read it he would not have to ask these questions. The two cases he is talking about-I am speaking now from memory but I think this is substantially correct-are Rex v. Canadian Import Company Ltd. and Rex v. Elliott. I would not be too sure about the second citation, but in those cases there was a continuous course of conduct which came up within the two-year period. When the point was raised in this case as to whether they were barred by the two years' limitation the court said, "Well, we do not have to decide that point because the facts make it unnecessary for us to do so."


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister mentioned the coal case upon which he was engaged.
Combines Investigation Act
M-r. Garson:	That is the Canadian
Import case. I do not think there is any point, therefore, in what my hon, friend
says.
In any event, it seems to me that the real substance of the matter is this: that as of September 15, 1947, the alleged offence upon which my friend is relying to give his argument any validity at all is no offence at all. The plain statement of Mr. Taylor, who was the one official who took all the proceedings in connection with it, and whose evidence cannot be contradicted by anyone else because he was the only man who took the proceedings, establishes this beyond doubt. Mr. Taylor said in the clearest possible terms that he directed what was to be done, and the concerns followed exactly what he told them to do.


John George Diefenbaker: But the commissioner did not accept that.


Angus MacInnis: Why did the milling companies not bring Mr. Taylor as a witness?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The proceedings taken by the combines investigation commissioner are of a quasi judicial character, they are investigation proceedings rather than judicial proceedings. It is as a result of the investigation conducted by the commissioner that the criminal prosecution in the courts is taken; and you may be sure-as attorney general I was afraid of this all along- that if there had been any prosecution, Mr. Taylor would have been subpoenaed as a witness, as would all the other people with whom those concerns have dealt. They would have been called to the box and asked, did you tell me so-and-so at such-and-such a time as to what the law was? Did you not write to me to this effect, and so on?


Angus MacInnis: Did they write? That is what I want to know.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as Mr. Gordon and Mr. Taylor are concerned, we have so far been unable to find in the flies of the wartime prices and trade board any written authority from them. But remember that neither of those gentlemen acted as the flour administrator, though for a while Mr. Taylor was the food administrator. The milling companies would not need to have anything in writing from these two men because all the companies needed to do was to prove that there was substantial compliance on their part with the requirements of the wartime prices and trade board orders.


Major James William Coldwell: Knowing that this report was to be made public and that, at least, it would cast some reflection on them, would you not
2148	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act have thought if they had any evidence whatever or any witnesses to show that there was an understanding they would have produced either the documents or the witnesses?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall try to answer that question as fairly as I know how. My answer will not be worth a great deal because I have never acted as defence counsel in combines act prosecutions. Lawyers who are accustomed to acting for the defence in these different types of prosecutions build up a certain technique. My hon. friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) can tell you about it. This reply is just that of an uninformed person, but I would imagine probably the best technique in a combines investigation might be to sit tight and not make any moves at all, but reserving those for the trial. Otherwise, one would give one's .ase away to some extent.
Mr. Cold well: If they thought they were going to be prosecuted, they must have felt that they were doing wrong.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, they would not have thought they were going to be prosecuted. Let my hon. friend put himself in the position of any one of those people. Suppose you were under investigation and as the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said the other day, they rolled up with a truck and started unloading the files from your office, would you not draw into yourself a bit and be rather cautious and careful about your next move, regardless of whether you felt guilty?


Major James William Coldwell: I have nothing I need be ashamed of.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe that completes the questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a matter of privilege; during an interchange a few minutes ago the Minister of Justice more or less accused me of making an ungenerous interpretation

of the law. May I say to him what I had in mind was the case to which he has just referred, namely the Canadian Import case. I had in mind precisely the comment he has made with respect to that case. The Prime Minister said the same thing the other night, that the series of facts upon which they relied had commenced more than two years before the prosecution and-please note -had continued right up to the time of the prosecution. It was the continuing of the acts that made these people liable. My contention is that, even after the fifteen days had gone by, it was the continuing refusal, the continuing and repeated decision on the part of the minister and the government, not to publish the report which makes what has been done an offence against the law.
Progress reported.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halion) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: At eleven o'clock tomorrow we shall continue with this Bill No. 144, the Combines Investigation Act. If we get through before one o'clock, we shall take up the two small bills I have mentioned many times, Nos. 64 and 65, the justice bills. At three o'clock in the afternoon, we shall take up the national defence estimates, and if we complete those estimates we shall take up the estimates of the secretary of state.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 24, 1949