1952-06-11

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Cleaver.
Fifth report of standing committee on external affairs.-Mr. Bradette.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) presented the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


PETAWAWA CAMP


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	Since January 1, 1950, have any non-military architects, engineers, or surveyors been engaged on any work at Petawawa military camp or the camp to the north marked X?
2.	If so, for what work were they engaged?
3.	What were the names of the individuals or firms so engaged?
4.	What fees did they receive in each case?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Yes.
2	and 3.
A.	Beauchemin and Hurter, Montreal.
Field Work-Survey Site Planning
1.	Control and contour surveying of existing camp and areas for new construction.
2.	Preparation of site plan for new construction.
3.	Preparation of record drawings of existing camp.
4.	Report on water sewer and storm drainage in existing camp.
5.	Report on roads and existing camp.
Design Work-Existing Construction
1.	Sewage interceptors to tie into proposed sewage system.
2.	Storm drainage.
3.	Roads where survey showed improvements required.
4.	Recommendations on siting for new construction.
55704-197^
5.	Water supply system, storage and distribution, including grids for new construction.
6.	Sewage collection system and disposal plant for new construction.
7.	Drainage system for new construction.
8.	Roads and curbs for new construction.
9.	Electrical power distribution system, excluding main substation for new construction.
B.	Pennock Engineering, Ottawa.
General supervision, excluding the provision of on-site inspectors for the constructing of the central heating plant at Petawawa as required by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
4.	Beauchemin and Hurter-Value of contract $244,500.00; Paid to date (May 26, 1952) $132,273.93.
Pennock Engineering-Value of contract $3,000.00; Paid to date (May 26, 1952) $750.00.



OKEMASIS AND BEARDY INDIAN RESERVES


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	When does the crop-share lease, issued in favour of Messrs. R. K. Lehman and W. A. Tucker, covering 320 acres of land in the Okemasis and Beardy Indian reserves, terminate?
2.	What share of the crop does the department receive?
3.	What quantity of grain was harvested on this land from the 1951 crop?
4.	What quantity of grain has been turned over to the department to date?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Brtjice):: 1.	December 31, 1957.
2.	One-quarter share annually.
3.	3996 bushels of wheat and 424 bushels of oats.
4.	874 bushels of wheat has been turned over and sold. The balance of the wheat and the oats are in storage and will be sold when space is available.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	At what time were tanks first assigned to the 25th brigade in Korea? What tanks were these?
2.	At that time, had any tank been decided on by the Canadian defence department as the tank which should be used for the purpose of infantry support? If so, what name and type of tank?
3.	If not, has any decision subsequently been reached on this point which can be stated, and, if so, what is the decision as to type and name of tank?

Questions
4.	At the time of the decision in part 2 or 3 as the case may be, were any of the tanks in question in possession of the Canadian army? If so, how many? If not, when were orders first placed accordingly, and for how many tanks?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	The armoured squadron with the 25th *Canadian infantry brigade was originally equipped with M10 17 pdr. self-propelled antitank guns which are mounted on the chassis of Sherman tanks. Shortly after its arrival in Korea it was decided to re-equip the armoured squadron with M4A3E8 Sherman *tanks which in effect meant substituting the 105 mm for the 17 pdr. gun. This was done in May 1951.
2.	Yes. The American medium tank M46.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No. M46 tanks were in the possession of the Canadian army at that time. On December 14, 1950, orders were placed through the
Department of Defence Production for 140 tanks.



EXCISE TAX ON CIGARETTES, CIGARS AND TOBACCO

Mr. Coyle:: 1.	What amount was collected in excise tax on (a) cigarettes: (b) cigars and (c) tobacco, during the years 1949, 1950 and 1951?
2.	What amount was collected in excise tax on (a) cigarettes; (b) cigars and (c) tobacco, during each of the months between June, 1951, and May, 1952, inclusive?


Mr. McCann:: 1. (a) 1949-50, $69,410,060;	1950-51, $70,-
787,903; 1951-52, $80,273,561.
(b)	1949-50, $2,752,233; 1950-51, $2,745,033; 1951-52, $2,582,963.
(c)	1949-50, $11,226,374; 1950-51, $11,562,945; 1951-52, $23,288,417.
		(a) Cigarettes	(b) Cigars	(c) Tobacco
				Manufactured and
				Canadian raw leaf
June	1951	
$6,506,640.12	$160,267.06	$ 998,560.69July	ft	
6,467,351.12	242,862.28	2,785,884.39Aug.	It	
6,923,040.58	234,782.77	2,593,014.66Sept.	it	
9,321,600.03	240,261.38	2.623,922.12Oct.	it	
6,236,274.42	182,321.43	1,841,973.10Nov.	it	
6,464,520.37	146,846.77	1,989,519.74Dec.	it	
9,966,424.70	388,469.25	2,413,021.86Jan.	1952	
6,192,051.96	284,486.45	2,211,411.63Feb.	it	
6,766,030.60	360,216.06	2,122,960.60Mar.	it	
9,678,094.94	182,690.80	2,892,211.45Apr.	tt	
2,944,344.40	92,659.48	1,225,226.39May	It	
5,034,425.29	135,894.37	1,545,058.58



FILM &quot;ROYAL JOURNEY&quot;


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Was the special Department of National Defence film version of the royal tour produced by the national film board?
I 2. If not, by whom was it produced, and at what .cost?
' 3. If so. was the film made up of excerpts from the general national film board footage or was film specially exposed for this purpose, and what was the cost of the project?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, the information requested in this question will be found in Hansard of May 28, at page 2657, in parts 4 and 5 of the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). I would ask that the question be dropped.


An hon. Member:: Answered.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Are ships carrying immigrants to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Saint John, New Brunswick, fumigated?
2.	If so, what local contractors have been hired to do this work?
3.	Were insecticides purchased locally, and from whom?
4.	Were ships of the Department of Transport, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, fumigated for insects or rodents, during 1951?
5.	If so (a) which contractor did the work; (b) what was the cost?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Yes, when required. All ships arriving at organized quarantine stations (including those at Halifax and Saint John) when coming from countries not regarded as coastwise under the Canadian quarantine regulations are inspected every six months for evidence of rat infestation. If such vessels are infested with rats they are ordered fumigated.
2.	Fumigations at Saint John, New Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, are carried

out by the staff of the quarantine service of this department.
3.	No insecticides are used but the fumigating gas used to kill rats has the effect of killing insects as well as mammals. The only gas suitable for fumigation purposes cannot be obtained locally.
4.	Yes, two vessels, one of which was fumigated twice.
5.	This work was performed by the quarantine service of this department without charge, except a total of $50 for staff working overtime during the fiscal year 1951-52.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	Was there an interval of two to six months and a half between the production of the English version of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping during the 1948 session, on the one hand, and the production to members of parliament of the French translation thereof, on the other hand? If not, how many months and days elapsed between the printing of each of the five English reports and each of the French translations?
2.	Has the bureau for translations given to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person any explanations to justify the delay in the delivery of the French translation of the reports of the said parliamentary committee, and, if so, what were they?
3.	Has L'Institut Technologique de Langue Fran-gaise d'Ottawa communicated suggestions to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person to prevent such delays in the delivery of the French version of the reports of the said committee, and, if so, what were such suggestions?


Mr. Bradley:: Return tabled.




Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	Was there an interval of one to nine months between the production of the English version of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping during the 1948 session, on the one hand, and the production to members of parliament of the French translation thereof, on the other hand? If not, how many months and days elapsed between the printing of each of the five English reports and each of the French translations?
2.	Has the bureau for translations given to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person any explanations to justify the delay in the delivery of the French translation of the reports of the said parliamentary committee, and, if so, what were they?
3.	Has L'Institut Technologique de Langue Fran-Ca.se d'Ottawa communicated suggestions to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person to prevent such delays in the delivery of the French version of the reports of the said committee, and if so, what were such suggestions?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.
Orders for Returns




Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	Was there an interval of three to four months and a half between the production of the English version of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping during the 1949 session, on the one hand, and the production to members of parliament of the French translation thereof, on the other hand? If not, how many months and days elapsed between the printing of each of the six English reports and each of the French translations?
2.	Has the bureau for translations given to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person any explanations to justify the delay in the delivery of the French translation of the reports of the said parliamentary committee and, if so, what, were they?
3.	Has L'Institut Technologique de Langue Franchise d'Ottawa communicated suggestions to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person to prevent such delays in the delivery of the French version of the reports of the said com. mittee, and, if so, what were such suggestions?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING-COMMITTEE REPORTS DURING 1950 SESSION

Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	Was there an interval of two to eight months and a half between the production of the English version of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping during the 1950 session, on the one hand, and the production to members of parliament of the French translation thereof, on the other hand? If not, how many months and days elapsed between the printing of each of the nine English reports and each of the French translations?
2.	Has the bureau for translations given to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person any explanations to justify the delay in the delivery of the French translation of the reports of the said parliamentary committee and, if so, what were they?
3.	Has L'lnstitut Technologique de Langue Fran-caise d'Ottawa communicated suggestions to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person to prevent such delays in the delivery of the French version of the reports of the said committee, and, if so, what were such suggestions?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	Was there an interval of five months and a
half to eight months between the production of the English version of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the parliamentary committee on railways and shipping during the 1951 session, on the one hand, and the production to members of parliament of the French translation thereof, on the other hand? If not, how many months and days elapsed between the printing of each of the four English reports and each of the French translations?	[DOT]
2.	Has the bureau for translations given to the
Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person any explanations to justify the delay in the delivery of the French translation of the reports of the said parliamentary committee and, if so, what were they?	,

Inquiries of the Ministry
3.	Has L'Institut Technologique de Langue Fran-gaise d'Ottawa communicated suggestions to the Clerk of the House of Commons or to any other person to prevent such delays in the delivery of the French version of the reports of the said committee, and, if so, what were such suggestions?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.
CANADIAN NATIONAL	RAILWAYS-SECURITIES,



LOANS, ADVANCES, ETC.

Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	Did the cancellation of capital stocks and certain indebtedness of the Canadian National railway system to His Majesty, in virtue of chapter 22 of 1 George VI (1937), amount to more than one billion two hundred million dollars, and what was the exact amount of that cancellation?
2.	What was the total amount of the Canadian National railway system securities held by the Canadian government at various times since 1923?
3.	What amounts have been loaned or advanced to the Canadian National railway system in virtue of the Canadian National Railways financing acts of 1934, 1935, 1937, 1940, 1940-41, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1951 and 1951 second session?
4.	Besides, what advances, loans or refunds were made by the Canadian government to the Canadian National railway system in virtue of the Canadian National refunding acts of 1929, 1930, 1935, 1938, 1944, 1947 and 1951?
5.	Referring to the said refunding acts of 1935, 1938, 1944, 1947 and 1951, was the amount of two hundred million dollars respectively mentioned in each act a revote or are these five amounts amounting to a refund of one billion dollars?
6.	What is the total amount of the loans, advances and refunds made by the Canadian government to the Canadian railway system since 1923?
7.	How much of it was cancelled, and when?


Mr. Sinclair:: Return tabled.



ELECTORAL RETURNING OFFICERS

Mr. Follwell:: 1.	How many electoral returning officers are there in the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What is the name, the constituency, the date of appointment and the age of each?
3.	What is the age of retirement for electoral returning officers?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Return tabled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders' of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I Should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based upon the announcement he made a few days ago about the remaining legislation. I do so, because of certain comments that have been made with regard to amendment of the Civil Service Superannuation Act which was announced in the speech from the throne. If it is the intention of the government not to proceed with that act, and that is indicated by the omission from the reference, it would seem that there should be some explanation not only for the members of the house but
[Mr. Poullot.j
also for the civil servants who have been counting on some action with regard to this measure since the speech from the throne was read.


Hon. Douglas Abboil (Minisier of Finance):: Perhaps I might answer that question, Mr. Speaker. For some time the officers of my department, the civil service commission and others have been engaged in a general revision of the superannuation act. It was not contemplated that there would be, if I may so refer to it, a major change in policy so far as the scale of superannuation is concerned, but it is a comprehensive revision of the act. Unfortunately it has not been possible to complete that job. As the house knows, there is an unofficial advisory committee. It was desired to obtain the views of that committee, and they have been consulted. Unfortunately it would not be possible to bring in the bill within the next three or four weeks. Under those circumstances it was felt that it would perhaps have to stand.


Mr. Knowles:: What about the ones already retired?



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to do so, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the parliamentary assistant's attention been drawn to a press release in this morning's Globe and Mail stating "federal order dashes the hope of cheaper spuds"? If so, can the parliamentary assistant inform the house whether the federal Department of Agriculture has issued an order restricting the importation of United States potatoes, thereby aggravating the already short supply in this country?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, may I say that I have seen the article in the Toronto Globe and Mail to which he refers. The story is this. Under the fruit and vegetable act, United States grade A potatoes are allowed to come into Canada duty free except for a six weeks' period; but owing to the shortage of potatoes in Canada about the middle of April those restrictions were relaxed a little bit and some grade B potatoes were allowed to come in with the grade A potatoes.
That has been changed as of tomorrow, when they go back under the fruit and vegetable act under which we just allow grade A potatoes to come in. But certainly

no restriction is placed upon potatoes coming into Canada from the United States. I can assure the hon. member that during these last few weeks potatoes have been coming into Canada from the United States at the rate of 100 cars per week. I can go further than that and say I feel that after the next few weeks potato prices will become lower.



REPORTED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENGLISH AND FRENCH REPORTS OF DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to two contradictory statements that appear in the English and French Hansard of June 6. On page 3015 the minister is reported as having said with regard to additional social legislation that was asked for:
... I find that they would require $1,500 million in addition to what we are spending already in the field of health and welfare.
In the French translation I read as follows: (Translation) :
... I find that they would require $1,500,000 in addition to what we are spending already in the field of health and welfare.
Did the hon. minister mention a billion and a half or a million and a half dollars?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: A billion and a half.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Again they are all wrong. Not you, I mean, but the translators.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in connection with certain representations made by the highway system association of Edmonton and also the cities of Saskatoon, North Battleford and the like. Has consideration been given to any request on the part of this association that the Department of National Defence, without in any way interfering with the trans-Canada highway location as at present decided upon, should do something to assure a defence road through Saskatoon and Edmonton and thence through Yellowhead, with a view to assuring transportation for oil and mineral development in the north?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question, but I received it only a few minutes before three o'clock. In the time available since then I have found a reference to only one such representation. That was made by the board of trade of the city of North Battleford. They referred to a resolution of the city council and board of trade of Yellowhead and so far I have not found any record of securing such resolution.
A few days ago my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) reported to me that he had seen the executive of the Yellowhead road association and that they had made and would make representations along those lines. Of course any such representations would receive most careful consideration. I can say this, however. We have had a large number of representations from every part of Canada that we should give assistance to the construction of highways on the score that they might be useful for defence purposes. The general answer is that any increase in transportation or communication facilities would, of course, increase our capacity for defence but that unless the circumstances are extremely unusual, we have so many more projects having a greater priority and which cannot be tackled at the present time, that assistance to a highway of this character would be extremely unlikely.



CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of an item in the news yesterday. I sent the minister notice yesterday but he asked that I delay the question until today.
Has the government been made aware of dissatisfaction on the part of a large section of ICAO with reference to the rent charged for office space in Canada, and certain other conditions? Is the government attempting to meet these objections and keep ICAO in Canada?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The hon. member was good enough, as he has indicated, to give notice of this question yesterday. I have been looking into the matter, which is one of some importance because it affects the possibility of this United Nations specialized agency remaining in Montreal.
The government is aware of the fact that for some time now certain members of the

Inquiries of the Ministry International Civil Aviation Organization have felt that the rent paid by the organization for its offices in Montreal is high, not in comparison with commercial rentals in Montreal or possibly elsewhere, but in comparison with the rents paid by other specialized agencies of the United Nations, especially in countries where substantial concessions are often given to such organizations by governments in order to retain the headquarters of those organizations in their countries. The government has therefore been considering the problem, and has decided that there should be an increase in the assistance we have previously given to ICAO by way of subsidy on its rent. We proposed to ICAO on May 28 last that, subject to the approval of parliament, the rent should be reduced by the amount of $130,530 per annum. An amount to cover this will be placed in the supplementary estimates. This reduction would cut the rental rate per square foot from the present figure of $2.50 to $1, and would make it reasonably comparable with rates of rent paid by United Nations specialized agencies elsewhere.
The government is very glad to have ICAO in Montreal, and would like to see it remain there. We will be happy to consider favourably any reasonable assistance we can give to the organization for that purpose. However, some of the organization's requests do not fall within federal jurisdiction. For instance, ICAO now has requests before the government of the province of Quebec and the council of the city of Montreal for remission of certain provincial and municipal taxes. We hope that mutually satisfactory arrangements about these matters can be reached by ICAO with the authorities concerned.


Mr. Graydon:: How many people from other nations are attracted to ICAO headquarters in connection with their work?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not the exact figure, but a very considerable number, both as members of the permanent staff of ICAO who make their residence in Montreal, and as delegates from the member countries to the various meetings of ICAO.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Has any consideration been given to the question of federal assistance in the construction of

groups of houses in places outside of St. John's or Corner Brook in Newfoundland as a result of recent discussions with the minister of supply?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: The minister of supply for Newfoundland did not speak to me personally during his visit here, but to the best of my knowledge no decisions have been made with respect to any additional housing in Newfoundland as a result of his visit.



GOVERNMENT FINANCING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to give any information regarding the proposed commission which is being sent to Ottawa by President Truman to study our methods of financing, as recently reported in the press?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have no information on the subject, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fraser:: He wants to know how you get away with it.



COLD STORAGE ACT


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure ta amend the Cold Storage Act to provide that the governor in council may, out of any money appropriated by parliament for the purpose, grant towards the construction and equipment of certain warehouses a subsidy not exceeding thirty-three and one-third per cent of the amount expended or approved of in such construction and equipment; and to provide further that the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture, authorize the payment in full of all or any unpaid instalments of a subsidy that is or may become payable under a contract entered into prior to the coming into force of the amending act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Mr. Fair:: Is there anybody here, the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary assistant, who can make a statement in connection with this resolution?


Robert McCubbin: 
Mr. Bryce:: Does this legislation differ very much from the act that we had previously?


Robert McCubbin: No.


William Scottie Bryce: Will it be available to the co-operatives?


Robert McCubbin: Yes.


Mr. Lennard:: Has the project to be approved before it is started, or is it merely approved by the government after the person has invested a great deal of money in the project, and is thereby running the risk of its not being approved?


Robert McCubbin: No; the plans and specifications have to be approved by the officials in our department before the project is started.


William Scottie Bryce: How many years is it to last?


Robert McCubbin: It is hard to say. It may be in existence after the hon. member and I are both out of this house.


Mr. Thatcher:: Can the parliamentary
assistant say how much was spent for this purpose last year under the old act?


Robert McCubbin: I am sorry that I have not the figures of how much was spent last year, but when the estimates of our department are up I will answer that question for the hon. member.


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Can the parliamentary assistant explain to the committee just what group of people will benefit under this legislation?


Robert McCubbin: The bill has not yet been introduced. When the bill is introduced I will be able to answer that question.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters (for Mr. Gardiner) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 335, to amend the Cold Storage Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR RISKS INSURANCE


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide (a) that the Minister of Finance may enter into insurance and reinsurance agreements against any or all war risks of aircraft, vessels and cargo; (b) that there shall be established in the consolidated revenue fund an account to be known as the marine and aviation war risks insurance account; and (c) that there shall be credited to the account amounts equal to the premiums or other moneys received, sums allocated from appropriation by parliament and amounts directed to be credited to the account as temporary credits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister give an explanation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have an explanation to give, but I thought it might be convenient to give it in committee, when I could answer questions in detail.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the proposed measure to be founded upon the resolution is to authorize the Minister of Finance to enter into agreements, subject of course to approval in detail by the governor in council, for insurance and reinsurance against certain risks of loss or damage in connection with ships, aircraft and cargo, arising out of war risks.
As the committee is probably aware, insurance companies have never considered that they could underwrite war risks. They have held the view that such risks were not susceptible to actuarial calculation; and consequently those risks are always reinsured with government.
During the last war in the United Kingdom they formed what was colloquially known as the insurance association, or clubs. These clubs wrote the insurance, and it was reinsured with the United Kingdom government. Canadian shipping at that time was insured with these clubs.
Now the Canadian merchant marine has reached the point where it would be quite feasible to form an association of ship owners-which I shall refer to as a club- provided facilities are available for reinsurance with the Canadian government, as was the case with the United Kingdom government during the last war.
Obviously there are some advantages in having our own reinsurance, because the insurance proceeds would need to be paid in Canadian dollars. Ship owners would find it easier to deal with insurers who were

War Risks Insurance
available here in Canada rather than abroad, so far as the adjustment of claims and that sort of thing is concerned. This matter was discussed with the British association, which was good enough to send someone out here to go into the technical details with our own insurers.
The matter was discussed with Canadian ship owners, who have decided to form one of these associations. I understand the bill to incorporate this voluntary association is now before the other place. The matter was also examined by the maritime commission, and the enabling bill which will be based upon this resolution is to implement that decision.
The pattern will be substantially the same as was followed in the United Kingdom during the last war, except that the club-that is, the voluntary insurance association-will be formed here in Canada and the reinsurer will be the Canadian government. I am informed similar arrangements are either in force in the United Kingdom and in the United States or are in process of being formed.
The provision is a stand-by provision. It would not be availed of, except under conditions of emergency. But, as the committee will appreciate, once war breaks out or is apprehended ship owners will not allow their ships to sail. Those ships stay in port. So it is therefore essential that machinery be available for the prompt writing of war risks in the event of an emergency.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I think the minister has anticipated nearly all the questions I had intended to ask. However, there are one or two he did not answer. My understanding is that this will not deal with the subject matter of the act of 1942, which provided for the insurance of property in Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that act remain still in force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Offhand I cannot tell my hon. friend; but if he would give me the statute I would look into it. So far as I am aware, there has been no repeal.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I
understand it is contemplated that this measure will deal entirely with marine or air risk, and that if any other legislation is necessary it will be separate legislation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the Minister of Finance say anything as to the results of government aotion in Great Britain which covered our ships, as well as other ships, in the last war? Has he any figures?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not any figures here. I understand there were some difficulties, although they were not serious, in connection with the utilization of the proceeds after the war. There is of course the question of the establishment of reinsurance rates. I am informed that during the last war the practice was that the rates would be fixed for three months. Policies would be issued for a three-months period; and if it was decided that the rate bad to be increased the new rates would be enforced for a further period of three months.
At one stage in the war I am told the United Kingdom government decided to refrain from increasing the rates, although it would have been desirable to do so, because German intelligence was watching war risk insurance rates pretty intensively to ascertain whether sinkings were as large as they had hoped. So, on grounds of high policy, I am informed that at that stage of the war there was no change in war risk insurance rates, and it was felt that the cost should be borne by the taxpayers as a whole rather than give information which might be useful to the enemy. However, in answer to the hon. member's question, I have not the figures for Which he has asked.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the minister could have those for us when we are discussing the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will see if I can get them.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is also my understanding that whereas under the measure of 1942 the government came in as a sort of reinsurer of ordinary insurance companies, no such measure is contemplated here. As 1 understand it, in this instance it will be a co-operative effort by the ship owners, and then a process of reinsuring themselves directly with the government.	.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The reinsurance will be
directly with Hie government. The club- and I shall use that word, for the sake of convenience-the mutual insurance association, would assume a small portion of the risk and would receive a proportionate amount of the premium. It would provide the management and administration. That is the main advantage of this form of covering war risk in connection with shipping. The skilled technical management of those who are familiar with the trade is thus available, and it is not necessary for the government to set up an elaborate organization to handle insurance. My information is that it worked very well in the United Kingdom during the war.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it anticipated that action would be taken as a precautionary measure in advance of hostilities, or would the act not come into operation until actual hostilities had taken place?


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as shipping is concerned, the details are fully worked out. When the legislation is passed, the mutual insurance association-the club-will be formed, and will be set up by the Canadian ship owners. The government will be authorized under this measure to enter into reinsurance agreements with the club, and could operate on 24 hours' notice. The question of aircraft insurance is still being looked into as that is a little more difficult because there are fewer operators and we have not the benefit of experience gained during the last war as in connection with shipping.
Similarly, in connection with the insurance of cargoes, there is a considerable amount of details yet to be worked out. So far as ships themselves are concerned, the details have been worked out completely.


Mr. Green:: Will there be only the one club?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: That will cover aircraft as well as ships?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the present intention.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it to be
insurance only of cargoes and not of personnel?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No insurance of personnel, simply of ships and cargoes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I assume from what the minister has said that this is an innovation so far as Canada is concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is an innovation to the extent that we would operate the plan on our own. We participated in the United Kingdom plan during the war, which was set up on exactly the same basis. We are setting this up in the light of experience obtained in that country during the war.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that the aircraft, ships and cargo referred to would be aircraft, ships and cargoes owned by private owners and that this has no reference to insurance of government-owned property?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other question I wished to ask was along this line. I can see the government's argument that in the event of war or apprehended war it could be serious for the welfare of the state if shipping suddenly stopped. In other words, it is to our interest to take whatever steps are necessary
War Risks Insurance
so that shipping keeps moving. I should like to know if we are taking away from the insurance companies a risk but at the same time giving them the opportunity te make a profit. The minister will not be surprised when I say that I do not think they should get it both ways. If we underwrite their risks it seems to me that we should have a guarantee that on the other side of the picture they will not make a profit out of the government's assumption of the risks.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no possibility of that as the insurance companies do not enter into this arrangement. The association or club to which I have referred is to be formed by the ship owners. I think it is called the Canadian Shipowners Mutual Assurance Association. It is a voluntary association, not for profit. It will receive out of the premiums simply enough to cover the cost of operation of the club and the balance of the premiums will go into the consolidated revenue fund to cover the reinsurance risks.
My information is that the private insurance companies have never felt that they could underwrite or take on war risk insurance and that has always had to be the responsibility of the state. This is merely providing a mechanism in order that we may have the advantage of those who are technically skilled in handling the insurance of ships and cargoes. The risk will be carried by the state and the premiums would be set on such a basis as to endeavour to make the fund self-supporting. Naturally circumstances may arise where losses would be so heavy that it would not be possible to cover them by the premiums, and in that case they would have to be absorbed in the same way as other war costs are absorbed.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice the minister said that government-owned ships would not participate in any way.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not mean government-owned ships, I meant government-owned aircraft.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I misunderstood the minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would not want to be committed to that. There has been very little detailed consideration given as yet to the aircraft side.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that the government ordinarily carries its own insurance in that connection.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not in the case of ships.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps I need not pursue that further.

War Risks Insurance


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought my hon. Mend was just referring to aircraft when I answered his question.


Clarence Gillis: The minister's explanation
sounded all right. This is following government policy to take over where free enterprise falls down and cannot handle this proposition. The minister stated that this was stand-by legislation which presupposes that it will not be used for some time. I should like to know if this would be applicable to Canadian ships now operating in the Pacific which might suffer damage because of the Korean war.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no intention to set it up, so far as I know, to handle those ships because I doubt if there are enough Canadian ships operating in that area to enable a premium to be fixed on any reasonable basis. As I say, the plan is not to be set up on a commercial basis; it does not contemplate commercial risks. On the other hand, it is always recognized that insurance forms a proper item of costs in setting freight rates. That would toe the case if war risk insurance were in force in connection with Canadian registered ships during a period when war existed.


Clarence Gillis: I understood the minister to say that this government agency will be made up of shipping companies which will form themselves into a club for the purpose of insuring their own ships. Can the minister give us any idea of what shipping companies will take part in this plan?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My understanding is that all Canadian registered ships would participate. My information is that at the present time they would have an insurable value of $115 million.


Clarence Gillis: Some major company would have to undertake the administration.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not too familiar with the details as they are highly technical and that is why we got some of these people out from England who had gained experience during the last war and who had set up the stand-by scheme they have there now. My information is that the technical supervision would be provided by people in the shipping business who knew about ships and how to insure them and so on. They would act as accountants and would prepare the papers and no doubt would see that proper valuations were forthcoming and so on. Then the risks would be reinsured with the pool.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to press the matter any further as I can get more information when we are discussing the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Will coastal shipping be
included?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It would be logical when the act was brought into effect.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister know
whether the plan is to have these ships take advantage of this measure?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should think they would if they were operating in waters where they were subject to war risks. When the toil! is before us hon. members will see that it is very wide in its terms, as I think legislation of this kind should be. It is based upon the corresponding statute in the United Kingdom and gives very wide power to set up toy regulation the procedure that will be followed. It is very wide in its provisions as to the type of risk that may be handled provided it comes within the category of war risks.


Mr. Murphy:: Could the minister clarify one doubt that is in my mind? He said a moment ago that this would not apply to personnel but would apply to aircraft and other ships. Supposing an aircraft was shot down over a city and did considerable damage to property, would there toe provision in the bill to cover that sort of thing?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, this bill is not intended to cover that type of risk. I assumed that that type of risk would be covered under the general statute to which the hon. member for Greenwood referred and which we had during the war. This is designed primarily to cover merchant shipping and it will probably be extended to cover aircraft.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I assume it would apply to great lakes shipping?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think so. The bill certainly is broad enough to enable great lakes ships to be covered.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 336, respecting marine and aviation war risks insurance and reinsurance agreements.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 306, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, there are some bills which come before the house Where the principle admits of very little difference of Opinion and where the house may be expected to be in a position to confine its discussion on second reading to a short space of time and devote its major effort to a review of the clauses of the bill in committee of the whole. Such, it seemed to some of us, was the nature of the present bill; but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) apparently thought otherwise for last night in moving second reading of the bill he read a statement for fifty minutes and conducted what I heard one member of the house call "a one-man filibuster against his own bill". The minister seems determined to force a debate on second reading of this measure.
I wish to say very definitely that the principle of the Combines Investigation Act is not in dispute, and I do not think it has been at any time. The principle of the legislation is well recognized and generally supported, and it does not take a long philosophical treatise, such as that to which we listened during the first half of the minister's remarks last night, to add anything to the defence of a principle which does not need any defence in this house. I think what we are looking for in the house with respect to a measure like the present bill to amend the act is means for making the legislation more effective to serve the end of maintaining competition. That is the principle of the act, and I understand that is the principle of the present bill to amend the act. If that is so, the principle does not require any extended defence in this house.
The minister has properly said that free enterprise does require the maintenance of conditions of competition. I do not think anyone quarrels with that. Certainly wherever combines exist to the public detriment then certainly there must be legislation of this kind, and there must be effective enforcement of legislation of this kind. The act very properly directs its aim at mergers, trusts and monopolies which operate or are likely to operate to the detriment or against the interests of the public, whether consumers, producers or others. In that very broad definition I think we have a picture of the purpose of this legislation, and so far as I know no one takes issue with that purpose.
The relationship of monopoly to this subject has been dealt with by the MacQuarrie committee, particularly at pages 22 to 24 of its report. I do not think any useful purpose can be served today by an extended review of what the committee had to say on that subject. Competition is of the essence of the system of free responsible enterprise
Combines Investigation Act which the overwhelming majority of the members of the house, and I am sure the overwhelming majority of Canadians, support. They want to see that system maintained and they want to see it strengthened.
Economic freedom within that kind of system has a very direct bearing upon political freedom. You cannot dissociate the two. In that respect I think the minister was on very sound ground last night. We endanger and jeopardize the political freedom that we associate with democracy wherever there is a tampering with or trespassing upon the freedom in economic affairs which we associate with conditions of competition.
Where a government intervenes in the interests of preserving conditions of competition, Mr. Speaker, it must be on the basis of fairness; and when the government embarks upon proposals for extensive changes in legislation in this field it therefore ought to be very sure that it is proceeding fairly. That is the reason why, when the amendments proposed to this act last fall were before the house and the committee, we of the official opposition urged most strenuously that we should be very sure we had before us all the available evidence. That is why we took strenuous objection to the procedure then followed, which had the effect of stopping many people and organizations who had representations to make to the committee on that subject and denying them the opportunity of being heard.
I intend that the comments I make on the bill shall be brief. The principal change in the present act proposed by the bill is aimed to bring about a separation of the functions which are now entrusted to the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. When the resolution preceding the bill was before the house there was a discussion about the contradiction in his functions at the present time. He is both policeman and to some extent judge as well, certainly judge in the sense of giving a preliminary decision. That contradiction in functions has been recognized by the MacQuarrie committee, and it seems to me that this legislation, in proposing the separation of those functions, is sound in its purpose. The director will hereafter be charged with responsibility for investigation and research whereas the commission will be charged with responsibility for review, appraisal and report.
In some respects this division of functions represents a legislative return to the situation that obtained in 1923, and the departure from that position, which resulted when the then registrar, Mr. McGregor, was made commissioner, is now being reversed. I do not think the change made in 1923 was sound;

Combines Investigation Act therefore I welcome this reversal of the legislative position, this separation of functions, which is the chief characteristic of the present bill.
The second point that I think may merit a word of observation relates to the provisions of the bill with regard to the effect of the tariff in situations where it may have the effect of assisting in the maintenance of monopolistic conditions. In his speech last night the minister gave the reasons why the government has not seen fit to propose the adoption of the recommendation of the MacQuarrie committee in this regard. At this point I am not going to make further comment on the subject, because the section will be before the committee shortly. But I do express, Mr. Speaker, a question as to why the tariff board, which is an excellent board, has not been used more widely in this respect. One would have thought that where there is a suggestion or suspicion that a tariff is contributing to the creation or maintenance of monopolistic conditions or is tending to reduce the free play of competition, the tariff board would be the proper body to which a reference would be directed. I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that the tariff board could be put to very good use in such a situation.
The third point that may justify comment is the subject of research. I thought I had indicated my views on this matter when speaking on the resolution stage on June 2. Last night the Minister of Justice invited me to make some further clarification in this regard. Let me leave no doubt as to my views on the matter. I believe the proposal to vest in the director of investigations the function of research is good. There is much to be said for carrying on research in this whole field. The nub of the matter, of course, will be the competence of the hands in which that function of research is placed. It seems to me that is the whole sum and substance of this matter.
The fourth subject worthy of comment, Mr. Speaker, relates to the proposed innovation in the act in the introduction of court orders of prohibition. Because these are to be orders obtained from a court and not orders that may be issued by a governmental official, I think we may be assured that ample judicial safeguards will be attached to the issuance of such orders. It is a very wide power, and I think for that reason all hon. members ought to be glad to see it vested in a court rather than in a government official. I must confess to feeling a little disquiet in regard to the constitutionality of this provision, in the light of what the minister had to say about it last


night. He said, as his words appear at page 3118 of Hansard, that this question of the constitutionality of this section had been considered by the law officers of his department, and that they had expressed "strong reason for believing that the section is within federal competence."
One can only hope that when parliament is legislating to this effect, parliament is acting within its proper sphere of legislative competence. In view of the air of doubt attached to the matter, I think the minister might well consider whether this matter should not be referred to the courts for a decision. If it is not, I presume we will be on common ground in thinking it may arrive in the highest court in this country for a decision before very long, when the jurisdiction is exercised.
There is a further aspect of this matter which is of importance for those of us who recall the experience of 1949. It has to do with the subject of publicizing reports. When this measure was at the resolution stage I drew attention to the view expressed by the MacQuarrie committee that the present provision of the act with relation to the publicizing of reports should be continued. In speaking at page 2817 of Hansard for June 2, I had this to say:
... I trust that, in keeping with the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee, this new legislation will not subtract one whit from the requirements of the present legislation with regard to publication of reports. The minister nods-
I was commenting on the nod the minister then gave me, Mr. Speaker, assenting thereby, as I thought, to the statement I had just made.
-indicating that the legislation will not tamper with that important provision of the present legislation.
With that nodding assurance from the minister, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it was with some measure of surprise I found when the bill was distributed that the time allowed for the publication of reports of the commission had been enlarged from 15 days to 30 days. We shall have a further opportunity of discussing that section in the committee of the whole shortly, but I shall say this now. We shall want better reasons for extending this period than those given to us for the notorious and illegal extension of the 15-day period that the government wrought in 1949, when the famous McGregor report on a combine in the milling industry was tabled. The minister made no comment on this subject in his lengthy review of the bill. I believe the house will be curious to know why, especially in view of what the minister indicated to the house on June 2,

this change is attempted in this very important provision.
The next point, sir, is that the legislation is silent as to the loss leader practice. After all that was said in this house on that subject, and in a special committee of both houses last fall, I think most of us expected to see some reference to this vicious loss leader practice, but the minister has made no reference whatever to it. I observe that the Mac-Quarrie committee dismissed the subject very briefly. There are only three paragraphs on that subject on page 46 of the committee's report, and the conclusion is summed up in the third paragraph as follows:
We, therefore, propose that the "loss leader" practice should be referred by the minister for thorough study by the proposed agency and board with a view to determining its prevalence and its effects and to recommending to the minister suitable amendment, if necessary, of the act.
It is quite evident, sir, that the MacQuarrie committee did not consider its task completed or discharged in that respect. They have placed that problem squarely on the doorstep of the minister, and one must therefore express some disappointment that a subject so important as this vicious loss leader practice, which has such dangers in it, should have entirely escaped the minister's attention in his long speech last night.
I have no further comment upon the features of the bill, but in approving the principle of this measure on second reading I affirm what I tried to say on previous occasions, that in seeking more effective methods of maintaining conditions of competition in Canadian business and trade there is something that is more important than mere technical improvements in legislation or technical improvements in the machinery, important as those may be. More important than these is the drive behind the enforcement of the legislation. That is what we of the official opposition are demanding. It is the drive that is going to turn the wheels of this machinery which is of first importance. We may be improving the machinery. We may be adding another wheel. We may be introducing technical improvements. But, Mr. Speaker, the factor that will continue to be of first importance will be the drive behind the machinery.
I think the view of the official opposition in this matter can be summed up in this way. We want to see the maximum effectiveness and the maximum fairness in the enforcement of this act. In that respect we remind the government that it forfeited the confidence of this house and of the country in its enforcement of this legislation by what it did or failed to do in 1949, when it not only ignored but defied the plain terms of this very act. Assurances now of intention to give
Combines Investigation Act enforcement to the terms of the amendment now before the house will have to be weighed by the house in the light of that shocking and completely unjustified defiance of a statute enacted by the parliament of Canada through the suppression for ten months of a report in the very teeth of the plain terms of this legislation. For that act of suppression the whole government shared the responsibility, and it continues to do so.
It is true that the Minister of Justice, as the minister of the crown principally charged with enforcement of this legislation, bears a heavy responsibility. But to the extent to which the whole cabinet concurred in the failure of the Minister of Justice to obey the law of this land, the whole cabinet was equally responsible for an outrageous breach of the law. We had then exposed to view, on the part of 19 members of the cabinet, a submissive yielding to the determination of one member of that cabinet that that report should not be made public. He was the same minister who said in this house a year ago, "If we wanted to get away with it, who would stop us?" Apparently when the question of obeying the law of this land and making public the report of Mr. McGregor on the milling combine at the beginning of 1949 came before the cabinet, that same minister took just about the same attitude, an attitude which might well have been paraphrased in these words:	"If I want to get away with
it, who in this cabinet is going to stop me?" At any rate nobody in the cabinet stopped him. Every member of the cabinet was a party to the suppression of a report in defiance of the law of this land.
The minister spoke last night about the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, what does the rule of law mean if it does not mean that the law of this land is binding upon every person in this land from the Prime Minister to the citizen in the humblest walk of life? On that occasion apparently the attitude of the cabinet was, "Well, the law is good enough for the rest of the country but it is not going to be binding upon us". Sir, that was no rule of law. That was the most outrageous and palpable and deliberate attempt at the destruction of the rule of law that has been witnessed in the lifetime of the Canadian nation.
Sir, we wish to see in the administration and enforcement of this act such effectiveness as will admit of no exceptions for cabinet ministers or others; we wish to see the kind of enforcement that will demand honour and respect for the law and will give maximum effectiveness to this enactment of parliament. We of the official opposition shall make it our business to see to it that that responsibility, not only of observing the law itself

Combines Investigation Act but of giving effective enforcement to it, is honoured by the government or that failure to do so is exposed for public condemnation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we support the measure that is now before the house. At the outset I may say that we do so in spite of the speech that was made in its defence last evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). As has already been indicated, the measure is one the purpose of which is to divide the functions provided for under the Combines Investigation Act into two categories, namely investigation and research on the one hand and report and prosecution on the other. We feel that the MacQuarrie committee has made excellent recommendations in that regard. We are glad to know the government is implementing at least that part of what the MacQuarrie committee recommended.
In my opening words I said we give our support to this measure in spite of the speech the Minister of Justice made last evening. He will not be surprised if I say that to me it was one of the strangest speeches I have heard for a long time. It was supposed to be a speech.-at least so it seemed-in defence of the virtues, the glories and the strength of free private enterprise. Yet the very fact that the minister had to bring in this bill in order to keep free private enterprise from running away with things is an admission of an inherent weakness in what is called free private enterprise.
The minister was not satisfied just to sing his paeans of praise to free private enterprise. He felt that he had to take advantage of the opportunity that was his to make a speech in order to let it be known that he does not agree with socialism. He made what no doubt to him is a case for the position he took; but I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it sounded a bit strange to me to hear this long attack on the whole idea of socialism coming from a minister of a government which operates a national railway system, a telegraph system, a system of hotels and Trans-Canada Air Lines. That government also operates several steamship lines such as Canadian National Steamships and Park Steamship Lines. It owns and operates very effectively the Polymer Corporation producing synthetic rubber. It owns and operates Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited. It is in the radio business; it has the C.B.C. It is going into television. It operates a mint and a printing bureau. It operates the Bank of Canada. It is in the business of government annuities. This government also has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It develops power for the Northwest Territories. It


owns and operates the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation; it operates the telephones in certain parts of this -country. It owns and operates Canadian Arsenals; it has a complete monopoly of the manufacture of munitions. The most important development of our time is atomic energy, and that is completely under the control of this government. Yet we had this same minister standing up last night and saying: "We must stay as far away from socialism as we possibly can."


Mr. Ferguson:: That is from the bitter experience they have had in operating all these things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; their experience in operating most, if not all, of these things has been very good. In fact some of them such as Polymer, T.C.A., and some of the others I have mentioned are mighty good examples which private enterprise could not possibly emulate.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Go easy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not only did the Minister of Justice put himself in this ridiculous position by attacking-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You will give them so much encouragement that they will be giving away wigs and false teeth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To the hon. member for Springfield and others, I suppose.
Not only did the Minister of Justice indulge in this tirade against socialism, despite the extent to which they have had to accept the idea that there are some things the community has to do for itself through the agency of government rather than leaving it to private enterprise; he also seemed to overlook the fact that this great, strong creature known as free enterprise that is supposed to stand on its own feet and do so much for the good of the country and the people generally is forever coming to the government of which my hon. friend is a minister for assistance of one kind and another.
There are tariffs, subsidies and subventions; there are freight rate adjustments, to say nothing of what is done for private enterprise by government contracts. Let me remind the minister also of the tremendous amount of assistance that so-called free private enterprise gets out of services provided by the people through their government. I could mention, for example, the post office, the dominion bureau of statistics, the national research council, the coal board, the maritime commission, the meteorological service; I could also mention aids to navigation of various kinds, the building of the trans-Canada highway and the defence highways that were asked for today, and also this matter of war

risk insurance that was brought up today. In other words, Mr. Speaker, is it not a Action to talk about free private enterprise in the terms in which the minister indulged last evening?
I must also remind the minister, who states that free private enterprise, free competition as he describes it, is a way of achieving or providing a decent standard of living for great numbers of people, that the facts belie that assertion. He knows of the great numbers of people in this country who do not pay any income tax at all because their incomes are below the very low exemption levels set by this government. Private enterprise has failed them by the millions. He knows too how necessary it has been for his government to respond to our demands for increasing measures of social legislation such as family allowances, old age pensions, and some day we hope health insurance, although it is taking a lot longer than it should to win that measure of social reform. But why do we have to win these things? Because private enterprise does not distribute the wealth that is created under it on a fair and equitable basis to the people who work under private enterprise. Thus it becomes necessary, even with the measure of social conscience that resides in some of the members of the present government, to take steps in the name of the people to correct the abuses, to correct the things that are wrong in free private enterprise and give the people of the country a little bit of a break.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the speech the minister made last night, the Arst half of it at any rate-and that seemed to be the part he most enjoyed giving-was ridiculous in the extreme, and that it was made in complete disregard of the facts of the situation.
As I have already said, the very fact that the minister is bringing in this bill, the very fact that we have had combines legislation on our statute books for the past 42 years, is an admission that it is inherent in the nature of capitalism, it is inherent in the nature of free private enterprise, to go in the direction of monopolistic control. It is inherent in its very nature that you get this concentration of economic power which can be and is used to deprive the workers and the farmers of a country such as ours of their fair share of the wealth they produce.
Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Justice felt that on some occasion he wanted to make a speech in defence of free private enterprise he certainly chose the wrong occasion when he was introducing a bill, the very introduction of which is an admission of one of the major faults of
Combines Investigation Act so-called private enterprise. In other words the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more nor less than the admission of an avowed private enterprise Minister of Justice that the inherent nature of private enterprise is such that it works against the interests of the people of the country, and that it has to be checked by legislation of this kind.


Mr. Garson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will he say that the enactment of the Criminal Code is an indication of the criminality of the whole Canadian people?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Criminal Code relates not only to the Canadian people but also to some of these corporations the minister has to deal with.


Mr. Welbourn:: Answer the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly; I do not mind answering the question. The very fact that we have laws is an admission that there are tendencies and directions within us that for our own good we have to control, and I submit that the same thing applies to the type of economy the minister is trying to control by this law which is an amendment both of the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code to which the minister has now referred.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister chose the wrong occasion to come to the defence of private enterprise, but I thank him for giving us this opportunity; otherwise I am sure I would have been out of order in pointing out the weaknesses of private enterprise and the extent to which even this private enterprise government has had to move in the direction of socialist thinking, both in the extent to which it has gone into public ownership and in the extent to which it has had to introduce social legislation for the good of the Canadian people.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask another question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: There are laws on the statute books which say you cannot drive a car while intoxicated. Would you think that the socialist idea of running affairs would remedy that situation? Would there still be a few drunken drivers? You talk as though the law was the ruination of the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot imagine a more irrelevant question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, it is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has no bearing whatsoever.

Combines Investigation Act


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You select your laws; that is all. There is only a difference in laws. They are both on the statute books.


Clarence Gillis: Why do you have handcuffs?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the hon. member for Simcoe North and any others of his party coming to the defence of the Minister of Justice in this debate I am having with him. This is one occasion where we have the dividing lines in this house properly drawn. The Tories and the Liberals are in the same camp, where they really belong. They are both very glad to come to the defence of private enterprise; and while I do not blame private enterprise for seeking defence-it needs it-if that is the best it can get it is still in a bad way.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am all for private enterprise; there is no doubt about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, then, the hon. member for Simcoe North and the Minister of Justice are in the same bed.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would not say that.


Clarence Gillis: You would need twin beds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I hope they enjoy it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: After the mess the socialists made of it in England-


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend refers to England. I was not going to refer to it, but that is an example of one country which had a chance to try democratic socialism, and after a time thought maybe it should go back to the other way. Actually it was a minority vote that put the Tory party back to power. And just look what has happened in the few months that a capitalist government has been in power. The people of that country are voting the other way in all the local elections, and making it clear that having tried both, one after the other, they know now which it is they want, in their interests.


An hon. Member:: Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And my hon. friend wants to know about Saskatchewan. We will discuss that tonight.


Mr. Croll:: No; now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would like me to discuss the bill-


An hon. Member:: For a change.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and I would not blame you if you did. Replying to the hon. member who interrupted, it was a change last night when the minister got through with his discussion of economic theories, and got around to the bill itself.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, we welcome the introduction of the bill because
fMr. Knowles.]

of the fact that at least in part it implements some of the recommendations made by the MacQuarrie committee. I have already referred to the part it does implement; and we think it is a good idea to separate the differing functions connected with the combines investigation authority.
However we feel, as indeed the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has already said, that what is really important in this effort of a capitalist government to curb these capitalist emanations is the earnestness or the enthusiasm with which they pursue the terms of the legislation. As the hon. member for Eglinton has reminded the minister, we had an example in 1949 where the earnestness of that pursuit was somewhat weak, and where the minister delayed for a number of months even the tabling of a report. That means that in giving approval to the bill, as we do, at the same time we express the hope that the minister and the government will really be vigilant in trying to check these monopolistic practices.
In that connection I would point out that the MacQuarrie report is not the first occasion upon which monopolistic practices of private enterprise have been drawn to the attention of the minister and the government. That fact has been implied in practically all the reports made to the minister and the government in recent years. But I would remind the minister in particular of Mr. McGregor's report on Canada and international cartels, which was submitted to the then minister of Justice on October 10, 1945. As the hon. member knows, this is a very interesting document, and a very damning one, too, so far as private enterprise is concerned. It goes beyond the question of local domestic monopolies and deals with the part that is played in our economy and in that of the whole world by international cartels.
Mr. McGregor points out in this report that there are a number of instances where these international cartels seemed to regard themselves as above the laws of this or any other country. He also pointed out a number of instances where the people of Canada have been denied certain products, such as longlife light bulbs, and have been denied cheaper products such as radios and the like, because of the practices of international cartels.
The report of the then commissioner is very useful, and in it he made a number of very definite recommendations. In the main those recommendations are set out in the last few pages of the report. I put a number of them on record when we were debating resale price maintenance last fall, and I shall not quote them again. But I do remind the minister that very few of the suggestions made on that occasion by Mr. McGregor have

been implemented by the government since then. Some of Mr. McGregor's comments at that time are in fact re-echoed in the MacQuarrie report. For example, I refer to page 63 of the report to the Minister of Justice made by the committee studying combines legislation, and without taking time to read them I And there the committee suggests that various aspects of federal government policy should be reviewed so as to assess the monopolistic effects of things other than those covered by the combines legislation itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What page is that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is page 63.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the typewritten copy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; is there a printed copy?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mine has not yet reached me, but on page 63 of the typewritten copy there is a particular reference to tariffs, patents and other remedial action, and to the broad question of federal government policy. I would ask the minister to compare what the MacQuarrie committee recommended with the conclusions and recommendations Mr. McGregor made in his report of October 10, 1945. If he does this he will see that both make it clear that if we are going to limit monopolistic practices in Canada it calls for vigilance on the part of the government, not only by way of putting legislation like this on the statute books but vigilance right down the line.
I am sorry the minister did not see fit to carry out the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee with respect to tariffs and patents. I noted what he said last night, that he felt that perhaps the commission might pursue this matter but that he did not feel it should be dealt with by way of legislation.
Something very significant happened here this afternoon, when the hon. member for Eglinton, who preceded me in the debate- he is a Tory member, and the Tories are usually inclined to favour tariffs-expressed regret that the recommendation with respect to tariffs had not been implemented by the minister. The only conclusion I can draw from what the hon. member for Eglinton said -and in this I hope I am not doing the hon. member for Eglinton an injustice-is that he felt there are cases where tariff policy, with tariffs too high, encourages monopolies in Canada. It was the suggestion of the hon. member that the tariff policy should be reviewed, in the light of anything that could be done to lessen monopolistic practice.
Combines Investigation Act
Well, when the MacQuarrie committee makes that recommendation to the government, and when the Tories support it, and when, as I am sure there is, there is support from the Social Credit party, as well as from ourselves, I do not know what the minister is waiting for, or what is holding up this Liberal government. I thought the Liberals were supposed to be low-tariff or free trade people. Here we have the MacQuarrie committee and all the opposition parties in the house, including the Tories, urging action along that line, and the minister saying, "We do not think we can deal with it in a legislative manner."
That simply underlines the point I made a moment ago, that if we are going to place any fetters upon the monopolistic tendencies and practices of free enterprise, it will call for more than just putting legislation on the statute books. It will call for more than just a new paper organization. It will call for real vigilance and real determination on the part of the government.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a word or two to add concerning this legislation. In principle I think the bill is good. However, we have had discussions on other occasions, particularly in the debate on price maintenance, at which time most members expressed their views on this subject.
I recall that When I spoke on that occasion I said, in effect, that Canada would have to be cautious in taking action so as to have any effective control over combines. What I meant on that occasion was that our legislation as it stood today was not effective as far as controlling combines was concerned. I stated that this country was fast becoming infested with combines and that some drastic action would have to be taken if we were going to keep this country under free enterprise.
Let it not be said for a moment that I am favouring any other system except free enterprise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are in the same bed too.


Mr.   Johnsion@: I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say, "You are in the same bed too." I thought he was referring to twin beds when he spoke. Let me assure him that there would not be room in that bed for Social Credit. In fact I am inclined to think that the socialist party is pretty much in the same bed with the Liberals because if there has been a government that has shown a tendency to socialize things and make a mess of them, it has been this government.
Let me refer to a few of the instances to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made reference. I was quite astonished

Combines Investigation Act that he should have referred to them. One is the national housing program. I cannot think of any organization that has made a greater mess in Canada than the national housing organization.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, yes. I know they have built houses-


An hon. Member:: What else do you want?


Charles Edward Johnston: A member says, "What else do you want?"


Stanley Howard Knowles: He wants twin beds.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me tell you what I want. I do not think the purpose of a national housing program should be merely to build houses, no matter what kind of houses they are. Such a program should be building decent houses. Let there be no misunderstanding about it. There is no project being carried on in Canada where a greater mess has been made than in the case of national housing. All you need to do is go to Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal and Ottawa, especially over in Hull. I can take you over there and show you -some houses which have to be propped up with poles.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is just one example. I am not in favour of the government running these projects. When they become public utilities, that is a different matter. But when we come to things like the C. B. C. and national housing it is not in the -best interests of the country to have the government take control. I do not mean to imply by this that free enterprise is without fault.


An hon. Member:: It is not free.


Charles Edward Johnston: One member says, "It is not free." I do not know that it should be entirely free to do exactly as it likes, any more than an individual should be free to do exactly as he likes regardless of whether or not he is infringing upon the rights of his neighbours. That is a difference between socialism and so-called private enterprise. There is a limit to which either private enterprise or the individual may go without infringing upon the rights of other citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Private enterprise is not building houses for those who need them.


Charles Edward Johnston: The government is trying to build them, but what houses. That is what I am objecting to.


An hon. Member:: Better than no houses.


Charles Edward Johnston: The other day we had the report which was made to the Minister of

Justice (Mr. Garson) by the committee studying combines legislation. That report contains some important recommendations. One thing the report points out is that there must be constant and careful supervision to see that private enterprise does not overstep its bounds and come to that place where it becomes detrimental to public interest. I am sorry the minister has neglected to include in his legislation one of the recommendations of this committee, which was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. On page 63 of the report reference is made to tariff, patent and other remedial action, and the following recommendations are made:
1.	That the use of the tariff and patent clauses of the act should be given special consideration in cases presented before the board.
2.	That section 29 of the act dealing with tariff action and section 30 of the act dealing with patent action be amended in order to make the requirements of the public interest the condition justifying a recommendation and action in these respects.
This was referred to not long ago by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) in connection with automobile tires. He has pointed out on a number of occasions, and I have always supported him, that a monopoly exists in this country in the rubber industry, particularly as applied to automobile tires. He has suggested on more than one occasion that one of the most effective ways of dealing with this problem would be through the tariff. The minister made reference to this the other day and said he did not think it should be brought in under this legislation, that there were more effective ways of dealing with it.
It seems to me that when a company, whether it be a rubber company, automobile company or any other, abuses a privilege action should be taken, and taken immediately. There is no reason why tires in this country should sell for $37, $38 and $39 when exactly the same tires are being sold in the United States at exactly one-half the price. In many cases the raw materials come from the same source. The same thing can be said about automobiles. Why should we in Canada have to pay $500, $600 or $700 more for a car identical to the ones made in the United States? These cars are manufactured by the same companies. Labour is cheaper in this country than in the United States and, as I said, in the case of tires the raw material comes from the same source. The same can be said in the -case of radios and refrigerators.


An hon. Member:: And a case of beer.


Charles Edward Johnston: Probably the hon. member is an authority on that; I am not. These are things which cause people to sit up and wonder, and ask what is private industry in

Canada doing. They want to know why they should be penalized in such a way. I do not blame many people for having, shall I say, socialist tendencies when they see such injustice being passed out. That is the sort of thing that causes discontent with private enterprise. Let us not kid ourselves about it.
I am convinced that the efficiency of private enterprise far surpasses that of socialism. The minister indicated that quite clearly the other day when he pointed out that under free enterprise the standard of living in this country is so much higher and the freedom of the people is so much greater than in those countries having other forms of government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our great resources in North America may have something to do with it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, they may and no doubt have; but the fact of the matter is that our liberties are greater, our standard of living is greater and our employment problems are less than in these other countries.


An hon. Member:: It must be a good government.


Charles Edward Johnston: No; as I explained the other day it is not the federal government-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in spite of the federal government.


Charles Edward Johnston: -to which the credit should go for bringing about prosperity in Canada. Every member of the house knows that industry is under the control of the provinces, and it is the provinces together with private enterprise that have created prosperity in Canada despite the federal government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You fellows are not only all in the same bed; you are all mixed up.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think too little emphasis has been placed on the control of monopolies. There have been some prosecutions in the past. There was a prosecution of the glass industry. They did not even bother to defend the case. They said: Sure we are guilty, we created a combine, we set prices, and so what? The court imposed a fine of $10,000. Isn't that ridiculous? They would have made more than that in a week's business, and the price of glass has not been affected one bit. Other combines have been prosecuted, found guilty and fined, but what effect has it had in the lowering of prices? Not one bit. Therefore our legislation must be defective in some way. The government has not taken any steps to see that prices were lowered as a result of these prosecutions and convictions. I know about the price maintenance legislation, and in general I
Combines Investigation Act think it was a good thing; but so far as combines are concerned something more drastic must be done.
The committee pointed out two very essential things that could be done, making use of the tariff and making use of the patent rights which these companies possess. I am disappointed that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has overlooked that important part of the committee's recommendations and, as the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) has said, has in effect taken the teeth out of the legislation, something that is vitally needed. There are very few large concerns in this country that have no suspicion of monopolistic control about them. If we allow that situation to continue there is nothing that will destroy free enterprise faster. If we want to maintain the system which we think is the proper one and which has given such good results, then we must guard it very zealously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson in the chair.
On section 1-Commission.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make a suggestion to facilitate consideration of the clauses of the bill. We observe that section 1 of the bill is quite short but that section 2 actually extends over to the middle of page 14. It purports to rewrite about fifteen sections of the present act. May I suggest that when you come to call section 2 of the bill you call the sections of the act as proposed to be revised?


The Deputy Chairman:: Is that agreeable?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 (section 2) and section 6 (section 2) agreed to.
On section 7 (section 2)-Application for inquiry.
Donald Methuen Fleming: The present act provides for the initiation of an inquiry in three ways, one of which is on the complaint of six persons who are British subjects resident in Canada. It is proposed to change that to read, "any six persons, Canadian citizens, resident in Canada." Why should the language of the present act be narrowed? Surely if there are any reasons to suspect the existence of a combine we want to encourage persons to lay the available information before the director of investigation, and surely it does not matter whether or not they are Canadian citizens. The important thing is the information they put before the director, and as long as they are responsible persons and

Combines Investigation Act are British subjects resident in Canada of the full age of 21 years I should think that is good enough to qualify them to make their representations to the director. It will then be up to the director to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to warrant investigation. Why confine it to people who are Canadian citizens as well as having these other qualifications?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there is actually any narrowing of the subject matter at all. If my hon. friend will look at the old section 11 which is printed on the opposite pages he will see that it reads as follows:
11. (1) Any six persons, British subjects, resident in Canada, of the full age of 21 years . . .
The changing of the term to "Canadian citizens" is simply a reflection of the enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act. It is a consequential change.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It goes a good deal farther than that. I do not think the minister has grasped the point I am making. There can be persons who are British subjects resident in Canada and who are not Canadian citizens. Surely we wish to encourage people who have knowledge of the existence of combines to make these facts available to the director of investigation; then why confine it to Canadian citizens? There may be British subjects resident in Canada who have not yet qualified for Canadian citizenship because they have not been here the full five years but nevertheless have information of the kind sought here and be in a position, except for this proposed amendment, to put it before the director. The effect of the amendment is to narrow the class of persons who can make a complaint to the director. I cannot see any justification for narrowing the kind of persons who can make these complaints. If we want to encourage complaints I think we should be widening the class of persons and not narrowing it. The effect of the proposed amendment is to eliminate British subjects resident in Canada 21 years of age and over who are not yet Canadian citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Instead of changing "British subjects" to "Canadian citizens" I wonder if the minister would consider deleting that phrase altogether so it would read, "any six persons resident in Canada". I realize the point the minister is making, namely that what the drafters thought they were doing was simply bringing the language up to date in view of the enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act. I would agree to that, but if the point made by the hon. member for Eglinton has to be considered then we would want the wording to extend not only to residents in Canada who are British subjects


but not Canadian citizens but also to others who happen to be here for the required length of time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think in actual practice it will make very much difference in any case that is likely to arise. In point of fact over the years the occasions upon which this section has been invoked have been very limited. It does seem that where the results of the action taken by six Canadian citizens may put the suspected company to a very great deal of expense and inconvenience, even if ultimately no case is found against the company, it is not at all unreasonable to limit that to Canadian citizens. If in a given case we will say that six persons who are not Canadian citizens come across a flagrant set of facts, it does not seem likely they would have much difficulty in finding six Canadian citizens whom they could get to sponsor their case for them. I think we are labouring a point that, in practice, is not of very great importance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's wish may
prevail in this matter, but I want to express my opinion. It is a mistake to narrow the terms of the act here. We are looking for more effective terms, and I think it is a mistake to narrow them as this amendment will do, and to confine the type of person who can make a complaint to the directors.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 (section 2) agreed to.
On section 9 (section 2)-Notice or written returns.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is a point I should like to raise here which applies not only to this section but to sections 10 and 12. It is the confining of the application to an ex parte basis, that is to say the application of the director to the commission or a member of it. We have a similar provision in section 9, subsection 2; in section 10, subsections 3 and 5 and in section 12, subsection 1. In every case the director makes an ex parte application to a member of the commission for the various orders that are provided for here. I am wondering if it is not feasible, in at least some of these cases, to make the application on notice to the party affected. Is there any great harm in these cases in making the application on notice?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We are asking the director,
under the new bill, to make these ex parte applications for permission to take steps which the commissioner, under the old act, has the power to take on his own initiative. We are, therefore, already imposing some restrictions upon the discretion of the director in that respect. I believe it would be unwise

to do so upon notice, because if it were upon notice then there would have to be a hearing before the director could move at all. During the delay caused thereby the documents or information which were sought might become unavailable. I think that what we have provided is the utmost precaution that we should insert in the present bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This calls for some comment. Under the proposed new structure the commission has certain powers that -the minister described last night as quasi-judicial. I think it is desirable that the judicial functions of the members of the commission be emphasized as much as possible. In each of these cases where provision is made for an application to the commission by the director, they are fairly serious matters.
For instance, section 9, subsection 2, relates to the demand for written returns which can be compelled by an order issued by a member of the commission on an ex parte application by the director. Under section 10, subsection 3, it is an order authorizing entry upon the premises of a person. Under subsection 5 of section 10, it is a provision for directing a police officer or constable to -take steps in order to guarantee an authorized representative admission or access to the premises. I shall not deal with the other one for the moment. It strikes me that when importance is attached to the judicial functions of the commission, regard should be had to the possibility of giving notice before an order is applied for under these various sections. I oannot see that any harm would result, because while the minister talks about the possibility of records disappearing, the fact of the matter is that the individual or corporation concerned already knows or has reason to suspect that the director is very much interested in them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not necessarily.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think if the minister will look at these sections again he will realize that in at least some of these cases an order would only be applied for after some attempt had been made to achieve the same results without recourse to the strong methods that are provided for here. It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that having regard to the judicial nature of the commission-a fact that I hope is going to be carefully stressed in the administration of the new act-in at least some of these cases these applications could well be made upon notice. They are dealing in some cases with quite responsible people and there is no reason why, if a member of the commission thought it desirable that notice should be given to the
Combines Investigation Act person or corporation concerned, he should be prevented from directing that the person be notified.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member will reflect for a moment upon the fact that, under the present act the commissioner has the power to do all these things upon his own initiative, and in the great majority of cases when he or his representative goes to the premises of a suspected corporation, the actions he carries out there in accordance with his powers under the act are in most cases acquiesced in by the suspected corporation, the hon. member will come to the conclusion that we have gone a great distance for the suspect's protection in asking the director to acquire authority from the commission on an ex parte application.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the change is good as far as it goes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, as far as it goes; but I do not think we would want to go any farther, because I would take issue with the hon. member with regard to the judicial character of that particular function which the commission will discharge. It is not analogous to the judicial consideration which a magistrate, for example, gives on a preliminary hearing of a oase which comes before him and in which he does exercise a judicial function. It is more analogous to the discretion which a magistrate exercises on the application which is made to him by a police officer for a warrant, and granted on an ex parte application.
If every time the director moved in any direction to take any steps under the act he had to serve notice on the suspected corporation, have their counsel come down for a hearing and argue all of this out, in some cases he might not need to take any further steps because, as I said a moment ago, it might just happen as a matter of coincidence that the material which he was seeking would not at that time be available. I do not think the government could consider for a moment hedging this around with any further restrictions than the ex parte application.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not suggest that what I am proposing should apply in every case. I believe that if we have the kind of men on this commission who should be there they would be quite capable of deciding whether in the interests of justice an order should be made ex parte or on notice. I believe the commission should have the power to decide whether the case is of that nature.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 10 (section 2) agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation Act
On section 11 (section 2)-Inspection of documents.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Here we have the introduction of the word "documents" which is new. Up to the present time the statute has talked about books, papers, records. ^ In other sections which we shall be coming to the word "documents" will also be found. What is the nature of the documents that are in the mind of the draftsman and which are not included within the previous words "books, papers, records"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I could refer my hon. friend to any specific example. I think the reason that this word has been introduced is that during the course of our experience under the existing act we have found papers and writings which perhaps could not be brought under the heading of "books, papers or records" if these words were closely interpreted. That word "documents" is put in there out of caution so we can cover all the types of paper writing that we are likely to gather in an inquiry of that sort.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister will agree that probably the word "documents" is not any wider term than the expression "books, papers and records".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it might be, might it not? For example, a contract or a lease.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that not a paper?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 15 inclusive (section 2) agreed to.
On section 16 (section 2)-Commission.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In section 16 we come to these important provisions designed to set up the restrictive trade practices commission consisting of three members appointed by the governor in council. I should like to ask the minister what type of person the government has in mind appointing to such a commission. What qualifications does the government intend that the members shall have? Shall they be engaged full time as members of this commission? Is the government considering appointing a woman as one of the three members of the commission? What kind of experience is the government looking for in the persons who are going to be appointed to this commission? Are they persons who have had any experience in trade, business or merchandising?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To answer the various points of my hon. friend's question one by one, 1 might say that these members of the commission will all be full-time appointees. They will be appointed for a term of ten years in order to give them security of tenure in their

positions. They will be lawyers, economists or professionally trained men or women of that sort who, in addition to a good academic training, have as much experience as we can secure in the candidates who present themselves. I expect that it may take a little bit of time to get people who are in every way suitable for these positions because we would rate them, as I am sure my hon. friend suspects, on a par with a judge in the courts. They are going to be discharging quasijudicial functions of an exceedingly onerous character. We had considered and had rejected the idea that the commission should be representative of, say, the farm, labour, consumer or the producer viewpoint, upon the ground that, unless we had a very large commission, it would be impossible to have represented upon it all the viewpoints which perhaps it would be thought should be represented on a commission that was set up on the basis of occupational representation. They will therefore be appointed largely in the same manner we appointed the MacQuarrie committee itself, namely upon the basis of their personal competence, having regard to their theoretical training and their practical experience.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What salaries does the government propose to pay?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What we had in mind was a salary of $14,000 for the chairman and $12,000 for each of the two members.


Mr. Balcom:: May I ask the minister if the members of this commission are all to be professional lawyers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. When I cited the case of lawyers and economists, I was citing those as examples of men who had a thorough academic foundation; but in addition to that we would want them to have a great deal of practical experience as well. Of course it is easy enough to discuss this matter in an abstract manner now, but I am sure hon. members realize that when we are faced with the problem of actually getting suitable appointees we cannot always get them according to a certain blueprint. We have to confine our choice to those who are available and are willing to take the position. It is quite conceivable that we might find a certain Mr. John Doe who might not have too high an academic standing but yet he might be an admirable man for the position by reason of his long practical experience.


Gordon Graydon: Or a lot of common sense.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; or a lot of common sense.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 (section 2) agreed to.

On section 19 (section 2)-Report by commission.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which, by subsection 3 thereof, proposes to enlarge from 15 days to 30 days the period within which the report of the commissioner must be made public by the minister following his receipt thereof. What justification is there for doubling this period?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that I could bring forward a better concrete example to support the proposed increase of this period than the rubber report which I tabled quite recently. The present period is 15 days. All that the present commissioner or the new commission is required to do in order to comply with his duty imposed under the old act or under the new bill is to attend at my office and tender to me a typewritten copy of that report. If they do that, then I have to give it some consideration and arrange for its reproduction by some mechanical means. As a matter of fact, that report which was tabled the other day was run off in the department and it took, on quite a good machine, about 12 days to reproduce 200 copies of it.
I suggest that three days of a difference is an altogether inadequate time allowance for a minister to receive a document of that sort and be under a statutory obligation to have it published. You cannot publish a report of that sort, in any fairness to a proper consideration of the public interest, by simply bringing here a couple of typewritten copies and leaving them on the table. If we are going to do the type of job in that respect which the act contemplates and get proper publicity for it, we must make sure that when the report is tabled there are an adequate number of copies and of press releases to service the press gallery; because it is only through the medium of the newspapers of this country that any of our activities in this house are brought to the attention of the people. To table two copies of this report and leave it to the press to come down, look through those copies and prepare their material would be out of the question altogether. When you see the mechanical difficulty which is involved in properly publishing this report, getting it out in such a way that the public interest will really be informed upon the subject matter, that 15 days is an altogether inadequate period. I do not think 30 days is by any means too much; but in any event, in what way can the public interest be prejudiced in having the publication made adequately within the period of 30 days? There is only a difference of between 15 and 30.
As matters stand now, any commissioner or any chairman of a commission, if he took 55704-198
Combines Investigation Act a dislike to the minister, could put him in an utterly impossible position by taking a typewritten copy of the report and leaving it on his desk. Then the minister will have a desperately hard time ever getting it published properly within the 15-day period. That is not a situation which I think should obtain and I very strongly urge that we leave the 30-day period as it is.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is quite evident that the publication does not involve any act on the part of the minister. He is not obliged to sift through that report and reach any fundamental decision in regard to it. All the statute requires of him is that he should make the report public within 15 days. The minister has given a rather striking example. The report which he tabled a week ago Monday, June 2, on the rubber combine was voluminous, and undoubtedly the task of multigraphing it was heavy. But this provision was written into the act for a definite purpose, namely to make sure that when reports are made by the commissioner under the old act they are not pigeonholed but are promptly made public. The language of section 27, subsection 5, of the present act is mandatory, and that time limit was put there for a very good purpose.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And the language of the new legislation is also mandatory.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, it is also mandatory but with a period double the present length. Having regard to the purpose here and to our experience of 1949, I do not think this is the type of section with which we would wish to see any liberties taken. My submission is that the period of 15 days ought to remain as it is. All the minister has said today is that the multigraphing of the rubber combines report proved to be a heavy task and required 12 days. Well, all right; most of the reports do not come to anything like the length of that one, and the minister did have that report mimeographed. Copies were available to the press gallery on the twelfth day. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the minister has not made a case for an extension of this period.
Having regard to the importance of this section, both in its intrinsic merits and also in the light of the experience of 1949, my submission is that the effect of the legislation should remain as it is. If the minister is not prepared to accept the suggestion I shall be obliged to move the following amendment:
That clause 19 (3) of Bill No. 306 be amended by striking out the word "thirty" in the first line of the said clause, and substituting therefor the word "fifteen."

Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept my hon. friend's suggestion.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 14; nays, 45.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the clause carries may I ask whether it is clearly understood that this section is mandatory and that any reports covered by this section must be made public within 30 days, without any exception?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the question is addressed to me, I think I might say to my hon. friend that section 19, subsection 3, reads:
Any report of the commission shall within thirty days after its receipt by the minister be made public, . . .
That clearly indicates that it is mandatory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 22 inclusive (section 2) agreed to.
On section 23 (section 2)-Former civil servants contributors under superannuation act.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In section 23 provision is made for preserving the rights -of former civil servants who might be appointed to the commission. Is there any intention of appointing to this commission persons who are now in the civil service, because if there is not there is no occasion for enacting this section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has just uttered a truism. If there is no possibility of appointing a civil servant, there is no purpose in this section. The fact that the section is there is an indication that that is one of the possibilities we have under consideration. For example, we would not want to exclude a man who in every respect was a first-rate appointee for a position of this sort, merely because at the time he happened to be a servant of this government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 24 to 26 inclusive (section 2) agreed to.
On section 27 (section 2)-Minister may require interim report.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a point on section 27. Under this section the minister may require the director to submit an interim report, and the report has to be accompanied by the evidence and the director's opinion as to the effect of the evidence. I point out this section applies only to an interim report. I should like to offer a word of caution against pressing the director for an opinion on these interim reports before he has completed his entire work of investigation. I do not think our experience of interim reports on situations of this kind is too good.


James Sinclair: Very good.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without harking back to what happened last fall-it is so obvious I do not think we need to dwell on the subject-I just offer the suggestion to the minister that the opinion, under many circumstances, required of the director in the case of an interim report before he has completed his investigation is not too valuable, and it is not altogether a fair position to put the director in, where he is called upon for an opinion before he has completed his investigation in any particular case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend will be glad to know that this is one occasion on which I agree with him, because if he will look across to the opposite page he will see that section 27 of the existing act confers a similar power upon the minister, which I can tell him I have not abused at all during the time that I have been minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister used it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, I have had interim reports; but as a matter of fact these provisions in the act, as my hon. friend knows, as in many other acts, are there so they can be invoked if it is necessary to invoke them. But where proper relations exist between the minister and his staff it is never necessary to invoke any provision such as this, because all the information the minister requires, either in oral or written form, he can obtain quite easily. The practice is usually that we discuss these matters; and by the very friendly atmosphere that prevails in this branch of the department I find I can get all the information I require at any time either in written or oral form. I never have had to invoke this section at all.
Section 27 (section 2) agreed to.
Section 28 (section 2) agreed to.
On section 29 (section 2)-Reduction or removal of customs duties.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it not felt that the tariff board would be the proper forum to which to refer any cases where it is thought any provision in the tariff has the effect of lessening competition or tending toward monopolistic conditions? I should think they are much better able to deal with questions of that kind than the commission to be established under this legislation would be.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There may be a good deal in what my hon. friend says. The main reason we did not carry out explicitly the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee in connection with this tariff matter was that we thought, having regard to the powers in relation to tariff which were already contained in the present Combines Investigation

Act as it now stands, and1 also the wide powers the governor in council and the tariff board have under the tariff acts, there was already available quite a wide field of action. We thought that we could very well along the lines the hon. member has suggested make examinations as to whether these existing powers were not adequate in any ease likely to arise. It was felt that after we had done so we would be in a much better position to draft an amendment to carry into effect the MacQuarrie recommendations if, after that experience, it was thought advisable to do so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have there been any cases hitherto where reference has been made to the tariff board and where it was thought, under the present section 29 of the act, that the tariff had the kind of effect frowned upon by the combines investigation officials?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not like to identify it as being under the tariff board necessarily. I think there has been a case, or perhaps there have been cases, but I could not cite them at the moment. However, I can look into the matter and let my hon. friend know.


Mr. Benidickson:: Perhaps it would not be unfair to say that those who recommended the recent reduction in the glass tariff were not unmindful of the inquiry made into the glass industry under this act.


Mr. Quelch:: Is the board absolutely free to make any recommendations it likes respecting tariffs, or is it limited in any way by this section? Are they free to base their recommendations upon the public interest?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The tariff board itself?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, in connection with the consideration of this bill I must say I have not examined the Tariff Board Act recently, but my recollection is that they have a wide discretion in their act. To what extent they can, take judicial notice of proceedings under the act we are now discussing, I would not like to say offhand. However I do not think they are greatly curtailed. The powers under the existing Combines Investigation Act and those of the governor in council under the tariff acts are all in addition to those which the hon. member for Eglinton says can be properly exercised by the tariff board in cases of this kind.


Victor Quelch: What is the power of the commission in drafting a report under this act? Are they free to make recommendations in the public interest with regard to the tariff?
55704-198J
Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does the hon. member mean the commission under this combines investigation bill?


Victor Quelch: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, there are scarcely any restrictions upon the recommendations which the commissioners under this Combines Investigation Act may make, so long as they are relevant to the inquiry they have conducted into an alleged combine. If my hon. friend will look at the relevant section he will see that they have to report upon the facts. The facts would include the state of the tariff.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 31 (section 3) agreed to.
On section 32 (section 3)-Penalty for operating combine.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there is a point I should like to raise which would apply to several sections equally. I would refer to the proposed new section 32, and several of those following. We find the same thing at page 21 of the bill, in sections 498 and 498A of the Criminal Code. My observations will apply equally to all of them.
In these cases where, up to the present time, there has been provision for both fine and imprisonment by way of penalty for offences under the Combines Investigation Act, or these two sections of the Criminal Code, it is now proposed to eliminate any provision whatever for fines and to provide for penalties only by way of imprisonment. I wonder if that may not be likely to defeat the purpose in mind. I think all hon. members realize the purpose, and subscribe to the aim of making these penal sections stiff, so that when some person is convicted of an offence under the Combines Investigation Act, or under these two sections of the Criminal Code, a real punishment will be imposed, and so that those who may be contemplating becoming breakers of these laws will hesitate to do so, in the knowledge that they are rendering themselves subject to imprisonment. I am wondering, though, if there is not another consideration which ought to be taken into account. It may be that cases will arise where the degree of guilt does not greatly impress the court and where, if the court had power as it has at present, it would impose a fine. However, lacking the power to impose a fine and being faced only with power to impose imprisonment, it may be found that in these cases courts would simply impose suspended sentences.
Has serious consideration been given by the law officers of the Department of Justice

Combines Investigation Act
to this step of completely eliminating any provision for fines? I am not arguing for small fines, or the kind of fines that would not act as a very effective sanction in cases of this kind. As was done previously, let us make -the possible fine a substantial amount. But is it desirable to tie the hands of a court in the way in which these amendments undoubtedly will tie its hands?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member has raised an important point. I might explain to him however that, while it is not so expressed in the bill, where an accused person is subject to a penalty of two years imprisonment there is section 1035 in the Criminal Code the effect of which will be retained in the new bill and which provides that at its discretion a court may impose a fine in lieu of that imprisonment. And since obviously most cases that arise under the Combines Investigation Act involve corporations which cannot be imprisoned, the court must impose a fine. The effect of the bill now before the committee is to remove the existing ceiling of $25,000 upon the fine imposed for offences against this act. The court may impose any fine it wishes, no matter how much, when this bill becomes law.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will that apply to breaches of the Combines Investigation Act, as well as of sections 498 and 498A of the Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right; to both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was waiting for a later section to raise a point I have in mind, but perhaps it is related to section 32 and might well be raised now in view of the discussion that has taken place. The minister has just remarked that you cannot put a corporation in jail, but I remind him that there is another statute-I forget just which one it is-containing a provision that if directors of a company are parties to a certain offence they may be put in jail personally. That is also true under this legislation in respect of certain offences. For example, section 38, subsection 3 provides:
Where a corporation commits an offence against subsection one or two any director or officer of such corporation who assents to or acquiesces in the offence committed by the corporation shall be guilty of that offence personally and cumulatively with the corporation and with his co-directors or associate officers.
When one looks at subsections 1 and 2 of that section he finds that a fine or imprisonment is possible, but it is also to be noted that the offences referred to are only offences against the sections that require co-operation in preparing reports or obtaining information. As the minister knows, one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Assiniboia, has

actually brought up this question in the form of a public bill in which it is suggested that the wording of section 38, subsection 3, might include offences against section 32, which is the section we are now discussing, as well as against the subsections already covered.
Section 32 is the really important section. It makes it an offence to assist knowingly in the formation or operation of a combine. It seems to me that if we are going to put teeth in this legislation it is just as important, if not more important, to make it an offence for which a director of a corporation may be put in jail because he knowingly assisted in the formation of a combine, as it is to make it an offence to withhold co-operation in getting information for a report.
My suggestion is that when we get to section 38, subsection 3, there should be included as well a reference to section 32 in addition to the reference to subsections 1 and 2. Similarly when we get to section 498A I submit that a proviso should be added to the effect that where a corporation is involved the terms of section 38, subsection 3, might apply. No doubt the minister has given thought to this and I dare to hope that even though it has not yet come forward he has considered the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia. I should like to hear his comments on this matter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at section 32, subsection 1, he will find that it reads as follows:
Every person-
That includes a corporation or an individual.
-who is a party or privy to or knowingly assists in the formation or operation of a combine is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
That means that under that section Mr. John Jones, who is a director or manager or official of an accused corporation, could be named in the indictment as a person responsible for knowingly assisting in the formation of a combine. But when we are considering whether we should so charge him, we must consider what effect it will have upon the course of the trial. Sometimes the proving of a case against an accused corporation may depend in some degree upon the evidence given by someone like John Jones, and it may not be advisable to name him in the indictment. If he were accused he might plead not guilty, and then he could not be called as a witness against either himself or the accused corporation.
My hon. friend will recall when we were amending the act, I think two years ago, it was provided that in all cases where a

charge was laid against a corporation that it should not have a jury trial but should proceed before a judge. In most cases that is more convenient. My hon. friend will recall that the case of the alleged bread combine in western Canada took up 100 court days. He can imagine how impossible it would be to keep jurymen away from their occupations for 100 court days, which might mean nearly six months of actual time. It would be impossible to obtain the proper consideration by a jury preoccupied with getting away to their own occupations. That was one reason for that amendment. Yet if we charge an individual he can elect a jury trial.
Those are considerations which have to be taken into account by the prosecutor when he launches his prosecution. The fact that individuals are not prosecuted is not because of any hole in the law under which they escape liability; it is simply that it is considered that this may be the best way to accomplish the conviction of the accused corporation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would not that same disability apply to section 38, subsection 3, in so far as it refers to other offences? How do you draw the line between the offences set out in section 38, subsections 1 and 2, which can be punished by fine or imprisonment as provided by section 38, subsection 3, and the offences set out in section 32, subsection 1, in connection with which the punishment seems to be restricted to a fine?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 38, subsection 2, reads:
Every person who, without good and sufficient cause, the proof whereof lies on him, refuses, neglects or fails to comply with a notice in writing requiring a written return under oath or affirmation, pursuant to section nine or subsection two of section twenty-two is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
That is a case where the investigator goes into ABC company and wants to get some information, and the people there adopt an attitude of resistance and non-co-operation. They would make themselves liable under this section. That is an easy offence to prove and there would be no particular difficulty in laying a charge against an official of the company under those circumstances. But the offence of a combine under section 32, subsection 1, is in most cases very difficult to prove because of the great complexities and thousands of exhibits that might be involved. So far as the rubber report is concerned, there were 8,000 pages of evidence and 4,000 exhibits, and that is before we get into the case at all. If in any case of that sort the man who has the very onerous
Combines Investigation Act responsibility of advising a prosecution feels that some individual is a key witness in the case he will hesitate very much about making him a defendant because he is more use as a witness than as a defendant. But it is not through any deficiency in the law. The law is as plain as a pikestaff. Every person who is a party or privy to or knowingly assists in the formation or operation of a combine is guilty of an indictable offence, whether it is a person who is a corporation or a person who is an individual.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is a person who is a director of a corporation and who is a party to the offence liable to be put in jail for that offence under the law as it stands?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I think it would be very difficult to secure a conviction against him if he were able to show that he knew nothing about the matter, but if he took an active part in it and was a party to it then the terms of this section apply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I mean. Under the terms of 32(1), if a director of a corporation is a party to an offence and it is proved that he knowingly assisted in the formation or operation of a combine, can he be put in jail?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, if he is convicted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On section 12-Coming into force.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say when it is intended to proclaim this act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I cannot, other than to say as soon as possible. My hon. friend will appreciate that where we have to set up a commission and get good men to serve on it, we are setting up what in effect will be entirely new machinery. We cannot very well proclaim the act until we have the machinery in operation. We are going to do that as soon as possible, but I could not honestly pretend that I can forecast exactly when we will be able to accomplish that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Next sitting.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we might call it six o'clock if it meets with the approval of the house. Tomorrow we shall take up what is item No. 15 on today's order paper, second reading of the bill to amend the British North America Acts with respect to the representation in the House of Commons. We shall then take up the estimates of the departments of labour, fisheries, and mines and technical surveys.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that order?


Walter Edward Harris: In that order.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.

Thursday, June 12, 1952