1960-06-01

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal)
presented the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Since January 1,	1960, how many insured
housing loans have been made by approved lenders, other than banks, under the National Housing Act to dwellers in municipalities with populations under 10,000?
2.	What was the comparable figure for period commencing January 1, 1959?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to question 1 is; for the period January 1, 1960 to May 31, 1960, number of loans, 440.
The answer to question 2 is; for the period January 1, 1959 to May 31, 1959, number of loans, 391.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND CREDITS
Mr. Robichaud: What was the balance to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as at April 30, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund, April 30, 1957, $854,607,845.71; April 30, 1958, $693,102,899.31; April 30, 1959, $454,462,498.91; April 30, 1960, $324,986,215.82 (interim).


GEORGIAN BAY AIRCRAFT LTD.  DIRECTORS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Who were the directors of Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited at the time the application for a class 4 charter commercial air service (with
group B aircraft) was declined by the air transport board on December 1, 1959?
2.	Who were the directors of Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited at the time the application for a class 4 charter commercial air service (with group B aircraft) was granted on January 21, 1960?
3.	Who are the present directors of Georgian Bay Aircraft Limited?
4.	In the case of 1, 2, and 3 what is their occupation and what experience have they had in the operation of commercial air services?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I reply to part 1 of the question, the directors of Georgian Bay Airways Limited on December 1, 1959 were Frank D. Powell, Patricia A. Powell and Thomas M. Mitchell.
In answer to part 2, these were the directors on January 21, 1960.
With respect to part 3, the air transport board has not been informed of any change.
In reply to part 4, Frank D. Powell is a barrister, and since 1949 the president of the company; Patricia A. Powell is a housewife and vice-president of the company; and Thomas M. Mitchell is an accountant and manager, and is secretary treasurer of the company.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION BRANCH PERSONNEL
Mr. Howard: What are the names and the professional status and background of each of the deputy directors, combines officers, of investigation and research as well as of the director of investigation and research of the combines investigation branch of the Department of Justice?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question constitutes a list of 17 officers, with their present positions, their professional status and background. If the hon. member wishes I will read it; otherwise I might ask that it be handed in to Hansard and appear as the answer at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the list be taken as read and appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The list referred to above is as follows: 1

Starred Questions Names
T. D. MacDonald, Q.C.
J. J. Quinlan F. N. MacLeod
F.	C. Gascoigne A. G. Powell
S. F. Sommerfeld
R. M. Davidson
D. A. Rankin
G.	D. Orr R. I. Milner M. D. Stewart
Professional status and background
Director
Senior combines officer
Senior combines officer
Senior combines officer
Combines investigation officer 6
Combines investigation officer 6
Combines investigation officer 6
Combines investigation officer 6
Combines investigation officer 6
Combines investigation officer 6
Combines investigation officer 5
Lawyer-B.A., LL.B. Lawyer-B.A., LL.B. Lawyer-B.A., M.A., LL.B. Economics-B.A.
Commerce-B. Com.
Lawyer-BA., LL.B.
Economics-B.A., M.A.
Commerce-B.A., B. Com.
Economics-B.A. ,
Commerce-B. Com.
Economics-B.A., B. Com., M.A., Ph.D.
G. C. Wilkes W. F. Lindsay
Combines investigation
officer 4	Economics-B.Sc.F., M.Sc.F.
Combines investigation
officer 3	Chartered
Accountant-C.A.
A. C. Whealy C. E. Wishart L. P. Landry J. S. Fell
Combines investigation officer 2
Combines investigation officer 2
Combines investigation officer 2
Combines investigation officer 1
Lawyer-LL.B.
Economics-B.A.
Lawyer-B.A., B.Ph., L.LL. Commerce-B. Com.


APPRAISAL FEES, FARM CREDIT ACTS
Mr. Benidickson: 1.	What was the amount of the appraisal fee required from a farmer loan applicant in 1957 under the regulations of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	What was the amount of the appraisal fee required from a farmer loan applicant in 1960 under (a) part II, and (b) part III of the Farm Credit Act?
3.	Under both acts was the fee to be retained by the corporation if an appraisal was made whether or not the application received approval?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: The answer to part 1 is $10.
The answer to part 2 (a) is 2 per cent of the amount of loan applied for or $50, whichever is the lesser; (b) two per cent of the amount of loan applied for or $100, whichever is the lesser.
The answer to part 3 is yes, unless otherwise directed by the commissioner under the Canadian Farm Loan Act or chairman under the Farm Credit Act.


CASH RECEIVED BY CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Do any of the corporations, boards, commissions, or like authorities of the crown have any

relationships with customers or clients which bring in cash in either currency or silver?
2.	If so, which; for what services; where?
3.	In each case, what are the types of surveillance procedure used to ensure the correctness and safety of such cash moneys to the crown?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, this question should stand as an order for return. The information necessary to answer this question has to be obtained from more than one department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


PURCHASES OF PLAYS BY C.B.C.
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many plays (texts and copyrights) have been bought each year by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation since the French network was set up?
2.	How many of these texts bought by the said corporation have been used each year?
3.	What has been, for the same period, the total amount paid each year for the texts actually used?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: By reason of the detail in this question, with the consent of the hon. member, I would ask that the question stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.


CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.  VISIT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did the deputy minister of public works visit Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island on, or about, May 19, 1960?
2.	If so, did the deputy minister make a public speech on that occasion and, if so, on what subject?
3.	Was the sole purpose of his visit to deliver a speech?
4.	Did the deputy minister travel to Charlottetown in a government aircraft?
5.	If so, were there any other passengers in the aircraft, and, if so, who were they?
6.	What was the approximate cost of the flight?


Léon Balcer: This question also should stand as an order for return for the same reason.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.



CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Have any ships of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships been sold to Cuban interests? If so, how many and on what date or dates were they sold?
2.	What has happened to these ships since the date of sale, and where are they presently located?
3.	Have any of these ships been in use since the date of the sale?
4.	What was the selling price of the ships sold, and what amount has been collected to date?
5.	Does the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships contemplate repossessing these ships, or some of these ships, for use on the maritime provinces-West Indies, or the Atlantic provinces- West Indies routes?


George Harris Hees: The answer to part 1, Mr. Speaker, is that the fleet of eight vessels was sold in August, 1958 to the Banco Cubano del Com-mercio Exterior of Havana, Cuba.
With regard to part 2, at the date of sale the eight vessels were anchored at Halifax. The last press reports to come to the attention of the management indicated that seven were in Halifax and one in Baltimore.
As to part 3, the new owners took possession of the ships and the management have no knowledge of any use to which they may have been put.
The answer to part 4 is $2,800,000. The agreement of sale provided for an immediate cash payment of $560,000 with the balance payable in five equal annual instalments of $448,000 with interest on the unpaid balance at 5 per cent per annum. The first of the five annual instalments was received in August, 1959 and the principal outstanding under the agreement of sale amounted to $1,792,000 at December 31, 1959. The balance owing is
Orders for Returns
secured by a letter of credit from the purchaser, confirmed by the Bank of America, New York.
The answer to part 5 is no.



LES WAY, C.B.C.

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has one Mr. Les Way recently left the employ of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, on what date, in what manner, and for
what reasons?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The answer to the first part of this question is yes. I may say that in part this question was answered previously. A similar answer was given to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).
As to the second part the answer is as follows. His last program was broadcast on May 1, 1960. He was given notice of termination of his engagement following the announcement of his candidature for a provincial political office.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Do any of the corporations, boards, commissions, or like authorities of the crown have any relationships with customers or clients which bring in cash in either currency or silver?
2.	If so, which, for what services, where?
3.	In each case, what are the types of surveillance procedure used to ensure the correctness and safety of such cash moneys to the crown?


CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.  VISIT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did the deputy minister of public works visit Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, on or about, May 19, 1960?
2.	If so, did the deputy minister make a public speech on that occasion and, if so, on what subject?
3.	Was the sole purpose of his visit to deliver a speech?
4.	Did the deputy minister travel to Charlottetown in a government aircraft?
5.	If so, were there any other passengers in the aircraft, and, if so, who were they?
6.	What was the approximate cost of the flight?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 114-Mr. Benidickson:
1.	For a copy of the form required in May, 1957, by a farmer applicant for a loan under the regulations of the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
2.	For a copy of the form required in May, 1960, by a farmer applicant for a loan under the regulations of the Farm Credit Act.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether discussions are going on at the present time between Canada and any other countries with regard to agreements on territorial and jurisdictional waters between those countries tending to the conclusion of a general international agreement on this subject?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations. There are various consultations, but no actual negotiations.



INQUIRY AS TO EFFECT OF SUMMIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether he thinks NATO has been strengthened by the events at the summit conference in Paris.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that is not an easy question to answer. I do feel that as a result of the events of the last couple of weeks there has been a greater realization on the part of NATO countries of the need for unity than possibly there has been at any time in recent years. That need of unity has certainly resulted in a new feeling of cohesiveness.
I think I can go no further than that because to do so would simply be to look into the future, but I do express the hope that the various members of the NATO family will emphasize still more the necessity of fuller consultation than ever in the past, for only through full consultation can there be the assurance of that unity which is more necessary today, than it has been for a very long period of time.


Guy Rouleau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell the house what in particular he proposes to advocate to strengthen NATO militarily during discussions in Washington at the end of this week?


John George Diefenbaker: The projected meeting between the President and myself will naturally result in discussions taking place between us as heads of friendly nations to the end that the unity that is so necessary in NATO shall be maintained and increased, such unity is indeed so characteristic of our two countries.
[Mr. Benidickson.)

In so far as specific discussions are concerned, I would say that the hon. gentleman will realize that they will cover a variety of matters. I would not be in a position to furnish details-nor would I wish to do so- regarding the agenda which will be before us as we discuss the matters which particularly affect our own countries and international relationships.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. It arises out of a press report headed "B.C. Submits Power Plan for Columbia". In view of the reported announcement on May 31 in Victoria by Hon. Ray Williston, minister of lands and forests, to the effect that British Columbia has offered a complete package deal for the development of the Columbia river, which calls for a storage dam and power plant at the head of the Arrow lakes in the Kootenays; and in view of the fact that the press report indicates that the Times said the plan will bring the federal and provincial governments close to agreement on how to develop the stream; and in view of the minister's clam-like silence on this question, has the minister any information he can properly give the house with respect to this announcement?


Edmund Davie Fulton: thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, of which I also received notice from the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) and other members from the area who are interested in the matter. My attention was drawn to the press report yesterday evening, and in view of its importance I was in touch by telephone with Mr. Williston in Vancouver.
Mr. Williston assures me without reservation that he made no such statement or announcement as is reported in the press. He tells me that what happened was that he was asked by a newspaper correspondent whether it was a fact that what is known as the Arrow lakes dam could be machined and made into a power producer. He confirmed that engineering studies now indicate that that is a possibility. He said that his conversation with the reporter and any definite statement he made went that far only and no further, that he did not announce anything in the way of an offer of a package deal, and that none of the other things attributed to Mr. Williston in the press report originating in Victoria as a statement or announcement of policy, were in fact said by him.

I was glad to have this assurance, which I accept unreservedly. It would, of course, have been a complete departure from the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia with respect to the policy meetings which do from time to time take place between us, had such an announcement been made, because our understanding is that until the whole matter has proceeded to the point where an agreed position is put forward and, we hope, accepted by the international negotiating group, no detailed report or announcement is made. Mr. Williston's assurance given to me yesterday conforms with the letter as well as the spirit of that understanding.
I should perhaps add only by way of additional information, that any suggestion that there was one package deal offered would not have been in accordance with the facts, because as I have told the house on earlier occasions, there are a number of project sequences which have been under discussion. The various considerations with regard to them have been sorted out and examined carefully, and the areas of difference with regard to the approaches to them have been substantially narrowed to the point where it is now sensible for us to hope that a decision as to the best sequence upon which we would most likely reach agreement will be arrived at in the near future.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the proposed changes in fishing regulations for the coming summer season on parts of lake Winnipeg, where they are discontinuing the use of gill nets in certain areas for conservation purposes and where the government of Manitoba intends to experiment with trap nets, has the hon. lady's department received any request for assistance to Indians who normally fish in those areas of lake Winnipeg? If so, what is the nature of the request and what action is contemplated?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: This matter has been under consideration by the department for some time. An adequate supply of trap nets has been secured and will be distributed to the Indians before the start of the season. I may add that through the co-operation of the federal Department of Fisheries and the provincial authorities the Indians will be instructed in the use of the new type of equipment.
Inquiries of the Ministry



COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State:) Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question addressed to me by the hon. member for Port Arthur regarding a new companies act, I should like to reply as follows.
A federal-provincial committee on uniformity of company legislation, comprised of the officers of the provincial departments administering the provincial companies acts and the officers of my department who administer the federal Companies Act, has been meeting over the past years with a view to bringing forth companies acts which will be as uniform as possible in all jurisdictions.
Two draft acts have been prepared by this committee, one draft with respect to jurisdictions where incorporation of companies is by means of memorandum of agreement and articles of association, and the other draft where incorporation is by means of letters patent. Representations as to the draft acts have been received from numerous sources such as the institute of chartered accountants, the commercial section of the Canadian Bar Association, the Toronto board of trade and many like professional organizations and individuals.
The conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada is presently in the process of reviewing the two draft acts prepared by the federal-provincial committee on uniformity of company legislation and has appointed two subcommittees, one with respect to the draft act where incorporation is by memorandum of agreement and articles of association and the other with respect to the draft act where the incorporation is by letters patent, for the purpose of putting the language of the draft acts into proper form in accordance with rules of drafting established by the commissioners on uniformity of legislation. This work is presently continuing, a meeting being convened from June 6 to June 10, 1960.
The draft acts prepared by the federal-provincial committee are, of course, available to any interested person who may wish to criticize, comment upon or make suggestions with respect thereto and the draft acts have, in fact, been extensively distributed for this purpose to bodies which include the organizations mentioned from which representations have been received.
However, the draft acts are merely drafts. They have not been considered by myself or the cabinet nor, as far as I know, by the responsible provincial ministers and governments of the provinces; and of course there
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry can be no assurance that the draft acts Mr. Garland: A supplementary question, will receive approval by the provincial legis- What action is being taken in the reported latures or parliament if and when introduced, attempt to get funds outside of the regular either with or without amendment.	channels?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and ask him whether a committee of government has been set up to consider the sale of the crown-owned Polymer Corporation at Sarnia.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That corporation does not come under my jurisdiction.


George James McIlraith: Then may I direct my question to the appropriate minister.


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have the future development of Polymer at heart. A committee has been named by cabinet to study the future of this company, in view of the large exports we have to make to keep this company in operation.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister used the term "future of the company". Does that involve the possible sale of the company?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I said "the future of the company".



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Is the Minister of Public Works now in a position to reply to my question as to whether any progress has been made by the government in its reported attempt to secure more mortgage money for housing without approaching the market directly?


David James Walker: I wish to thank the hon. member for Nipissing for his continued interest in housing and to tell him through you, sir, that the problem he has raised is one which we have under constant consideration. It is a very serious and wide problem. If, as and when a decision is reached, or an announcement can be made, I can assure the hon. member that the report will be made first to this house.


David James Walker: That is what we will announce when the time comes, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Transport. I understand that tenders will be called in the near future for terminal buildings at the Sault Ste. Marie airport. When the contract is let, will the minister give special consideration to local contractors who submit tenders, in order to help out the unemployment situation in that area?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this government is always very sympathetic toward unemployment situations that may arise, but projects of this nature are open to any contractor in Canada who may wish to tender, and we abide by the tender principle. I am afraid that if somebody else puts in the lowest tender, then he will have to get the job.


George Ewart Nixon: It is a very special area, though, sir.


George Harris Hees: I might add as a supplementary answer to the question of the hon. member for Algoma West regarding the employment of people in the area, that when a project such as he mentioned is being constructed, even though the contractor who gets the job may not come from the area, all efforts are made, I know, to employ local labour in a contract of that kind and I feel sure that will be done in this case.


George Ewart Nixon: Thank you very much.



NORTHERN ONTARIO-INQUIRY AS TO REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great concern expressed by municipal officials of the northern Ontario municipalities affected, as reported in their local newspapers, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any requests have yet been received from the Ontario government for federal financial

assistance for the relief of the victims of the recent floods in northern Ontario?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have to take the question as notice. I have no information at the moment to enable me to answer the question, of which I had no notice.



POINTE GATINEAU, QUE.-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a request for help from Pointe Gatineau, following the flood caused by the overflow of two navigable rivers, the Ottawa and the Gatineau? If so, has anything been done in the matter?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of this. Naturally I will have to examine the facts.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Could I have the answer again? I did not understand it.


Mr. Benidickson:: It was not audible.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has been taken as notice.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I apologize for failing to send her notice, but the answer will be yes or no. Are reports correct that counsel for Miss Rebrin has outwitted the minister and her officials and obtained the release on bail of Miss Rebrin from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton)?


Mr. Speaker:: I recall that a question about Miss Rebrin was asked the other day and objection was taken to dealing with it on the ground that the matter is still sub judice.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This has nothing to do with the case; it is purely a question of bail.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I can agree that bail has nothing to do with the case.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: May I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether applications by
Inquiries of the Ministry Chinese nationals for citizenship are being denied, or perhaps I should say postponed in receiving final approval at the present time?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the importance of giving priority to the needs of outlying areas such as Flin Flon for television coverage, the minister would consider deferring any action on the proposal to spend a great deal of money on television stations such as the C.B.C. station at Edmonton until there has been an opportunity to consider the C.B.C. estimates in the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to do with the expenditures made by the C.B.C., as the hon. member knows very well. The operations of the C.B.C. are reported upon to parliament by the Minister of National Revenue. I know this matter is important to the people of the area, and I am sure it will be given all possible consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that under the law the minister has the responsibility for bringing this matter to the attention of his colleagues, will the Minister of Transport refrain from doing so until there has been a chance to debate the C.B.C. estimates?


George Harris Hees: I know the hon. member, having been a member of a government, would not wish me to defer bringing something forward for the consideration of the cabinet which at the proper time should come forward for its consideration, and I can assure him that I will not disappoint him in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I ask the minister whether he will not reconsider that answer, because this is precisely what I am asking him to do, to defer this matter until the house has had a chance to debate it.


George Harris Hees: It is not for me to decide whether or not these matters should be deferred.

Combines Investigation Act ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY



SHANNON PARK-INQUIRY AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF RECREATION CENTRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the government any plans for the construction of a recreation centre for the 521 families living at the Shannon park naval housing development, and is the department considering the completion of the unfinished playing field at Shannon park?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING MERGERS, MONOPOLIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton for the second reading of Bill No. C-58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, at the close of the debate on this matter yesterday the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) rose and took exception to my having referred to some of the Johnny come lately Conservatives who may not have the same interests as the old-time Conservatives, those who represent the big financial interests. I suggest that by taking this objection to what I was saying he obviously put himself in one camp, and he established which camp that was. Certainly I made no reference to him, and in taking exception he did so of his own volition.
I was pointing out that the present government seems to be trying to do two things at the same time, and I would not be the least bit surprised if two sets of publications should come from government offices with respect to what are the aspects of these amendments. I suggest that in the Financial Post you will probably see press releases over the signatures of government officials indicating that all is well with big business, that big business is going to achieve considerable benefit from these amendments, while at the same time I think we will see in the daily press, which comes in contact with the small retailer, statements indicating that the position of the small retailer is going to be better than it was before.
One particular aspect that has concerned me and certainly has concerned the small business people in my area is the matter of resale


price maintenance. The proposed amendments to section 34 of the act apparently are based on three simple assumptions; first, that the ban on resale price maintenance is fundamentally sound and desirable but, second, that certain practices have developed under section 34 which have been damaging to the small distributor and others and third, therefore the manufacturer should be given the power to restrain such practices by refusing supplies to dealers who engage in them.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it can be demonstrated that these proposals will effectively eliminate the ban on resale price maintenance; will provide no effective protection, either short or long term, for the small dealer; will open the door to discriminatory practices and strengthen the position of the large distributor who controls private brands, and will place in the hands of the manufacturer a degree of control over the final price of his product that is denied to other groups in the economy. Finally, they are based on a profound misunderstanding of the way in which business is conducted.
Under Bill No. C-58 the supplier merely has to satisfy the court that he had reasonable cause to believe and did believe that certain things were being done and he can then refuse supplies to the parties concerned. We are given to understand by competent legal advice that the test, "had reasonable cause to believe and did believe", is a very vague one and will permit action to be taken by suppliers in such a variety of circumstances as to effectively enforce a thoroughgoing policy of resale price maintenance.
In other fields, Mr. Speaker, we have found' the expression "reasonable cause" not to be effective at all. We have been discussing for a matter of months now the ineffective court procedure in proving reasonable cause. Indeed, it seems probable that in effect parallel but not collusive action to enforce resale price maintenance will be legalized under this amendment which would have been questionable under the combines legislation before section 34 was enacted.
But whatever may be the legal implications of the amendment to section 34, there can be little question but that it is based upon a profound misapprehension of the way business is carried on. Under the proposed amendments the supplier is in effect empowered to refuse supplies on the ground that he had reasonable cause to believe and did believe that the seller was persistently using the article not for the purpose of making a profit thereon but for the purpose of advertising or selling other articles. This suggests that business operates or should operate in the short run in such a way as to obtain a

profit above cost on each individual item it sells. On this issue Howard Clark Green, vice president of the Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville railway and a financial officer for several other corporations as well as a distinguished accountant, has commented:
Costs influence prices but do not control them. Goods sell for what buyers think they are worth, whether this price is more or less than cost. Business must recover from its total revenues its total costs, but not every sale will show an adequate individual profit. A contribution to overhead is all that can be expected from some classes of business.
Mr. Green continues:
Among the most popular of the notions about fairness in pricing is the idea that a seller is entitled to a price which will cover his cost, plus a reasonable profit.
He then demonstrates the unsoundness of this position and adds:
It is extremely dangerous to assume that the existence of a cost justifies the establishment of a price.
What I have just quoted is found in the "Harvard Business Review", September and October, 1952, page 192. Yet it is precisely this unsound and dangerous principle that the proposed amendments empower a supplier to impose on his distributors. Even if the principle were sound, the practical difficulties encountered in attempting to compute costs and profits for an individual item in the array of items included in a distributor's stocks would be sufficient to rule it out. The problem is made clear in the following quotation from the green book on loss leader selling, a publication of the combines branch:
In some places we have to sell some lines such as butter and shortening with about a 3 to 4 per cent mark-up. Most of our lines are priced at 16 4/16 to 25 per cent, and to tell you the truth I am not able, for the life of me, to tell you what percentage it costs us to handle a pound of butter as against a can of peaches or a dozen of oranges. I know these items represent three different costs in handling, but I do not know, even if we broke our turnover down into each one of the 2,000 items we handle, how we could arrive at a cost for each item.
If, despite its unsoundness in principle and in application, this approach were enacted into law, it seems not unlikely that Canadian courts would follow the same procedure that certain United States courts have adopted in determining when a sale was made below cost. In these cases, statistics compiled by trade associations on the average mark-up for the field in question have been accepted as the cost to be applied to the full range of products in that field. The consequences of such an interpretation would be extremely serious, since it would result in a widening of the distributive margins and probably also in an increase in the numbers involved in distribution-in a word, in an increase in
Combines Investigation Act costs to consumers. It would also appear to be quite legitimate under the proposed amendments for a seller to spend millions on advertising for the purpose of attracting customers to his store, but it would be illegal to pursue and continue a policy of offering specials to do the same thing. The big stores can afford to spend millions, but the small stores cannot.
The small stores would also suffer under the proposed amendments in another way, since on private brands of all kinds the larger stores and chain stores would be free to cut prices to any level they chose, while the small stores handling nationally branded lines would be in danger of having their supplies cut off if they sold at a reduced price which the supplier had reason to believe did not yield a profit for this item.
In questioning a number of stores as to why they did not use loss leaders in certain respects, I asked in particular why Coca-Cola, which could be supplied by a distributor at less than 5 cents, was not used by some of the small stores as a loss leader, especially since the price is considerably higher now. They informed me that if they did there would be no supplies delivered to them. I informed them that if this happened the distributor refusing to supply them would be liable to prosecution. Then the stores pointed out, and quite properly, that this court action could not be instituted by five or six people appealing to the minister to begin an investigation and, subsequently, a court case, but that the retailer himself would have to lay the charge and would have to conduct the court case on his own behalf. As a result, Mr. Speaker, there seldom has been a case in which a small retailer did sell for cost or just above cost when the maintained price was considerably higher, and supplies were discontinued, where he was able to accomplish anything in this field.
I would point out that this was true also in the case of the coal distributors in Timmins. I happen to know the coal distributor who was anxious to eliminate the combine which existed in Timmins. I can tell the house that the one who got hurt the most by the investigation which took place was the distributor who started the investigation as a public service to the community and to the customers in that community. He was the one who got the worst of the whole deal. The combine continued, and his distributors refused to sell to him. The government had no method whatever, or did not use any, to see that he received supplies from his distributors. He had to get back into the combine and agree to sell at a predetermined price or get no supplies. I have seen letters from United States suppliers which definitely stated that unless he was willing to

Combines Investigation Act maintain the price they would not sell any coal to him. This particular individual was almost bankrupt.
In so far as enforcement is concerned under this legislation, it seems clear that those businesses in which trade-ins are common present special problems. Unless some standard system of valuing trade-ins is employed and enforced by a costly system of supervision, the legislation is likely to prove unworkable. Although we consider the legislation unsound in principle, it is manifestly unfair to adopt legislation which will prove to be enforceable in only certain trades. This consideration raises the wider isue as to why the government should empower certain sectors of the economy to enforce prices which will yield a profit over cost while denying the same right to other groups, such as farmers. Again, we consider the principle requiring sales at cost plus a reasonable profit to be unsound and dangerous, but we do not see how the principle can be adopted in one field and denied in others.
There is nothing in the proposed amendments which requires the supplier to uniformly enforce his refusal to supply against all dealers. He may take action against Smith and at the same time permit Jones to continue to sell at the same or even at a lower price. This is subversive of equity and fair dealing. If restrictions are to be enforced they should apply equally to all; they should not be capable of arbitrary, capricious application. Even if a supplier did enforce uniform resale prices based on trade association average mark-up data, the result could still be arbitrary and unwarranted in the case of an individual seller, since the price need not be related to that seller's business experience.
We are fully in agreement with the principle that misleading advertising should be discouraged. Whether such a matter, as well as that of disparaging the quality or price of a product, is not better handled by such organizations as the better business bureaux, is to a considerable degree a matter of opinion. But if legislation on these matters is considered desirable, it is a fact that provision is already made under section 306 of the Criminal Code to deal with misleading advertising at least, and the section could easily be extended to include the aspects of disparagement that it is desired to prohibit. It would be preferable in every respect to make the combines branch responsible for enforcing this section rather than to leave enforcement to the arbitrary decision of suppliers and wholesalers.
We would also question whether loss leader selling, in the sense of selling at below net

invoice cost, is sufficiently widespread to justify extreme measures of the sort proposed in these amendments. The information available in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on loss leader selling disclosed an extremely limited number of authenticated cases of such sales below cost. No further general survey of the situation has been made available to the public to establish that the situation has undergone any substantial change.
For these reasons, as well as for the more general considerations relating to resale price maintenance which have been fully discussed in the reports of the MacQuarrie committee and of the restrictive trade practices commission, we believe that these amendments are not in the interests in particular of small business, but will tend to create a favourable situation for wholesalers and distributors to the detriment of the small businessman and the consumer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the restrictive trade practices commission report it is stated:
The commission has found that the term "loss leader selling" may be applied by trade groups to any level of pricing, extending from a price in any degree lower than the manufacturer's suggested resale price to a price at or below net purchase cost.
There are exceptions, of course, Mr. Speaker. The report goes on to state:
A merchant may sell goods at or below his net purchase cost to clear end of season or broken lines, to raise money to meet urgent cash requirements, to dispose of discontinued lines of goods and so on. In these and similar cases where the purpose is simply one of disposing of the goods so priced, competitors are not likely to be greatly concerned, although there may be some question at times as to the bona fide nature of the sale and as to the time chosen for making such clearances.
No consideration has been given to those merchants, Mr. Speaker, who operate on a permanent basis under the guise of clearing year end products or the clearance of bankrupt stocks, which are not necessarily bankrupt stocks. We have such establishments in Ottawa and Montreal, what they call war surplus and other surplus disposal establishments, which are not of a temporary nature and where the disposal is on a permanent basis.
Mr. Speaker, we are not particularly worried about big business. I think big business will be able to look after itself. It has all the cards stacked on its side. We have had investigations into a number of what the department considered to be combines and in my opinion we have never yet done anything about those, although they were found guilty. If amendments are going to be made I think they should be amendments that have

some substance. I would suggest that one of those amendments could be in the field of penalties.
First, I think that the clause restricting jury trials is an extremely silly one. I see nothing wrong with jury trials. The minister himself is a lawyer and I am quite sure that if he had a case in which he wanted his client to be well protected, to be given the benefit of the doubt, he would take his case to a jury if it was possible to do so. I am sure the other lawyers in this house-and many of them are defence lawyers-will agree that there is nothing wrong with taking a case to a jury trial.
I would suggest also that the people who are being defended in this case are the small businessmen who are not so well able to look after themselves as they thought they were. They thought that all they had to do was to vote Conservative and they would be well looked after. This is not true. They are not being well looked after. I think they should have the opportunity, when the department decides that there is malpractice in the field of combining, to be represented by jurymen who would sit in judgment on the particular practice that they have before them. I think it is going to be difficult for anybody to argue against a jury.
I expect the minister will rise and say that we cannot have juries because they would not understand the combines legislation. I probably would agree with him that they may not understand it. There are not too many people who do understand it. It is extremely complicated. It is true that the man in the street might not understand it. However, I think the fellow in the street will be interested in what he considers to be a restrictive trade practice. The little fellow working in a garage will know that even in his business there are certain restrictive practices which might be better eliminated for the good of the general consumer. I therefore think little can be said in opposition to a jury trial. If it means that the jury is going to be obliged to ask enough questions to find out just what combines are and what their purpose is and what would be the restrictive practice, then it is all to the good and it will be duly reported in the papers and the general public will get a better understanding of what big business is doing, of what restrictive practices go on.
They may be less lenient in dealing with them than will a judge who in many cases, in my opinion, is closely connected with big business because he is usually associated with big business. He associates with that type of people. He has been associated very likely with corporation law and is sympathetic to
Combines Investigation Act many of the things that are considered to be good, sound business practice. Yet I as a consumer would consider that they were restrictive practices and were tending to increase the cost of the product as it comes down to the consumer.
In the matter of penalties I think we are also extremely foolish. If a gentleman goes into a bank and robs that bank there are a number of penalties that are put against him. Suppose he gets $10,000 and walks out of that bank. First of all, the law will try to get the $10,000 back if it can. Then the man will be put in jail and even the penalty of a fine may be imposed on him; but the law will get back, if possible, that amount of money. What manner of thinking do we have when we allow a business to make, we will say, as the combine investigation into sugar pointed out, terrific amounts of money, up in the millions, and then if we convict them we would likely have imposed a penalty of $10,000?


An hon. Member:: A maximum.


William Arnold Peters: A maximum of $10,000.


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member that these penalties are not in issue in the bill before us.


Mr. Howard:: If I may do so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to submit that the bill does make reference to fines and penalties for infractions. That reference is found in the bill itself.


Mr. Winch:: It is therefore in order to discuss the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is satisfied that there is an amendment dealing with the amount of penalties I, of course, do not want to intervene.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that on page 6 of the bill, under the proposed section 32, it is stated as follows;
32. (1) Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person ... is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
As to the reference to a fine, while it is in the act at the moment, the amendment is to take fines out because the reference to fines is also covered in the Criminal Code and I submit it is a part of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: My point is that there is no change. If the bill makes any change in the penalties it would be in order to discuss the inadequacy of them, as the hon. member is doing. But I have not been shown any nor have I heard it discussed on the principle of the bill that there was any change in the penalties.

Combines Investigation Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no change whatsoever in the penalties.


George James McIlraith: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to clause 17(4) of the bill where the institution of proceedings by way of prosecution may be done away with and proceedings by the crown by way of information substituted.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I appreciate that is a matter of amendment. But with all due respect to what has been said, the point which the hon. member is discussing is not one that is the subject of amendment as far as I have been able to ascertain. There is enough to be discussed on second reading. There are so many amendments that it is hard to draw a line on principle. If we keep within the amendments that are in the bill I think we shall be able to proceed with reasonable and proper expedition.


William Arnold Peters: I thought the reference in the amendment was large enough so that we could mention this matter. It seems to me that if there is going to be no change in it, then there should be. I think this is one of the fundamental reasons why the Combines Investigation Act has never been a success. We are not really penalizing according to the amount that is involved in the combine. We have a limitation on it. As was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), in the one case this penalty was one three hundredth of one per cent of the profit. That was the case of a steel company.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I, Mr. Speaker, refer to the point of order that you raised? I hesitate to suggest that there should be much done to restrict discussion. For that reason I have not raised points of order myself even when I felt that a strict application of the rules might indicate that I should do so because I realize that, as you have said, there are a number of amendments and it is difficult to discuss those amendments without getting into the details, even on second reading. However, I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that to go into general debate on the penalties is something that is clearly not covered by the bill at all. But if my hon. friend is going to do that, within whatever latitude Your Honour allows him, I suggest that at least he do it accurately. There is no limit on the penalty at the present time-on the fine that may be imposed on a corporation. No change is made in this respect by the present bill. There is no change at all in the penalties provided. A corporation may still be fined any amount at the discretion of the court. If individuals are charged, they are still subject to being sent to jail.


William Arnold Peters: This may be a very slight point, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out to you and to the minister that there is an alteration in the wording of the act at the moment as compared with that of the bill. If I may, I should like to read section 32 of the act which states:
32. (1) 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 and liable on conviction to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
It makes reference to a fine. It makes reference to imprisonment for not more than two years, or it allows both penalties to be imposed by the court. The proposed section 32 in the bill only makes reference to a liability of imprisonment for two years. It is a small matter but the alteration is there in the reference to fines contained in the act. It specifically says that the court may inflict a fine or jail sentence or both, but in the present bill it makes reference only to the fact that the court may impose a jail sentence. As I said earlier, as I understand the fine question it is covered by another section in the Criminal Code in any event.
With all due respect, yesterday I went quite extensively into the question of fines, attacking it from a different point of view and suggesting that we alter our present arrangements so far as fines are concerned and establish something entirely new with regard to imposing fines. That was in relation to the net profit picture of a company. At least, I said words to that effect. As the minister said, he did not raise a point of order on other occasions when the door was wide open and when the minister himself in fact opened that door on other matters which were not related to the bill. I think it would be most unfair for the minister who opened this door now to ask that the door be closed and no further discussion be allowed of a specific point which I think should be allowed because of the alteration in the existing wording of the act.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say this for the guidance of the hon. member who has the floor. This is an amending bill. Although it amends the main act in substantial ways and therefore admits of general discussion of the principles of the legislation as they have been expounded both by the minister and other hon. members, it does not open up the unamended sections of the original Combines Investigation Act to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 26, except in so far as they are brought in by these amendments. That is the general principle of debate on second reading of an amending bill.

If the principle of the amount of monetary penalty is involved in the amending bill, then it would be in order to discuss it. If it is not, it would be in order to raise a point such as that the hon. member for Skeena has just raised in committee when the particular clause is being dealt with. It seems to me that his argument does not raise any question of principle just because there is a change in the wording as there appears to be no change in the substance of the law relating to fines and imprisonment.


Harold Edward Winch: May I draw your attention to when this matter was up first for second reading. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) spent one hour and thirty five minutes in introducing the debate, and during that time he covered every aspect possible on this matter of combines. Beyond that, he went into three particular clauses and detailed them, and when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) was speaking the Minister of Justice asked him to quote them in full clause by clause. Mr. Speaker, in view of all that I would say that the entire matter of combines is now open to discussion, and was opened by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point but unfortunately that is not the practice of the house. I have heard no previous discussion of the point the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is now dealing with, although I did not hear the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) when he spoke.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of what has been said, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that in my remarks it is true I dealt with the general principle of combines legislation, as one is supposed to on second reading of a bill of this sort. When it came to the matter of the bill itself I pointed out that it was difficult to discuss an amending bill like this without reference to the arguments which were behind the particular amendments. I refrained from reading the clauses myself and my only reference to particulars was with respect to the particulars in the bill where changes are being made. I certainly did not refer to particulars which are not being changed when I came to that part of the discussion.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order has been disposed of. The hon. member who has the floor will please proceed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling and it is probably correct, but it indicates in my opinion the reason why this act has not been amended in its entirety in order to prevent what we in the past have
Combines Investigation Act considered to be abuses. Very few of the cases which have been tried under this particular act have resulted in convictions, and when they were convicted, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out, the penalty was a little like that given to a bootlegger, when he is charged a $10 penalty which he considers a sort of municipal tax and then goes ahead again.
This whole bill is an indication, I think, that we are not doing anything for the small businessman. The small businessman is still desperately in need of capital and of a fair shake when it comes to dealing with his wholesaler. It is not fair to him when he knows that the store across the street is getting a greater percentage discount than he is just because it belongs to a particular chain. I am sure he is not very happy with the situation where he knows these things happen with large chain stores. There is not a small merchant in Ottawa who would not tell you that he can buy things more cheaply out of the newspaper on a retail basis than he can from his wholesaler who is his supplier. These things in themselves make it absolutely impossible for many of the small businessmen to continue their operations and to grow as they must if they are to survive. They have not large undistributed dividends to put into expansion. They have not large depreciation funds which they can use for expansion. They have not mergers they can engage in to allow for the control of large segments of the market. They have no opportunity of going into vertical integration as has been done with agricultural products. They are completely at the mercy of the wholesaler and the suppliers.
If this government wish to do something which keeps the small businessman in the field, they should believe that the small businessman has a role to play other than just providing plain service. If they feel that his role is a worthy one to be played, then I think they have an obligation to give some protection to the small businessman. That does not mean equality between the small businessman and big business, because there is no equality in this aspect of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but even with an allowance of time for the interruptions and discussion of the point of order his time has expired.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with we have heard a great deal of sound and fury from the hon. members of the Liberal party and the hon. members of the C.C.F. party. Regardless of their protestations of interest in the small businessman of Canada there is no evidence
4422	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act whatever in the attitude they are taking on this bill that they have any interest in the small businessman of Canada. The official opposition has ignored the fact that this bill is supposed to give some badly needed assistance to the small businessman and the points which have been raised are nothing more than historical rhetoric and technical arguments to conceal the fact that this legislation is intended to help the small businessman. They seek in turn to prove that the Liberal party was right in 1951.
I have not been able to discover what is exactly the attitude of the C.C.F. group. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who spoke last night and again today, gave me the impression that he was speaking in favour of the bill. He certainly adopted a good many of the arguments that I had intended to raise, namely the very difficult position of small businessmen and the difficulties they have with big business. However, I regret I lost the thread of his argument, and I really did not discover the grounds on which he feels he must oppose the bill. I might go into the arguments he raised in connection with the legal aspect of jury trials but frankly I do not wish to be diverted. I would only say that most of the arguments he put forward in connection with jury matters were definitely wrong in the light of jurisprudence established for many years.
A short summary of the bill is that it is an attempt to bring some balance into the complex and difficult subject of trade practices. The bill is not weighted against big business, nor against small business, nor against the consumer. Yet to each of them it gives some benefit which they have been needing and demanding. The opposition have taken one part of the bill-the part which deals with what I consider the perfectly proper agreements between manufacturers- and have attempted to show that the bill as a whole is in favour of big business. The opponents of this measure have, generally speaking, completely ignored at least three other parts which I will discuss later and which are very much in favour of the small businessman.
It is surely unnecessary to say that the retail merchants associations, and small business across Canada, have been asking for legislation such as is now proposed for their own protection, particularly with reference to loss leader sales. I have a great many such requests in my office, and I am sure other hon. members have received petitions of this kind. I have one in my hand now which I think requests exactly what the hon. minister has proposed in this present


bill. It is dated April 28, 1960, and I will quote it in part. Urging support of this legislation, it says:
These issues are of vital concern to the vast majority of independent retailers, and we urge you and the government to take the necessary action at this session of parliament to eliminate loss leaders, predatory price cutting, discriminatory pricing practices, false advertising; and to enact legislation to aid small business.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question? How can that association ask for support of this legislation when the legislation was not presented to the house until May 6, and the letter purporting to support it is dated April 28?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The letter is dated April 28. However, I am sure it did not refer to this bill. It is a request that the government introduce legislation to eliminate loss leaders, predatory price cutting, discriminatory pricing practices, false advertising, and legislation to aid small business.
I was pointing out that what these people ask is exactly what is included in this bill. I think every item requested in this particular letter is there. This particular letter appears to be a printed form issued by the merchants' association. I have the names, and I am quite prepared to disclose them. This is the kind of petition which members of the house have been receiving. I am sure most hon. members have received them, and they do ask for just about what the government has now proposed. I believe it would deal a death blow to many small businesses right now if they were denied the benefit of some protection against loss leader selling. This is one thing which has been proposed to me time and time again by small businessmen. This is what they believe is causing them trouble. They believe it is discriminatory and that it is gradually putting them out of business.
In proposing this legislation the government has almost entirely answered the request which small business has made, and in these circumstances it is beyond my understanding why both opposition parties should have taken such a strong stand with regard to this bill, the strongest stand which has been taken, I think, on any bill during the four sessions I have been here. Spokesmen for the parties have said they would fight this bill to the bitter end, but for the life of me I have heard no reason given which would justify the opposition being so intense.
I should like to discuss for a few moments what the objections have been. In my opinion the objections raised have been very shallow indeed. To deal, first of all, with the section relating to combines, this is, to my mind, the

first example of an attempt to bring balance into combines legislation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has stated that the courts will not be able to interpret the act properly. He has said that the courts will give a broader interpretation to the exemptions detailed under the act than they should. He has said that under the guise of the exemptions granted the courts will give a much broader interpretation of the legislation than they now do. To this I say that we must rely on the ability of our courts and judges to determine what the clear wording of this clause means. I do not think we can go on the assumption that there will be difficulty in doing so. We must not assume that all persons accused under this clause will be acquitted merely because certain defences are enumerated in the bill. While certain defences are allowed, the final provision makes definite prohibition against price cutting agreements.
I should like to say just a word about the history of combines legislation. The Leader of the Opposition tried to show that the Conservative party, historically, was reluctant to enact combines legislation or to enforce it. I should like to make three points which, I think, definitely refute this allegation. As was pointed out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) yesterday, the original anti-combines section which was placed in the Criminal Code was enacted by the Conservative government in 1889. The Combines Investigation Act of 1910, which was brought in by a Liberal government, revealed two prime weaknesses, and those weaknesses were subsequently corrected in the Conservative legislation of 1919. In this case I should like to refer to the MacQuarrie report issued in 1952. At the top of page 12, in referring to the 1919 Conservative legislation, the report reads:
It is to be observed that the legislation overcame two of the principal defects of the act of 1910, namely the absence of a continuing enforcement authority and the initiation of investigations only on the application of interested private individuals.
Further down, in referring to the 1923 legislation, the report states:
The Combines Investigation Act of 1923 followed. The act was basically the act as it stands today. The comprehensive definition of "combine" of the legislation of 1919 was largely retained but no administrative power to order the cessation of activities was provided for.
Now, as some hon. members may point out, the legislation of 1919 was declared ultra vires because it provided for certain administrative matters which the privy council felt were beyond the authority of parliament. Nevertheless, as is pointed out in the report, when the 1923 act was re-enacted the main provisions of the Conservative act
Combines Investigation Act of 1919 were reincorporated, and this legislation has carried through until the present time. The basic change from that was that the provisions which offended against the privy council decision were removed in the 1923 act. But basically we have the 1889 act as legislation of the Conservative government and the 1919 legislation of the Conservative government, which form the main foundation of our present act.
I think it would be a fair statement to say that combines legislation has been a progressive development undertaken seriously by governments of both parties, and I think it would be quite wrong to say that either party has taken the lead or lagged behind in progress on combines legislation.
I should like to turn to the price maintenance portion of the bill. In his remarks the Leader of the Opposition stated that under this bill the manufacturer or supplier will be in a position to refuse to sell his products to an outlet for some vague reason and on some indefinite report which he has received. This particular statement was made time and time again by members of the opposition party who said, the manufacturers are going to make nonsense of this because they are going to be cutting off retailers for no reason at all. Will the manufacturer of any product be over-anxious to cut off his retail outlets for an unreasonable excuse? I think not. I think every manufacturer is anxious to retain as many retail outlets for his products as he can, and I believe it would be only in the case where some retailer was outrageously making a breach of the loss leader rules, and the other things which are mentioned in the act, that the manufacturer would ever move in and cut off the retailer. They are in business; they want to have outlets, and they will not cut them off unless they have a perfectly good reason.
In my opinion this is another example of balance in the combines legislation. The 1951 legislation went from one side to the other; it went from one swing of the pendulum to the other, and in eliminating one danger they created another one just as great.
The Leader of the Opposition also said that we have no interest in the consumer; that the Minister of Justice hardly mentioned him; that the provisions of the legislation left the consumer hanging in the balance. I say two things. First, if the small businessman is put out of business by such tactics as loss leader selling and various of the other unfair trade practices mentioned in this act which are prohibited, then the consumer is left in the hands of big business, and I am sure we would agree that this is not at all satisfactory. Just to give some verification of my statement, I should like to read from the
4424	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act report of the royal commission on price spreads on food products, which makes this very clear. Volume 1 of the report of the royal commission on price spreads of food products, September, 1959, at page 59, states:
We have pointed out that we have been unable to discover evidence to support the view that the increase in the size of the large firms in the food industries, which has accompanied the general expansion of the market, has resulted in reduced costs and a tendency to reduce prices to consumers. We are disposed to explain this partly in terms of the tendency for large firms to compete in offering services rather than reduction in prices. We find no substantial basis to suppose that, if the major firms in the food industries continue to increase in size, this will operate in the direction of reducing prices to consumers.
Second, does the consumer really benefit from these loss leader sales? I doubt this very much. The report from which I have just read indicates that loss leader sales are "come on" gimmicks to bring people into the stores. Large businesses or small businesses have to make a profit, and if they take a loss on one item they must sell something at a higher price to make up for it.
The basic design of this bill, as I see it, is unashamedly to give a break to the small businessman. He does not want subsidies or loans or charity so much as he wants fair competition. The small businessman knows that the big dealer can buy cheaper in quantity lots; that he can afford larger advertising costs, and that he can stand a smaller margin of profit on volume sales. He knows this; he knows he has to deal with it, and most of them have said that they can deal with it; that they can meet this competition if they are given a fair break on trade practices. They cannot meet discriminatory and unfair trade practices which are forced upon them and upon the public by the big business operation.
In this bill there are three main provisions to help the small businessman. First, there is the elimination of the abuses of loss leader selling; second, there is the elimination of false advertising, which not only swindles the consumer but loses legitimate sales for the legitimate businessman. Third, it eliminates discriminatory promotional rebates, which are granted on a different basis from one person to another. I should like to deal with them in the order I have mentioned.
I think that the legislation of 1951, by which price maintenance was prohibited, went too far. Not only that, the report on which this legislation was based indicates the dangers of loss leader selling.
Undoubtedly there were and are dangers in resale price maintenance. The consumer does not secure the benefit of wholesale competition in retail buying, according to the


proponents of the 1951 legislation, but they either failed to observe or underestimated the dangers of loss leader selling which have become more obvious in recent years. It is doubtful, as I have said before, if the consumer really gains anything and it is very devastating for the small businessman. He cannot buy in huge quantities like the chain stores, nor can he afford to lose money on various items and hope to recoup his loss from others. Under the present law neither the wholesaler nor his supplier can help him out if he gets into difficulties on loss leader selling. They are forbidden from taking any action of a restrictive kind against those engaged in loss leader selling and selling products to the detriment of their regular dealers is something that is constantly carried out.
The present bill gives the manufacturer the right which he so badly needed in the 1951 legislation. If the report on which the 1951 legislation was based had been followed I think that some such provision would have been included. It certainly is indicated but in fact no such release valve was provided. They merely went from resale price maintenance to no resale price maintenance and left small business in the difficulties that now face it.
Some mention has been made of the Mac-Quarrie report in connection with loss leader selling. This is a report of the committee to study combines legislation. I should like to quote from pages 70 and 71 to indicate the dangers which were then pointed out to the government relating to loss leader selling. Paragraph 7 on page 70 reads as follows:
Resale price maintenance no doubt helps to protect the reputation of branded goods and facilitates advertising and sales promotion. However, the committee is not convinced by the argument that the reputation of branded goods greatly suffers from normal price variations and that people will think quality has deteriorated if prices are allowed to vary. If the loss leader is taken care of, normal price reductions will not cause serious problems to the manufacturer.
In the same report, under "general conclusion and recommendations", there is the following:
As to the loss leader device, the committee believes that it is a monopolistic practice which does not promote general welfare and therefore considers that it is not compatible with the public interest.
Those are the observations made in the report, on the basis of which the 1951 legislation was carried into effect. I think what we are doing now is belatedly putting these loss leader restrictions into the act in a manner in which they undoubtedly should have been put into the act when the previous legislation was passed.
I should like to discuss two other matters in the bill concerning which there has been very little discussion up to this time. The

first has to do with misleading advertising. This is something that has long been deplored by the general public and dealers both large and small. Certain types of individuals, groups and companies who have inserted themselves into the economy have sent out catalogues, leaflets and other advertising material which has been false in some of its aspects. The particular item with which the bill deals is misrepresentation of the price at which certain articles are normally sold to the public. I think it is agreed generally that it would be impossible for anyone to prohibit by legislation exaggerated claims as to the value of an article. From time immemorial in business dealings people have exaggerated the value of the article they were selling beyond what they should have. It is a very common expression that a certain article is a bargain at twice the price. Those prospective purchasers who are gullible may be taken in but those who are not will not be, no matter how glib the seller. No legislation could ever prevent that.
But if a consumer is given what he believes to be a fact on which he makes his judgment and that fact is false, then his judgment in the matter has been completely perverted. If he is told that an article is normally sold at a certain price and that is not the fact then he may be improperly swindled into buying an article which is not worth what it is stated to be, never was and never will be.
I admit I have some doubts as to the enforcement of this provision. Proof as to what the ordinary price is or has been may be very difficult to give. This seems to me to be something that the courts will have to deal with and those conducting prosecutions will have to be very careful about it. However, I believe it will dispose of the most flagrant cases of fraudulent misrepresentation of the value of goods, and to that extent I am sure it will be valuable. The general efficiency of the provision about false advertising will have to be proved in the light of experience.
The third and final matter in the bill which is designed to help small business is the restriction on promotional allowances and rebates. This is a type of indirect price reduction which the small dealer cannot secure from the supplier or the manufacturer but which the larger corporations such as chain stores can force from the supplier. This provision does not prohibit reductions for quantity purchases. There again I think there would be no hope or expectation of refusing to a person who can buy in large quantities a substantial discount compared with the person who must buy in small quantities. Those are normal trade difficulties that
Combines Investigation Act the small businessman must deal with. However, this particular provision does not deal with a reduction for quantity purchasing but has to do with a sort of squeeze play which is imposed on the supplier by the large buyer. This practice is given considerable attention in the report of the royal commission on price spreads in 1959 and in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the grocery trade in 1958. I should like to read from page 180 of the latter report on the grocery trade to give the house some idea of the type of promotional rebate which is considered discriminatory. At the bottom of page 180, it is stated:
The most pernicious form of rebate that is currently required by chain stores is that of "promotion allowance". Before any of the large chains will give special display space to a product, they insist on a payment that can run as high as $75 per store per week. Some chains will refuse to stock an item unless a prior commitment of "promotional advertising" is made by the supplier.
Conditions have reached the stage whereby "promotion allowances" are the competitive weapons used by competing suppliers-and the method employed is equivalent to nothing more or less than hidden discounts.
It is obvious, therefore, that from the supplier's point of view he is being gradually forced to "rent" space for his product on the shelves of the large chain stores. No independent would dare ask for such an arrangement and therefore being without this source of income is once again at a competitive disadvantage with the chain store.
If this type of unfair trade practices is present, the bill provides that such allowances must be offered on proportionate terms to all purchasers from all individual manufacturers or suppliers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I cannot for the life of me see how the opposition can make such a strong stand in connection with this very beneficial provision for the small businessman. The manufacturer is given the right, under this bill, to engage in legitimate agreements which will have the effect of cutting down cost of production and thus reducing the price; the small businessman, is given a measure of protection against unfair competition; the consumer benefits from reduced costs, honest advertising, and the tremendous benefit which small business brings to the economy.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I was deeply interested by the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton). I know that he tried very hard to convince the house and the nation that the Conservative party had done more than anyone in Canada in applying the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. However, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the member for Hull (Mr. Caron) showed that the Liberal party had introduced the

Combines Investigation Act amendments without which the act was inefficient and inoperative. It was in fact under a Liberal regime that many people and companies were indicted for offences under the act.
I was a bit surprised to hear the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) say just now that the Liberals have little interest in the small businessmen, the little fellow.
If he will just listen to me for a few minutes, I can tell him that in 1955 I asked for an investigation to protect not the powerful but the little fellow, in my constituency, my province and my country. And it was the Liberal party that authorized such an investigation, which unmasked the most powerful monoply in Canada, namely the pulp monopoly.
Speaking in this house, on January 14, 1955, I described the situation of the settler and the farmer who were being exploited by the large paper companies. The L'Union Catholique des Cultivateurs de Quebec and representatives of farmers' co-operatives in my constituency had asked me to demand an investigation to stop the exploitation then going on in my constituency. At the time, I told the house that in 1951, companies buying fir and spruce, the pulp woods grown in my constituency, paid the farmers and settlers $15 a cord, delivered to the Gatineau or Lievre river, while they sold the newsprint at $101.48 a ton at the mills.
In 1952, the same companies lowered the price of pulpwood to only $14.50, while they raised the price of newsprint to $105.22 a ton.
In 1953, the same companies were paying settlers and farmers only $13.50 a cord for pulpwood, while newsprint sold at $110.05 a ton.
In 1954, the same companies paid $13.50 a cord and sold their newsprint at $110.03 a ton.
Having found that while newsprint prices were going up, the prices paid to settlers and farmers for the raw material used in newsprint manufacturing were declining, I therefore demanded an investigation.
1 concluded my remarks by asking for an investigation. This is what 1 said, as recorded on page 215 of Hansard for January 14, 1955:
This is why I am asking the Minister of Justice to start an investigation immediately, under the Combines Investigation Act, on the operations of the E. B. Eddy, of Hull, the Canadian International Paper, whose head office is in Montreal, and the James MaeLaren's, of Masson.


A few days after, other Quebec and New Brunswick members, putting forward the same reasons, asked for an investigation in their area. A week after that request, the then minister of justice, Mr. Garson, stated in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Labelle that the investigation was under way, since he had instructed the director of combines investigation to launch an inquiry, under the Combines Investigation Act, regarding companies of the province of Quebec, of eastern Ontario and even of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage of my remarks I want to commend and congratulate the director of combines investigations and the other members of the commission for the tremendous job they have done. They worked most intelligently for the success of their inquiry and in preparing the report submitted to the Minister of Justice. After examining that report, the Minister of Justice prosecuted the corporations, and today, I would like to commend the Minister of Justice as well as the government for the action taken.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to read the whole report on that investigation. It is extremely interesting, but I would like to quote at least an excerpt of the concluding remarks, because it must be understood that the inquiry on paper firms differs from other investigations. Ordinarily, corporations form a combine in order to establish fixed prices to the buyer, and in the present case, the companies agreed to fixed prices to the producer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Can the hon. member for Gatineau assure me that he will eventually relate his present remarks to the bill, because the mere fact of discussing an investigation made under the present legislation, without speaking of any amendment that might be passed, would to my mind be contrary to the rules. The hon. member will eventually have to relate his remarks to the proposed amendments to the present bill.


Rodolphe Leduc: I appreciate this, Mr. Speaker, and you are right. I only want to quote a short excerpt of the report and shall link the whole with my concluding remarks. In paragraph 2, chapter 4 of the report, we can read this:
The arrangements made to offer certain prices for farmers' pulpwood can be considered as pricefixing arrangements, for the maintenance of the prices that the farmers could get for their pulpwood. If the situation most frequently encountered

in the application of the Canadian anti-combines act involved the fixing of sale prices by suppliers, such restrictive effects may result from an arrangement made to fix purchase prices by buyers whose total purchases are large in relation to the total purchases of a given area.
It was clearly stated in the former act that companies were not allowed to make arrangements to fix prices; in fact, the learned lawyers of the large companies tried to prove to the combines investigation commission that when they had meetings of 10, 12, 15 or 20, they had not discussed prices, stating that they had not met for the purpose of fixing prices, but only to obtain information and statistics of possible benefit to them.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what do we find in the suggested amendments to this bill? What is the meaning of section 32? It is quite simple, this section will legalize the meetings where statistics, research and everything will be discussed. When this bill is adopted, the combines investigation commission will no longer be able to clearly establish evidence against those companies which have combined, because I may assure you that in future, minutes of such meetings will no longer be published as they were in the past. Now it was on the basis of the minutes and letters written after those meetings, by representatives who had been present at the meetings that the director succeeded in proving there had been a combine. However, due to the amendments that are suggested to the present section, the director will no longer be able to prove that the companies have met, discussed together and made arrangements.
Therefore, instead of improving the act, as contended by the Minister of Justice, this amendment is bound to make it less efficient. Not only will the act be less efficient, but another, much farther reaching and more dangerous amendment is introduced. Under the act as it now stands, companies found guilty of a first offence are subject to a fine, while for a second offence the attorney general may sue both the company and the directors, and have either a fine or a prison term imposed by the court.
Now in the amendment put forward under section (4) of clause 17, here is what we find:
In any case where subsection (2) of section 31 is applicable the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of the province may in his discretion institute proceedings either by way of an information under that subsection or by way of prosecution.
79951-0-279
Combines Investigation Act
That, I think, is the most dangerous provision of the whole bill. It is left to the discretion of the Attorney General of Canada to decide whether he should just lay information against the company, or whether he should prosecute.
I submit that this provision reduces the effectiveness of the present legislation. Moreover, I think such a provision should not exist. The minister should not be free to just lay information against an offender.
The act should not be amended, as I said at the outset of my remarks. The amendments now before us, far from improving it, will make the act inoperative.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the bill.
(Text):


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I think that most of us in this house agree that the old act was not adequate. It was unsatisfactory. However, in our opinion, the amendments now offered will make the act even less acceptable to the interests of Canadian individual free enterprise and also less acceptable to all those who are concerned with the welfare of the Canadian consumer.
It is our opinion in this group that we are living today under economic anarchy and that free enterprise no longer exists. Any attempt on the part of any political party to take political advantage by paying tribute to so called free enterprise is spurious, in the first instance, because free enterprise has already disappeared. We have economic anarchy and nothing less.
I maintain that we have in office now a government which admits that the old Combines Investigation Act is ineffective and is now offering amendments which will completely eliminate the little bit of effectiveness which exists in the law as it is now on the statute books. I can remember very well how the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker) rose in his place when he was in the opposition and complained about the ineffectiveness of the existing legislation. He used to demand that there ought not to be the option of a fine but that any officials of a corporation found guilty of violations of the act ought to be forced to serve a prison term.
What the minister is now offering the house is a far cry from the demands made by the Prime Minister when he was a leading member in the opposition ranks in this house. The minister, in effect, is now asking the house

Combines Investigation Act to agree to a lessening of restraints and conditions and opening the door wide to the exploitation of the consumers in the interests of the monopolies, and incidentally at the expense of the only free enterprises which are left in our nation today.
We are to an increasing degree living under a controlling economy. Whether we like it or not I think most of us have to recognize this basic assumption. However, in our group we are concerned not so much with the inevitable; we are concerned with the problem that if we have to live under a controlling economy, who are the people who are going to do the controlling? Apparently the minister is perfectly happy to aid and abet the controls so that they end up in the hands of the few people who are responsible not to the consumers of Canada but only to the vested interests they represent.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record part of the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) of April 9, 1959. On page 2408 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
No review of the economic situation would be complete without some comment on price movements. In the fourth quarter of 1958 consumer prices were 2.4 per cent higher than a year earlier. The wholesale price index rose 1.3 per cent in the same period. This tendency toward rising prices, particularly in a period of recession, is a matter for concern. Advancing technology might have been expected to reduce the cost and selling price of many products to consumers. It is evident, however, that developments in corporation pricing policies, in labour organization and even in our political democracy are producing increased rigidities which inhibit the free play of competitive forces and thereby promote inflation and price increases.
In the light of that admission on the part of the Minister of Finance a little over a year ago it is our contention that the fines now imposed under the existing legislation are a farce indeed. The offerings of the government by way of amendments are really ridiculous and a cruel hoax on the small businessmen of our nation. We have many organizations who have made representations in regard to this legislation, and I agree with most of the motions of local chambers of commerce and boards of trade. However, I should like to underline the fact that the national organization representing the businessmen present a viewpoint that is alien to the interests of the small and independent businessmen of the nation today. Our national chamber of commerce represents in effect the identical interests of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I know that many local chambers of commerce and boards of trade do not realize how they are misrepresented by their national organization when it makes its annual presentation to the government.

They are completely dominated by the vested interests, by the big outlets. The small businessmen, while they may be members of the local board of trade or the local chamber of commerce, and even though the whole of this movement may express ideals which are completely in line with the national interest, are completely betrayed at the national level when the national organization makes its representations to our cabinet.
We are concerned about the survival of the individual in our society. When the last election rolled around, the Conservatives were very prolific in the tears they shed on behalf of the independent businessmen of Canada. What have they done since they assumed office some three years ago? It is our conviction that they have done nothing which would help in any way to assure the survival of the independent small businessman. The legislation now before the house is a smoke screen, and there is nothing in it which would really and effectively help small business to survive. We have had the estimates of the government before us over a period of years. We once noticed in the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill) a vote of $30,000 to establish a branch devoted to the interests of small businessmen. That is not even enough to establish a filling station in my riding. It is nothing-peanuts. We realize, too, that in the estimates this year there is nothing so far as the small businessman is concerned. If the government makes any pretence at all that the legislation now offered is going to help the small businessman-and I notice the minister did so the other day-the government is misinformed, because the legislation now before us is going to do nothing which will be of any assistance. As a matter of fact, it will do a lot of harm to the long term survival of the small businessman in Canada.
About a year ago the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) outlined in this house a number of proposals whereby the capital needs of small business might be supplied. The house turned a deaf ear to those proposals at the time. Our movement has always been concerned with the survival of the individual as an individual in our society. As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) emphasized on that occasion, our movement originated because of our concern with the importance of the individual.
I have a number of letters here which I should like to read into the record in order to highlight what is happening. I have one from a man by the name of A. F. Maley. His address is 283 Somerset street east, Ottawa, and he says:
Subject: The United States monopoly of car polish. How they get it and the remedy.

Bennett took it up some 25 years ago-
I assume the writer is referring to the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
*-and after investigating reached an agreement with the oil company that each service station operator he classed as an independent dealer in accessories, and that the oil companies put up a dealer sign over the doors of the service station.
I am going to confine my remarks to the polish industry but the same applies to accessories in general. It resulted in many Canadian polish factories opening up in Canada owned and controlled by Canadians.
But when the Liberals came into power the dealer signs came down and lessee signs went up enabling the major oil companies to write in the leases that the station operators would henceforth buy their accessories from the oil companies or from distributors appointed by the oil companies.
In Ottawa, oil company representatives canvassed the distributors telling them that they had to pay payola of around 5 per cent to have their firms classed as company approved dealers.
I will not read the rest of the letter. However, this kind of thing is happening on a wide scale today. The oil companies are dictating to the retailers as to where they must buy their anti-freeze, their spark plugs, their tires and other accessories. The rake-off, or the payola, in a great many instances exceeds the normal retailer's margin, and it is a crime. The officials who are guilty of this kind of practice are, in my books, more guilty of a crime against society than is an unemployed man who, in order to help out his dependants and assure them of their daily bread, robs a grocery store. I have no sympathy at all for these officials and, like the Prime Minister when he sat in the opposition, I say that the officials of these companies are criminals acting against the interest of the Canadian public. They are fleecing the Canadian people, and they should not have the option of paying a fine. They should be confined behind bars in order that they might receive an education behind bars as to what their responsibilities to society ought to be.
I have another letter here. This is a letter from the reeve of the township of Thorold, who lives in Allanburg, Ontario. It is addressed to my house leader and reads:
Dear Hazen:
A local wholesale electrical distributor in the Welland district is the victim of a combine by the other distributors. It has reached the point where he will probably be put out of business because the manufacturers will no longer sell to him.
I am enclosing a copy of his letter.
And so on. He asks my house leader to do what he can to ensure the survival of this independent business operator. The letter that is written by the manager of the firm -I assume it is the manager-an R. Smith, to the reeve, says:
As we have been fortunate enough in spite of pressure from the larger distributors to gradually 79951-0-279J
Combines Investigation Act
gather lines on the direct basis from manufacturers it seems that we are giving our opposition some fair competition and apparently they do not like it.
I have heard that at the last meeting of Canadian electrical distributors association that they are going to put me out of business by as a group telling the manufacturers that unless they stop selling to me they will refuse to buy from them.
I would appreciate any help or suggestions that you may have in order to fight this combine.
I feel that the legislation now offered is not going to help the interests of the real Canadian individual engaged in business. I hold in my hand a bottle of Car Slick cleaner and polisher. This was put out by a manufacturer in Montreal who used to do a business of $100,000 a year and who supplied employment to Canadians. However, because his product was not acceptable as far as the oil companies were concerned, he was run out of business; he had to close up. I am afraid that Conservatives are not very interested in the survival of small business because there is nothing in the legislation now offered that I can see that will help to ensure the survival of the small businessman.
As the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) underlined last night, the government of the day is attempting to sit on both sides of the fence. It does not want to hurt monopoly business; it does not want to invite the antagonism of big business. In our opinion, the legislation now offered is not going to invite the antagonism of big business; it is going to invite the support of big business. Yet, at the same time I know the government is going to make every effort to assure the small businessman that they have made an attempt to ensure his survival. You cannot have it both ways.
Recently I have had many invitations to speak to organizations of small businessmen. I am advising them that unless they organize politically and economically, under the existing regime they have little hope for survival. The only hope available is that the good Lord helps those who help themselves. They have to realize that their interests lie in teamwork, the one with the other, and they have to battle the monopoly interests that exist.
Any argument that big business is in the interests of consumers is completely fallacious because, as the royal commission report on price spreads emphasizes, if he is given a reasonable break the small businessman can outmanoeuvre the large business any day of the week. He can survive. However, unfortunately he is not being given a reasonable break under present conditions. If we are to allow the continuous disappearance of the small businessman in our nation eventually the consumer is going to pay, and he is going to pay very heavily.

Combines Investigation Act
We see happening in the business world what is happening in agriculture. We see vertical integration, and I regret that there are many wholesale houses today that issue to the corner store not one price list, but a price list containing categories A, B, C and, out in British Columbia, categories D and E, and the margin between categories A and E is wider than the normal retail market margin. In addition to A, B, C, D and E, there are the normal discounts for purchases on a volume basis. Whether or not you are in category A, C or E depends on whether you take your whisky at the same country club as the owner of the wholesale house. This, I feel, is most unfair and it ought to be looked into.
I agree that there ought to be some discounts for purchases on a volume basis. However, there ought not to be any discount because of your relationships with the manager of the wholesale house or the manufacturer. I regret that our society has not paid very much attention to the increasing growth of what I would like to call the managerial class in our society. You know, an ethical argument is often presented-and I admit, with validity-on behalf of ownership. However, in our society today we have a new class, namely the managerial class, which has little ownership and little personal interest except the interest of self-advancement, and this often works against the interests of the consumer.
The managerial class also works against the interests of ownership. In increasing degree ownership is unable to have a determining voice. There was a day when we held ownership responsible and under certain conditions ownership would respond to the needs of society. You have, for instance, the Rockefeller Foundation and so on. However, today ownership means nothing; management means all. This legislation does nothing whatsoever to curtail the ambitions of management as opposed to the interests of either the consumers or ownership. The answer offered by the minister amounts to nothing as far as the survival of the small businessman is concerned.
I know that the retail merchants association has asked for the re-establishment of resale price maintenance. However, when they met us even the retail merchants association agreed that the public interest should receive some consideration if we re-established price maintenance legislation and legalized the practice. There is nothing in the legislation whatsoever that will protect the interests of the consumer. In our opinion the minister is simply opening the door wide, and even though we regret the lack of effectiveness of the old legislation the new legislation will

assuredly be found less effective except in one respect. It will mean that the lawyers of the nation will make millions of dollars. They are going to have a real field day with the proposed legislation. The old legislation was weak enough but with the new legislation it will be years before the first test case is finally settled. In the meantime the lawyers will have made hundreds of thousands of dollars and the consumers will have received nothing.
The government hopes it can assure big business that it has done nothing that might hurt their aspirations. At the same time the government hopes to be able to mislead "ma" of the corner store into believing that her interests have been looked after. I have great respect for "ma" at the corner store and I am very anxious to see her survive because at a late hour in the evening or on a holiday what do we do when we need milk, bread, any other essential or even a non-essential item? We knock on the door and "ma" who has an apartment above the corner store comes down and opens the store and gives you your bread or milk or butter. "Ma" is being squeezed out of business, and the government is aiding and abetting the monopoly interests in squeezing her out of business through the amendments they are now presenting to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nonsense.


Erhart Regier: When the Boy Scouts needed a little money where did they go? They went to "ma" at the corner store and she gave them a couple of dollars. When a new hall had to be built in the community to whom did you go? "Ma" at the corner store. When you had to build anything else where did you go? You looked to the local merchant to lead the effort in your community. But when you have large monopolies they are always very sorry but they cannot give a donation. They cannot make a contribution to the Victorian Order of Nurses without writing to the head office in Chicago in order to get permission to make a $5 contribution out of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they take out of the community.
There is no longer any local responsibility, and I am very concerned about the government's efforts to widen the door and tc make monopoly on the national scene even easier and more respected. The old Conservative policy is now being emphasized by the amendments offered, and I hope that no government spokesman will put forward the pretext in any riding in Canada that this legislation was designed to help "ma" of the corner store because it is designed to help monopolies. It is designed to help the men

and women who supplied the campaign funds when the Conservatives appealed to the people of Canada and who, the government hopes, will again supply the necessary funds in the next election campaign.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was the small individual communities.


Erhart Regier: I feel that those who violate the intent of this legislation are guilty of an act against the public interest. In my opinion they are much more guilty than some ignorant individual who happens to find a little piece of wire in rural British Columbia which has been left there by the B.C. Electric and takes it home with him. To me these men are guilty of a crime of the worst order and they ought to be dealt with adequately. The effect of the minister's amendments is to bless these men and ask them to continue their operations. The amendments will give them more adequate room in which to operate.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: Mr. Speaker, for a number of years the small businessmen and merchants have been asking the government to give them some assistance and protection. They have seen other aspects of our economy being assisted in one way or another, through deficiency payments and so on. Their voice has been a voice in the wilderness. They have not been given the attention that they consider necessary in view of their position in the economy of Canada. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) stated to the house in his speech that the present act was satisfactory and that the only changes that needed to be made were a few in respect of administration. I would therefore assume, by implication, that he felt that the small businessmen had been adequately protected by that act.
The Liberals were warned in 1951, when this amendment was put into effect, that it would not protect the small merchants. However, the Liberals were deaf to the call and to the warning. Today, when the government has brought forward this amendment in the hope of giving some assistance to the small businessmen, the Liberals are still deaf to the call. They think that all is well. The fact that retail merchants and several businessmen across the country have been asking that something be done means little or nothing to them. So far as they are concerned the act is perfect in its application and in its design.
The problems, of course, of the small businessmen in this changing and growing economy are varied and have many implications. The small businessmen who are along what we call the ribbon business areas, are not only plagued by competition of this type at
Combines Investigation Act which the legislation is aimed, but they are also plagued by local problems, such as parking or competition from shopping plazas and so on. The particular problem we have before us today is a problem for which they asked for some relief, some assistance and some protection. As to whether or not the act, as amended, will meet all the requirements, time alone will tell. In dealing with matters of economic law it is like dealing with the laws of nature. When one makes a change one is not quite sure of its implications.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, m respect of these amendments, that if the purpose of the amendments is not fulfilled I am sure the government's mind would be open to changes which might be necessary in the future to fulfil that purpose. However, I feel the government should be complimented upon at least listening to that voice and attempting to make some change.
Liberal speakers, including the Leader of the Opposition have tried to maintain the myth that they are the champion of the little businessmen; that they are the champion of these men against big business. They neglected to point out what history has shown, that this party also has taken steps and passed legislation to limit the activities of combines. The Leader of the Opposition implied that the Conservative party was the party that intended to leave free enterprise alone, without any interference. Of course he forgot to mention that it was Liberalism that adopted this laissez-faire course. They have forgotten Conservative attempts to organize such things as the Ontario Hydro, when it was necessary to protect hydro development, and also the creation of the Canadian National Railways. These things are in history, so the Liberals cannot proclaim themselves as the only champions of small businessmen, especially since they have ignored the plight of these small businessmen for so long.
The plight of the small businessmen is a matter of record. They have put themselves on record as being in need of relief from the provisions of the act that was passed by the Liberals, I believe in all sincerity, probably feeling that these provisions would cover certain aspects of the needs of that time. However, even they could not foresee all the implications. As some proof of this, I should like to quote a telegram received on June 24, 1959 from the president of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada. This was shortly after the bill was introduced last year. It is addressed to the Hon. E. Davie Fulton, Minister of Justice, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario:
Whereas the Retail Merchants Association of Canada deeply appreciates your exhaustive research

Combines Investigation Act into the many problems besetting independent merchants and your sincere and earnest desire to help small business by your carefully prepared amendments to section 34 it is hereby resolved that a hearty vote of thanks be tendered to you, sir, and it is hoped that the consumer as well as the retailer will benefit by Bill 59-
That was the bill introduced last year.


George James McIlraith: Why was it changed?


Mr. Morton:: I do not know that this particular section was changed. After all, the government is not as strait-laced as the former government was; its mind is open to change. I do not believe they have ever taken the attitude that they are supermen and have all the answers.
I have received letters from people in my own constituency suggesting that at this session of parliament we should eliminate the loss leader practice, predatory price cutting, discriminatory prices and false advertising, by enacting legislation. This letter is from Mr. A. J. Sone, who owns a corner drug store in my riding. Actually, it is in the riding of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), but his business extends into my riding. I also have a letter from Mr. Cushing, Mr. Bel-yea and from Van Wagner's (Toronto) Limited. These letters are some indication of the pressure on the government to make these changes. I have my office on a street on which there are many of these small businessmen, and as I visit them from time to time they are stressing the necessity for making these changes. In addition the Bloor district businessmen's association, of which I am a member, has been urging upon me the necessity for making these changes. All these people feel, as a result of their study, that these changes are necessary.
There was a pamphlet put out by the retail businessmen's association, and in referring to complaints that had been made to Canadian manufacturers as a result of loss leaders and so on being used by the larger combines, it stated:
Their hands are tied by a law passed by the Canadian parliament on December 31, 1951, the law being section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act. Among other things, section 34 prohibits any manufacturer from setting a minimum retail price for his own product, or refusing to supply his product to any retailer, however disagreeable he may find the retailer's abuse of the price of his product.
At first glance, the legislation would appear to be exactly what the doctor ordered from the point of view of the retail merchant, since it prevents a manufacturer from refusing to supply his product to a retailer who would otherwise be left on the outside looking in.
Further on it states as follows:
And it turns out to be a fact that Canadian retailers are far from satisfied with the legislation. Not long ago. Home Goods Retailing, a Maelean-Hunter publication, conducted a survey of retailers coast to coast. This paper, which serves retailers

in house furnishing, floor coverings, appliances, radio and television sets, lamps, furniture and housewares, published this report last September 3:
"A whopping 94 per cent of retailers who replied to this paper's queries on pricing said they favour a return to manufacturer-enforced retail prices, and 92 per cent agreed the present free-for-all price system is definitely harmful to business." ...
"The most overwhelmingly consistent reasons given as to why the present system is harmful (to the retailer) were based on these two points:
"1. It promotes consumer confusion which is destroying confidence in the retailer and the product.
"2. It is putting small retailers out of business through lack of profit."
I think that should definitely establish that there is a call, a requirement, by small businessmen for some change; and the change that is being suggested by the government is to try to meet that need.
I gathered the impression that perhaps there has been an overlooking of some of the aspects of this problem, in considering the problem from a somewhat three dimensional point of view, namely that of the producer or the supplier and the retail merchant and the consumer, and some are only looking upon the retail merchant as a mere funnel through which the producers' goods are distributed. In trying to prevent an entire monopoly by the various producers, however, I think that some have overlooked the problem of competition among the merchants themselves,' that is to say, the competition between the small merchant, the corner store merchant, the merchant in the ribbon areas as against the chain stores and some of the larger stores that have developed. These larger stores and chain stores through the means of loss leaders and so on have been making it more and more difficult for the small businessmen to survive. When some of these large chain stores make a loss leader of a product-and it was not always the same product and perhaps covers three or four or five products altogether-it heavily cuts into the products that are being sold by the various merchants.
There has also been that type of merchandising that has been carried on in the Toronto area-and perhaps in others-where someone organizes a large outlet. I give as an example the name of one we have had in the Toronto area, namely George's. They buy large quantities of electrical and other appliances and in many cases sell them for less than the price at which the manufacturer could sell them to the retailer, thus undercutting the whole market for that line of goods. Quite often I believe it is a matter of record that these companies stay in business for a very short time, often going into bankruptcy and owing their creditors a great deal of money. Somehow or other the money is got out of the

business but the damage to the business section in the economy is great, and in the long run is against the consumer's interest. Under the present legislation I understand the manufacturers feel that they cannot refuse to sell to these people without raising the presumption that they are price setting against the applicant. This is a situation that I think can be overcome by the present provision of the act.
I know that some of the C.C.F. members who have spoken have tried to ridicule the idea that we of the Conservative party would be trying to help the small businessman or even the corner store but I do not think they have any monopoly on the hopes and aspirations of the little people in this country.


An hon. Member:: Neither have you.


Murray Douglas Morton: I did not say we had. I
think every party in this house has the same great desire to see that each part of our economy is given fair treatment. I would not want to accuse any party of being out to destroy any one group of our economy. However, I feel that our party represents as many of these people as does any party today in Canada. I will not play second fiddle to any ideas to the contrary. If we were to follow and analyse the arguments that were made today by the socialist side of the house, after having listened to the analysis made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) last night who pointed out how the growth of big companies had gradually eliminated the smaller businessmen in his area-and it is a recognized fact that they are eliminating them in other areas-we would have to have a government monopoly. We cannot deny that fact.
But in his summation of his argument he said that we must either limit the growth of these large businesses or tell the small businessmen to go jump in the lake or some similar phrase; in other words, that there was little that could be done unless we were to set some limit on the growth of large businessmen.


Harold Edward Winch: Whose side are you on?


Murray Douglas Morton: If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard; but he just does not understand-and in this respect he is the same as his associates-that we can be interested in the welfare of the small people just the same as he is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Except that we do it more effectively.


Murray Douglas Morton: That is right. What they are saying in effect is that the only way to save the small businessman or the individual is to set up a government monopoly.
Combines Investigation Act


Harold Edward Winch: Who said that?


Murray Douglas Morton: That is the implication of
the argument.


Harold Edward Winch: Who said it?


Murray Douglas Morton: You used to advocate it but you found that it was not popular and so you backed away from it; either that or you have realized that you cannot do it because people during the war realized that control of wages, control of prices and control of rents were not the type of thing they wanted and that is what your policy would lead to.


Harold Edward Winch: We did get it in the war.


Murray Douglas Morton: It was done in an emergency.


Harold Edward Winch: Why not do the same thing now in an emergency?


Murray Douglas Morton: That is what you may think. .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Murray Douglas Morton: The opportunity today is to make a provision whereby all industry and business may work within their various scopes. Now I should like to make this observation. From what the socialists have said and perhaps what the Liberals have said, they seem to look with disdain on big business as such.


George James McIlraith: Why accuse the Liberals? Why associate them with the socialists?


Murray Douglas Morton: Only from what some of your members have said. I do not wish to impute to you what you have not said. I am only trying to interpret what some of your members have said. However, I should like to point out that from their remarks, some of them would consider that it is criminal to be a big business or to be successful or to have made money without realizing that some of these successful businesses are the ones that are employing many people across Canada and providing jobs for them. They are providing the money that is helping to pay for the welfare state which we are developing.
I am not going to defend those who are big who also take power into their own hands and do unlawful acts, and through their unlawful acts prevent others from seeking an honest living. I have no sympathy for them. I am merely pointing out that just because they are big they are not necessarily criminals.


Harold Edward Winch: Who makes their money for them?


Murray Douglas Morton: The hon. member knows that they themselves cannot make money. They have to have a team, men working for them. He also knows that the unions through their

Combines Investigation Act efforts have been able to give the working people in most places a share of the returns of the enterprise; it is not a one-way street. Of course, Mr. Speaker, they have a prejudiced view of our society anyway.
What I am getting at is that the small businessmen across this country have asked for relief against the loss leader. The Liberals and the C.C.F. are opposing that. They have asked for relief against false advertising, yet the opposition are opposing this bill.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a lie.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh. Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that remark was heard and went on the record.


Harold Edward Winch: That is a misinterpretation of our position.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: I withdraw the word "lie". It is a misinterpretation of our position.


Murray Douglas Morton: The record will speak for itself as far as the interpretation of their position is concerned.
They have also asked for relief against discriminatory practices and the matter of resale prices, but both opposition parties have said they will oppose this bill. It was hoped that this bill would streamline the procedure in respect of dealing with monopolies and mergers, replacing the present procedure whereby it takes nearly five years from the time the complaint is laid until the charge is made. The procedure hoped to be able to by-pass that period of time and that by prohibition or injunction of some sort the activities of those companies contravening the act might be held up and that they would not have three or four years of liberty to follow up their wrong acts.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he agree that one of the major reasons for delays in proceeding with these cases to their conclusion is the fact that we had a minority government elected and that the minister did not want to proceed with these things until the following election?


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: No. This has not been the reason for delays at any time; there have been a number of delays throughout its history. I understand that there was one minister in the Liberal government who did so either deliberately or he fumbled and bumbled the situation until it was too late to bring action, so do not blame it on any minority government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: "Deliberately" is the right word.


Mr.  M. D. Morion@Davenpori: Under this amendment there will be a little less excuse for any delays and I think the good intentions of the government are thereby shown.
I have already spoken longer than I intended. I want simply to sum up my argument by saying this. The government has been asked to make certain changes. They are attempting to make these changes and are hoping to meet the needs of the small businessmen in this respect. Whether these changes are going to be successful or not time alone will tell. I have confidence that as time goes on and further amendments are needed the government will approach the problem with an open mind.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on this bill with very great interest and I have found it most instructive. The subject of anti-combines legislation is a difficult one. Our legislation itself has a far-reaching effect on the economy of the country, an effect which I think most objective students will agree is beneficial to the advancement of Canadian society and Canadians generally who comprise that society.
I was very much interested in the minister's presentation of the bill to the house on second reading. I was taken by his apparent attitude of being on the defensive throughout his presentation of the bill to the house, and particularly with his attempt to spend so much time defending the record of the Conservative party in this field over a number of years. His statement of the history of the matter omitted all the most important references to the records of parliament or of legislation throughout that period, although he was correct in his reference to the original date. I was curious about why he found it necessary to defend his party's history on this subject so strenuously. He had unlimited time but he chose to use his time for that purpose. I can only say that I hope students of this subject will look at the record and not take the minister's word as it stands without verifying it with the record over the years.
Throughout yesterday's debate on the bill we had a most interesting attitude revealed by the minister. He was creating the impression, at least on some of us, that he did not want the bill debated and he was interjecting regularly. No supporter of the government took any part. I am happy to see that today he has reformed. It is a very desirable reform. He has been patient in listening to the debate, and I hope he will find this small part of the debate of some constructive value



I. I960

[Stage Direction]
and of some interest. I am also glad to see that the supporters of the government have taken part in the debate on second reading. The bill warrants this because it is of sufficient importance to have all the examination and light which can be thrown on it by debate in the house.
It is very tempting to deal with the subject in a broad way; the whole subject of combines and anti-combines legislation is vast. Indeed I would like very much to deal with it but I think the time allocated to me can be more profitably used if I seek to examine the bill now before us in order to discern from the provisions of the bill what principles I think are involved and in what respects the bill modifies or repudiates principles in the anticombines legislation presently existing.
For the purpose of my argument I would like to recall to the house that the minister, as reported on page 4340 of Hansard, made it quite clear that the bill proceeds on the basis of the inherent soundness of the principles of the present anti-combines legislation; and he went on to say that the government believes that the principles of the legislation now in effect are sound. I am somewhat mystified, if he holds that view, why he went so far in changing those principles, because I hope to show in the course of my argument that that is precisely what he has done. Through this bill he has not done what he stated in the excerpts of his speech which I quoted; rather he has through the bill submitted something which if it is enacted will change the principles of the present legislation. With that in mind I will try to develop my argument.
First of all I think reference ought to be made to the principle to be found in clause 13 of the bill dealing with the changes in section 32 of the existing act. The principle, as I understand it from this part of the bill, is the principle of defining combinations and agreements-specifically setting them out- which are now being made legal. This will be found at the bottom of page 6 of the bill where six specific types of agreement subject to certain conditions are made legal. They include agreements for the exchange of statistics, the defining of product standards, the exchange of credit information, the definition of trade terms, co-operation in research and development, and restriction of advertising.
I think most hon. members will agree it is desirable that there should be co-operation in the development of research. The development of research in this country raises a real problem, many of our companies being too small to afford the necessary organization unless it is set up in combination. I have some doubt with regard to some of the other items 79951-0-280
Combines Investigation Act mentioned in that list, on the ground that these legal combinations as defined in this clause may open up an opportunity for a few persons or corporations who may be seeking to operate illegally to take advantage of this provision in order to develop combinations which would be offensive to the legislation.
However, that is not the main point I wish to make now. The point I wish to develop is that the minister, in providing that these specifically enumerated combinations should be legal, has not taken adequate steps to preserve and protect the public interest. There are many ways in which the hon. gentleman could have provided such protection. One of them would be to provide for registration of such agreements or combinations so that the director under the act would have the opportunity of examining the development of activities with regard to legal combinations. There are other methods, too. The method of registration is used in the United Kingdom, although I am aware that the legislation is different in principle from our own. But the point I am making here is that registration or some other method should be used with regard to these legal agreements or combinations for the purpose of enabling the director and other interested authorities to prevent these legal agreements being abused.
One other thing. The minister spoke about the uncertainty and difficulty experienced by certain corporations in knowing when they were doing something which might be illegal under the present act with regard to combinations. He spoke of the confusion that exists. Admittedly the legislation is difficult to interpret and determine. I am not specifically critical of the minister on that account. The act is that way, and while I think the present bill is worse, I am not expressly critical of the minister on that point. But if the minister had provided some means of protecting the public such as I have suggested, then in addition to preserving the interests of consumers he would have enabled the companies themselves to know with clarity whether their agreements or combinations were in the proper form under the act.
There is another point I wish to make, and one which concerns me greatly. It arises out of the new principle introduced in clause 17(4) of the bill. I think that for the purpose of developing my argument I should put the paragraph on record. It reads:
In any case where subsection (2) of section 31 is applicable the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of the province may in his discretion institute proceedings either by way of an information under that subsection or by way of prosecution.
[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation Act
In the legislation as it presently stands, offences are subject to prosecution. It is quite true that an additional remedy to the penalties provided under prosecution was provided for by way of a mandatory order or a restraining order. What is provided now, as I interpret clause 17(4), is a whole new principle, that is, the substitution of a different remedy at the wish of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of the province concerned in any of the ten provinces. That raises several objectionable features.
First of all, there was some doubt expressed as to the right of the crown to take jurisdiction by way of mandatory or restraining proceedings, because they were civil, and the whole basis of the anti-combines legislation as I understand it, except those sections having to do with patents and customs, is that it is the enforcement of criminal law. That is the basis upon which the federal government gets its jurisdiction, as I understand it. If I am correct as to that, then this new provision raises the whole question as to the validity of the legislation we are now being asked to enact, and there is grave doubt about the constitutionality of this measure.
This is a point that should be dealt with, because it is no longer a criminal offence to do certain of the things set out under the act; it may only be the subject matter of civil proceedings by way of information commenced by the crown for a mandatory order or a restraining order. That is a very dangerous proposition because the destruction of anti-combines legislation through the adoption of this new principle, on the grounds that it is ultra vires could, as I think all hon. members will agree, be a very serious thing.
[Stage Direction]
I do hope the minister when he replies to this debate will address himself to this point.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, of course. Mr. Speaker, it is close to six o'clock. When the hon. member resumes I wonder if he would be good enough to suggest to me the authority for the statement he has just made that this would become civil proceedings?


George James McIlraith: I intend to develop that point in the course of my argument. May I call it six o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: I wonder if I might ask the leader of the house what is to be the business for tomorrow and Friday?


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the leader of the house whether on Monday or Tuesday the last supply motion will be taken, or whether it will be delayed beyond that time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is easier for me to announce on Thursday night the business for the following week, so I will answer the latter question tomorrow.
For tomorrow, by arrangement, we will begin with item six on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. S-28, an act respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia. Immediately on completion of that, we shall proceed to a study of the estimates in the order I have already outlined. This will be on both Thursday and Friday, commencing with the Department of Transport.
It being two minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:


Mr. Argue: 1.	Were any voids ever found in the downstream pier of the substructure of the south channel high level bridge at Cornwall on the Canadian side?
2.	If so, (a) on what dates; (b) how many were discovered; (c) what was the size of each; (d) by whom were they discovered?
3.	Were remedial measures taken?
4.	If so, (a) on which voids; (b) on what dates;
(c)	what was the nature of the measures taken;
(d)	by whom were they taken; (e) what was the total cost?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Test cores, of about 2 inch diameter, showed no conclusive evidence of voids, but did indicate:
(a)	minor segregations of concrete aggregates (stone, sand and cement) in the pier; and
(b)	at the plane of contact between the glacial till foundation and the concrete shaft, the interstices in a shallow depth of crushed stone were filled with silty till and not intrusive grout as intended.
2.	(a) Test cores: November 14, 18 and 20, 1957.
(b)	and (c): Answered by 1.
(d) E. B. Owen, geologist, supervised drilling.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Answered by 1.
(b)	During period November and December, 1957; April, 1958.
(c)	The drilling of 21 holes through the concrete shaft to and into the till foundation; the driving of a straight-web steel sheet piling collar about 18" distant from and concentric with the the concrete shaft; the cleaning and the filling of the annular ring between the shaft and the collar with tremie concrete; the washing of the silty till from the interstices in the crushed stone at the plane of contact between the shaft and the foundation; and the filling of these interstices and areas of segregated concrete aggregates with a cement-sand grout injected through the holes under pressure.
(d)	Intrusion-Prepakt Limited, subcontractor to McNamara Construction Co., Limited.
(e)	Not known, as the costs of remedial measures for each shaft were not segregated.
79951-0-280J
Questions




Mr. Argue: 1.	Was an independent check ever made on the safety of the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge?
2.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) by whom; (c) by whom was it ordered; (d) what personnel was used in conducting it; (e) what actual time was spent by such personnel on location at the bridge site during the check; (f) what information was made available to this personnel conducting the check and by whom; (g) why was such a safety check considered necessary?
3.	Was a report made on the findings of the personnel who conducted this safety check?
4.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) by whom; (c) to whom; (d) what was the nature of the report?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) April 4 to October 14, 1958.
(b)	Board of consultants especially appointed for the purpose.
(c)	The St. Lawrence seaway authority and the U.S. army corps of engineers, the latter acting in its capacity as the design and construction agency for the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
(d)	Emil H. Praeger of Praeger-Kavanagh, engineer, New York City; George F. Ferris, president of Raymond International Inc.; and D. F. Murphy, chief structural engineer, Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited.
(e)	Not known.
(f)	Core borings taken on the site of the main piers before, during and following construction, together with field and laboratory reports thereon; samples of glacial till excavated from within the caissons; copies of design computations, plans and specifications; and all available data of a pertinent nature relating to construction procedures. Furnished by the parties named in 2(c).
(g)	To obtain an independent, unbiased opinion from experienced and reputable consulting engineers on the ultimate capacity and safety of the substructure to carry the superstructure and loads thereon.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) (b) (c) and (d).
Report of October 14, 1958, by Messrs. E. H. Praeger, George F. Ferris and D. F. Murphy to district engineer, Buffalo district, corps of engineers (copy to seaway authority) advising of studies made concerning main piers and stating "The committee hereby reports that the piers and the soil on which they rest are now adequate to safely sustain all dead and maximum five loads". Report of October 14,

Questions
1958, by and to the above named concerning the movement of the northern abutment and recommending a stabilization procedure. Report of August 20, 1959, by Messrs. E. H. Praeger, D. F. Murphy and W. P. Kinneman (acting for Mr. George F. Ferris) to U.S. army engineer district, corps of engineers; the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and the St. Lawrence seaway authority reviewing further investigations and stating that "It is the unanimous finding of the board that the bridge is in an entirely safe condition. It is in better condition that it was immediately prior to the time that the original report by the board was submitted (14 October 1958)."




Mr. Argue: 1.	On what date were original test borings taken in regard to soil conditions in connection with the substructure for the Cornwall high level bridge?
2.	What was the name of each official, the position he held, and who took these test borings?
3.	What were the results of tests, and what size cores were taken?
4.	Were cores tested for strength in Canada?
5.	If so, (a) what was the date of each test; (b) the name of official testing; (c) the name and location of the laboratory where the test was made?
6.	Where have bore samples been kept since they were taken?
7.	Were any transferred to another place? If so, where were they transferred and on what date?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	April to August, 1956.
2.	Test borings were made under the direction of the corps of engineers, U.S. army, Buffalo district.
3.	The test results indicated that the glacial till would provide adequate bearing support for the bridge piers. Cores obtained at the locations of the main bridge piers generally indicated increasing density with depth and at foundation level showed very dense glacial till. Cores obtained at the locations of the approach piers generally indicated dense to- very dense glacial till with local areas of medium dense till. The glacial till was overlain by soft clay. The piers were embedded in the glacial till. Cores of dense granular material were obtained using a standard 2 inch diameter split spoon sampler. Some samples (of silty clay on Cornwall Island) were obtained using a standard Shelby tube.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Cores were on display for bidding purposes at the area engineers' office, Buffalo district, Massena, N.Y. Their disposition since that time is not known.
7.	Answered by No. 6.



AIRPORT TERMINAL CONTRACTS

Mr. Tucker: 1.	On what date was the contract let for the construction of the airport terminal at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Windsor, Ontario, Quebec city. Quebec, and St. John's, Stephenville, Gander, N ewf oundland?
2.	On what date was the terminal completed at each of the above airports?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1. and 2.
Airport terminal
Saskatoon, Sask.
Windsor, Ont.
Quebec city, Que.
St. John's (Torbay) Nfld. Stephenville, Nfld. Gander, Nfld.
Date contract awarded
October 30, 1953 February 8, 1956 November 18, 1955 December 13, 1956 February 17, 1956 November 10, 1955
Date terminal completed
November 29, 1956 March 7, 1958 December 16, 1957 March 31, 1958 March 31, 1958 May 13, 1959.

Thursday, June 2, 1960



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal)
presented the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.