1960-05-30

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That commencing on Wednesday, June 1, and on every sitting day thereafter until the end of this session, the hours of sitting shall be as follows:
Monday: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2.30 to 6 p.m.; and 3 to 10 p.m.
Tuesday: 11 a.m. to 1 pun.; 2.30 to 6 p.m. and 8 to 10 p.m.
Wednesday: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and 2.30 to 6 p.m.
Thursday: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; 2.30 to 6 p.m. and 8 to 10 p.m.
Friday: 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and 2.30 to 6 p.m. and that the provisions of standing order 2 (1) and 6 (3) be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a reference to the motion. With the leave of the house I would ask that my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs move to amend the motion in its present form deleting the words "and 6 (3)" from the second last line. The application will be made later on unless it is now accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house I expect that the motion could be moved with those words deleted. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will be taken as moved with the deletion of the words "and 6 (3)".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to do more at this time than introduce the motion and make one or two very short observations. I will endeavour to cover the matters that may be raised during the course of the debate on the motion when I have the opportunity to reply at the conclusion of the debate.
I would point out that last year a motion like this was introduced on the 92nd day of the session. Today is the 91st day of this session. While the uncompleted portion of the legislative program and the various items remaining to be dealt with by the house was, I think, somewhat longer last year than this, I might point out that last year prorogation took place on July 18.
I express the hope that we shall be able so to order the progress of the debate on the
various items referred to in the speech from the throne that we shall be able to cover them with expedition without in any way sacrificing the fullest debate. By that I do not mean in any way to direct or to hamper the fullest debate. I anticipate that by about the first week of July we should be able to conclude the business of this session.
There are some who speak of delaying actions which have taken place. I do not take any stand in that regard. I simply point out that when the progress of business in this house is compared with that in the mother of parliaments it is often forgotten that under their rules the time for debate on the speech from the throne, the budget and the like generally runs from two to three days; whereas under our rules the speech from the throne requires 12 days, including the opening day and the day devoted to the mover and the seconder. The budget debate requires eight days. Then we have private members' Mondays, of which we have had six. They are provided for under the rules. There are private members' Thursdays, of which we have had three.
Then we have a procedure which is not followed in the British house to the same extent, and certainly not to the degree provided for by our rules. We have six supply motions of two days each. Up to the present date we have had five of those supply motions. In other words, under the rules as they are, regardless of whether or not we agree that they should be as they are, so far this session we have had 39 days which have been taken up as a result of the rules which exist at the moment.
Then on supplementary estimates a longer time has been taken. Usually those estimates in general have been pretty well covered in the previous session. This year, however, 10 days have been devoted to supplementary estimates and three days to interim supply. On the other hand, the other measures that have been before the house have taken, generally speaking, one to two days with the exception of the resolution and bill on the Trans-Canada Highway Act, which took four days, and the resolution and bill on the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, which took eight days.
I am not making any criticism of the fact that the debate on that resolution and bill took eight days, but I do not think there would be many who would deny that at the

Business of the House
end of two days almost everything that could have been said had been said.
However, that is what parliament is for, and I am not raising any objection. When I said a few moments ago that I hoped we could so order arrangements for the rest of the session as to finish by the time I indicated, what I had in mind was that we adopt a kind of voluntary sacrifice of opportunity in not carrying on debates beyond that limit within which every possible argument has been advanced. However, even on the basis of the record to date I still believe it will be possible, with the co-operation of hon. members in all parts of the house, to bring about prorogation early in July.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house have listened with interest to the remarks made by the Prime Minister on the motion to have the house sit in the mornings and begin a drive to bring the session to an end. In that respect I should like to say that we will co-operate to the fullest extent to the end that the session may be brought to a conclusion early in July if that is possible or, if not, we will come back for a fall session if it is the wish of the house.
There are some things that must be kept in mind. In the first place, we feel very strongly that certain matters must be debated at greater length than others. The Prime Minister has brought to the attention of the house a number of matters that have taken some time, and having sat on the other side of the house as he does now I realize, of course, the position in which the government finds itself. I can well remember how former prime ministers have sometimes taken the exact position which the present Prime Minister is taking now, but with very little cooperation from the opposition in those days. At that time the opposition felt that certain items of legislation should be discussed at greater length.
There is one thing I wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister in this regard. While it is true that we have taken 91 days to discuss certain matters, including 39 days in the discussion of the matters he mentioned earlier, 10 days for supplementary estimates, 3 days for interim supply, 4 days, I believe he said, for the Trans-Canada Highway Act and 8 days for the discussion of university grants, I should like to draw to his attention the fact that in the discussion of a number of these pieces of legislation there were more speakers from the government side of the house than from the opposition and the C.C.F. put together. I have reference now to the debate on university grants, where

we were met not only speaker for speaker but in some instances by a proportion of two or three to one.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: Oh, no; just
speaker for speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not complaining at all about that situation, but I am saying to the Prime Minister that unquestionably there is no doubt that if there has been any delay in a number of these cases it is not our fault. I might also refer to the agricultural estimates, which we were almost ready to put through the other evening, but speaker after speaker on the other side of the house rose and held up those estimates.
There are one or two other things I should like to draw to the attention of the house. We do not have before us yet a complete list of the items of legislation that have to be dealt with, but if effect is to be given to the speech from the throne we do know there are a number of items of legislation and, of course, the vast majority of the estimates which must be disposed of. There is, of course, the bill of rights which will require some considerable discussion, and if it is the intention to proceed with that bill at this session I hope the government will see fit to send it to a committee of the house.
Then there is the very important revision of the Civil Service Act, which I am sure is of tremendous importance to all of us. I am wondering whether any consideration has been given by the government to the introduction of this bill, giving it first reading and referring it to a committee so it might be studied, as was done with other measures during the past two sessions. I think that is a matter which might well be considered.
There is, too, the matter of capital punishment which was to have been debated further, and upon which there was to have been a free vote by all members of parliament. Within the last two weeks no indication has been given of what action is to be taken in that respect, so that debate has been left hanging, if I might use an expression.
I cannot resist drawing to the attention of the Prime Minister three matters that are on the order paper today. First there is his own motion for these sittings, and on the opposite page there are two motions to set up committees, one concerning the committee on agriculture and colonization-


Mr. Harkness:: No, it has been set up.


Lionel Chevrier: -or to refer to the committee on agriculture and colonization certain matters concerning the prices of farm

machinery. The other motion is tor the establishment of a select committee on broadcasting. It seems to me that at least the second matter, if not both matters, could have been brought forward a long time ago. We on this side of the house have been asking for the establishment of the broadcasting committee, and to establish it when we are going to sit in the morning and when, in some cases, it will be very difficult for the committee to sit while the house is sitting, seems to me to be placing great difficulty in the way of the work of this committee.
I know the Prime Minister is extremely anxious to give the committees of the house work so that his members, and all the members of the house, can be kept actively engaged. The setting up of this very important committee now gives some indication of the fact, in the first place, that it will not be possible, if we are to complete our work by the first week of July, to deal effectively with the important matters which should be referred to that committee. In so far as the price of farm machinery is concerned, I do not know why it was not possible to refer that matter to the committee earlier.
I could perhaps say there are some matters which, in our opinion, could be disposed of rather quickly and on which long debates would certainly not be necessary. I will not take the time of the house by mentioning them now. I have given some indication of them to the house leader. There are others, on the other hand, where lengthier debates will be necessary and a greater length of time will be taken up in the consideration of what we believe are important matters.
In the light of all this I want to conclude by saying that we will co-operate to the fullest extent. We feel that we should take the time which in our opinion is essential to dispose of some of the matters which are already on the order paper, and some other matters which although not on the order paper have been mentioned in the speech from the throne.
Perphaps I could make this request of the Prime Minister. In the light of what I have said and what others may say, might it not be advisable to give effect to this motion on Monday June 6 rather than on Wednesday, June 1? However, if the Prime Minister feels that it should remain as it is, we on this side of the house will support it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the house have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made by the Prime Minister and that by the spokesman for the official
Business of the House
opposition. It is quite obvious that, as far as the government is concerned-and now with the agreement of the official opposition- everything will be done to get rid of parliament as soon as possible.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, as is customary at a certain point in every session, we have the Prime Minister introducing a motion such as the one we have before us this afternoon, to the effect that starting on Wednesday and henceforth, Monday through Friday, the House of Commons shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning.
I expected something different from the present Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. He has had a unique experience. Today he is the Prime Minister of Canada. It is not so long ago that for a short time he was leader of the opposition. For many years prior to that time he was a private member. He therefore knows perhaps better than anyone else in the House of Commons the responsibilities, the work and the strain involved in being a private member, leader of the opposition and Prime Minister. Yet with that knowledge and experience he introduces today this motion we have before us.
We in this group in this corner of the house want to say that the motion is absolutely unfair and unrealistic. It is designed to do something that I never thought the present Prime Minister would ever do, namely to bring about a situation in support of cabinet government and not of House of Commons government.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: That, Mr. Speaker, is the point to which I am coming. There are too many members in this House of Commons who want to go home instead of staying here to do the job for which they were elected. Not one of us was ever compelled to accept a nomination. We accepted that responsibility knowing that we live in a democracy and that, should we be elected, 265 men and women of Canada are given the power and authority by 17,500,000 people in Canada to endorse laws, rescind laws, amend laws, impose taxation and spend the taxpayers' money. When we accept nomination and are elected, there is no question in our minds as to whether we have to sit in Ottawa for two months, five months, eight months or a year. Then why is it that in the most responsible jobs, the greatest honour that a man or woman can have, we are expected to try to see how fast we can get out because we do not like the heat or the humidity of summer in parliament? Why is it that when there is such a fight by the trade unions for respectable hours

Business of the House of work, those who have the greatest responsibility in Canada-those who make the law, amend the law, impose taxation and spend the money-should be told every year, I think it is after 90 days, or 91 days, "You will have to speed up"?
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman knows that a private member of the House of Commons has responsibility to his constituents; he has to conduct correspondence; he has research work to carry on; he has speeches to prepare, and in addition he has committee work. At the present time- the same day this motion is being moved by the Prime Minister

there are 11 standing committees of the House of Commons which have not yet completed their work or submitted their final reports. These committees have to meet. In addition there is the special committee on defence expenditure. Notice has been given regarding the committee which is to consider the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We understand there is to be a committee on the bill of rights. We know the Minister of Justice intends that after second reading the important legislation on the Combines Investigation Act will go to the banking and commerce committee.
However, we are to meet at 11 a.m. When do the special committees or the standing committees meet? They meet from 9.30 until 11, or when the house is meeting.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Harold Edward Winch: I want to say to some hon. members, because I know where that interruption came from, that if they got up and came here as early as I do they would not be rushed half as often as they are.
There are 11 committees which have not yet reported. There are two or three, perhaps four, special committees. If this house is to meet at eleven on Monday through Friday, then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how does an ordinary member take care of his work on a constituency basis? How does he find time to attend to grievances, attend committees and attend the House of Commons at the same time? There is only one thing a member can do on that basis-


An hon. Member:: That is, shut up.


Harold Edward Winch: That is exactly what they want us to do, shut up.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, we have no intention of shutting up on any matter which we feel is of importance to this country and with which we were elected to deal. Whoever said that may have that acceptance of responsibility.


It is not the way responsibility is accepted in this group. We in this group want to do the job for which we were elected-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you try it?


Harold Edward Winch: -and that is to deal properly, intelligently-


An hon. Member:: Impossible.


Harold Edward Winch: -with all bills, all expenditures, all taxation and all committees. Further, I am going to say this. A person who is a responsible member of the House of Commons-and I think the majority fall into this category-cannot take care of his correspondence, do his research, prepare for speeches which are to be delivered extemporaneously and not read, and attend committees from early in the morning until late at night.
I know there are those who would like to get back to their private business. That is their responsibility. When they stood for election to the House of Commons it meant spending whatever time was required in the House of Commons and, I say, it means working decent hours under decent conditions and not being forced, as parliament is every year at a certain time, to go home. I would like to go home, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: But I am not going as long as there is a job to do here for which I was elected and for which I am being paid. I would like through you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not face up to what should have been faced a long time ago, and something which certainly will have to be faced in the very near future. Canada is a young country, a country with a growing population, growing potentialities and, I think, a growing influence. Incidentally, too, there are growing expenditures. Sometimes I am amazed when some of our members do not recognize that 265 people here are dealing, I believe, with a $6,500 million business. Not only that, but by the laws we make and the policies we follow we are dealing with the lives of 17,500,000 people. In a situation like this we cannot just say "I move that we start meeting earlier and sit longer". What is of importance on the last day of the session was just as important on the first day of the session and is entitled to the same thought, the same deliberate, conscientious, intelligent decision.
I imagine, Mr. Speaker, you have gathered that we are opposed to this motion. I ask the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister to recall his experience during his long years as a private member and the little while during which he was leader of the official opposition. Does he not agree the time

has come for a change in the sittings of this house? Does he not believe that the rights of the people of Canada are such that we should not hurry away from here because we want to get home for the summer to avoid the heat and humidity of Ottawa, which are pretty rough? Does he not think we have the responsibility of arranging the sittings of parliament to provide for the fullest consideration of the people's business?
There is a lot of work still before the House of Commons. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the work of the committees. They have improved and have more freedom than under the previous administration. Their reports are splendid. But there is still much work to be done. The estimates of only one department have been passed. We have passed only one department, agriculture, and are still on the first item of the estimates of the Post Office Department. The major legislation is still to be discussed. Instead of coming before the house, apparently by some agreement with the official opposition, to set a deadline by which to be out of here, and instead of considering our private interests, the temperature and engaging in collusion, we should consider the people's business.
If we cannot be out of here on a normal basis within a month or two let us use common sense and adjourn the house during the middle or end of this month and come back at the end of September or early in October or November. Is it not time that we as members of parliament thought of others? Do we ever think of the staff, the clerks, the stenographers, the security officers? Does the Prime Minister ever think of the press gallery? Oh, yes, I know he does.
For many years the hundreds of employees involved in the work of the House of Commons and Senate have not had a holiday with their children because parliament sits until the end of July or well into August. I do not care from what point of view you approach the question; the course of action I have referred to on the part of the government is unfair to the staff. We are the 265 men and women who make, change and break the laws, who impose taxation and spend the public money. We do not initiate it, but we have to vote on it. On that basis each of us should have a full opportunity to discharge his responsibilities to his constituents, to the committees of which he is a member and to this house.
Do you know what happens? Three or four times a week in the press mention is made of there being only 31, 32 or 33 members in the chamber. There may be a few laggards, but the majority of hon. members
Business of the House
do their work even if they are not present in the chamber to be counted. They work in committees, are involved in research and are taking care of grievances. Now the government wants to increase the burden. I say to the Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that he has betrayed the principle of parliamentary rule and is leading us now to more definite cabinet rule.
Every government likes to get rid of parliament. I ask that this motion be not accepted. I urge every hon. member to remember that when he ran for parliament he agreed to serve the people of Canada. That does not mean for four or six months but for whatever period is required to give proper consideration to the people's business. That is the view of this group. So strongly are we of this view that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier):
That the motion be amended by deleting, in line 2 thereof, the words "Wednesday, June 1" and substituting therefore the words "Friday, July 1".


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to endorse the amendment proposed by my colleague. I noticed that while he spoke a number of backbench supporters of the government hollered at him to shut up. I regret that there are a number of hon. gentlemen who are more loyal to their political party than they are to the interests of the Canadian people.
One reason for my supporting the amendment is that I feel it is unwise to even attempt to accomplish the aim the Prime Minister has outlined and wind up our business in the early part of July. I know there is much important legislation yet to consider, and I had hoped that even more legislation would be introduced this session.
We have already received notice of amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. This is of importance and will call for extended debate. We were informed in the speech from the throne that we are to be faced with a bill of rights, and even the Prime Minister is under no illusions in this regard. The debate on this legislation is going to be extended, and this is putting it mildly. We had also hoped that at this session of the house we would have many other items of legislation in line with the undertakings that were given to the electorate both in 1957 and in 1958.
Meetings are about to begin of the very important committee to deal with the procedure of the house. I hope the Prime Minister does not imagine that this is a light matter; that this is going to be easily dispensed with at the threat of the whip of the government. I can assure him that the opposition intends,

Business of the House
as the saying goes, to dig in its heels on the committee dealing with procedure, because this is very important in a democracy. I hope this important committee will have no intention of being dictated to, or of being informed that it will have to wind up and have the house accept its recommendations before July 8 or any other date.
The very important committee on atomic energy has yet to hold its initial meeting. We have the very important committee considering the defence policies of the government of the day, and we cannot be expected to conclude this in any way, shape or form by July 8. We have information that the Immigration Act is very much in need of radical revision and that our whole immigration policy needs a debate of considerable extent on the part of the House of Commons. We expect this, and I do not see how we can arrange it before July 8.
We have had assurances that the government is interested in the small businessman, and we are expecting legislation in this regard. We have had assurances that the government is vitally concerned with the problems of our municipal governments, and we expect legislation in this regard at this session. We do not want it in the election session of next winter; we want it now, and the Canadian people expect the legislation now. We intend to remain here until we get the legislation.
We have had information that the government has a great ear for the pleas of agriculture. We intend to remain here until we see some legislation in this regard. We have had assurances that the veterans will be adequately dealt with. We intend to remain here until the veterans receive a little more than they have received hitherto from this government. We have had assurance that this government is intending to do something with regard to the tight money situation. We intend to remain here until some action is forthcoming in this regard. We have had an investigation in the field of social security. The Clark report has been tabled. We expect legislation implementing some of the findings that were reviewed in the Clark report. We have the important matter of our deteriorating foreign trade balance. We expect legislation at this session in regard to federal aid to education. Then there is the assurance of the Prime Minister and other leading members of the government that there will be a new deal in relation to national highways. We have, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has already said, many committees meeting. I can attend only about half the ones I am on.
I have four youngsters at home. They are in their teens. I have been here since 1953,
[Mr. HegierJ
Mr. Speaker, and the family at home is getting sick and tired of remaining at home throughout the hot months of July and August and never knowing whether the father is coming home in order to live with his family at the only holiday time that a family has in Canada these days. Year after year we have to live in hope that some nice morning the Prime Minister will get out on the right side of the bed and will give us and our families a break. It is becoming intolerable. I know a number of men, Mr. Speaker, who were going to be candidates in the next national election, but who have now informed me that because of their domestic responsibilities they will no longer be available.
Are we to have only men without families representing the families of Canada in this House of Commons, or are we going to decide that the responsible thing is to plan and to have, as most other democracies have and as most other democratic parliaments have arranged for, certain months in which we meet, and organize our business accordingly?
The government of Germany meets for 10 months of the year and has eight weeks of recess. The members of the Bundestag know their working period ahead of time. The members at Westminster in Britain, the mother of parliaments, are advised; they know when they will be home and when they will have to meet their responsibilities of office. Yet we in the Canadian parliament are supposed to be forever liable and subject to the personal wish of one man, the Prime Minister. I know that when I speak now I have the support, if not the spoken support, of many of his supporters in the government who are willing and anxious for the Prime Minister to announce that the government has agreed that we ought to have a little bit of law and order as to when we meet and when we adjourn.
As has been mentioned, this is a $6 billion business. I feel that we have no right to go through form and procedure such as the speech from the throne, the budget debate and the supply motions and then wind up everything else of any consequence in as big a hurry as we can. I realize there are members of this house who belong to the legal profession, and there are a few of those- and only a small number of them-who are interested in the assizes in the fall. They do not like the house to meet at the same time the fall assizes are meeting. However, most of the members of the house who belong to the legal profession have not yet reached the point where they have any interest at all in the fall assizes. I feel that those members of the House of Commons who are

leading lawyers should not have had such undue influence on the government-


Mr. Thrasher:: Nonsense.


Erhart Regier: -in bringing about the introduction of a motion of this kind. Over the coffee table and elsewhere we often meet with members who are supporters of the government, and we know that most of them agree with our contention that there should be some order and planning, and that the interests of this limited number of individuals should be disregarded. If a member of the house regards his law practice as so remunerative and important that he cannot attend to the business of the nation, I would recommend that he should not accept nomination at election time.
We have laws in the interests of our working people. I agree that many of them only get one week's vacation a year, though some get several weeks. A very limited number get three weeks' vacation a year. However, the members of the House of Commons receive no holidays that are determined by law. We often obtain what holidays we do get because of the particular wishes of the government, and more often than not these holidays are useless so far as our domestic responsibilities are concerned.
I am the member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I should like to refer to the wonderful example of a man who died a little over a year ago, the late Ernest E. Winch. He was elected to the legislature of British Columbia in 1933, I believe, and from the time he was first elected his only source of income was the allowance he received as a member of the legislative assembly of British Columbia. He devoted the whole of his life to the public interest, and I think he should be an example to all members of this house, because we are in receipt of a much greater income than he was in his day. I should like to think that members of the house would not be adverse to returning here on October 1 and remaining here for the months of October and November. Let us have the months of July, August and September off, as well as the month of December. If we decide that this is to be the policy we can organize our business and our affairs to accommodate the conditions of our work in the House of Commons.
I believe that at this time the house would be most unwarranted in adopting the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I plead with members of the house to be more interested in the business of the nation from the long term point of view and in the responsibility that faces each member of the house, and to disregard at least for this one
Business of the House
occasion the dictation of the government and vote in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to detain the house for more than a few minutes, because I have noticed that when we have a motion on the order paper to save time or to prolong the time for discussion a substantial part of the time we would save or that would be gained is taken up in discussion of the way to save or prolong it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will not be long; but the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East in one respect at least were such that I feel I have to make the position of our party perfectly clear. If I correctly remember what he said, and I took down his words, he made the statement that apparently we were co-operating with the government in order to get rid of parliament as soon as possible.
That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. We will be glad to co-operate with the government in doing what we can as members of the house to ensure that the house completes the business that the government puts before it with a minimum of delay, but without prejudice to our right and the right of every member of the house, on whatever side he may sit, to discuss fully, completely and thoroughly every measure that is submitted to the house. That is our responsibility, and we intend to discharge it. But within the limits of that responsibility we will co-operate in so far as we can to facilitate the business of the house.
However, Mr. Speaker, if that co-operation is to be of any value it is incumbent on the government, which has the responsibility, to organize the work of the session so that we can dispatch the business with a maximum of efficiency and a minimum of delay. That means that now, as we approach the period when we are trying to wind up the session, we should know what the business is for the rest of the session and where we stand in that regard. As we are discussing this matter today we have on the order paper for the first time, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Laurier a motion to establish a very important committee. We should therefore try to co-ordinate in the best way we can, perhaps through discussions among representatives of all three parties, not only the work of the house but the work of the committees. If we can do that perhaps we will be able to accomplish more than we otherwise would merely by passing this kind of motion.
My hon. friend has suggested to the Prime Minister, and I repeat the suggestion, that
4324	HOUSE OF
Business of the House
we would prefer to have the motion altered so that the longer hours of sitting, the diffi-cuties from which we all appreciate, will begin on Monday, June 6, instead of Wednesday, June 1. I put that suggestion to the Prime Minister. I hope he will feel it is possible to accept it. If he does, and if we can get together to organize the business of the session, which means that we must know now what that business is going to be, perhaps we will then be able to finish, although it certainly looks unlikely at the present time, some time around the middle of July. But if the Prime Minister and the government so desire, because it is their responsibility to make the decision, we will be prepared to adjourn and come back next autumn. Either of these courses is quite satisfactory from the point of view of the official opposition, but whatever course is adopted I hope we will know with the least possible delay what we are going to have before us for the remainder of the session.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment or two on the amendment now before us. With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I am sure he could say substantially the same things in perhaps half an hour that he says in the two hour speeches he makes from time to time. As far as being a time-waster is concerned, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition falls in that category-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Frank Howard: -equally as much as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). Knowing the interest the Liberal party has developed in recent months with regard to a number of extremely vital and important issues facing the country, and after listening to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say a moment ago, I rather expect that if members of that party expound their ideas and theories in full on the items now before us we will be here until August or September without any difficulty.
I did not intend to make any extensive remarks on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I was rather interested in hearing, and I thought it was rather unconsciously expressive of an attitude that is developing amongst certain private members sitting on the other side of the house, their outbursts of "shut up" and "sit down".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will permit me to remind him that the question before the house is whether the effective date in the motion should be June 1 or July 1. I hope he will come to that point. If he had any comment to make on any


matter of order in the house he should have made it at the time the matter arose.


Frank Howard: The point to which I am directing my remarks is the amendment, in an attempt to show why the amendment should be accepted at this time. I am attempting to advance some of the reasons for putting the date forward to July, and to show why these additional hours of sitting were introduced in the first place. I think this feeling, which was expressed probably unconsciously, developed out of the frustration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already
cautioned the hon. member that he is not in order in discussing that matter.


Frank Howard: We should like, by this amendment, to put off as long as we can this undue rush which is contemplated in the initial motion presented by the Prime Minister. We have seen in other parliaments in Canada, notably in the province from which I come, British Columbia, this tendency to legislate by exhaustion. It may be that the same trend is developing here. The attitude of the government toward the introduction of items is that the time at which a measure is introduced is the prerogative of the government. They hold off the introduction or hold back the progress of items which are controversial and which require the greatest amount of consideration and research work to prepare for debate.
I have noticed this tendency during past sessions too, Mr. Speaker, and I am quite sure it is something that existed when the Liberal party was in office. They delay items of extreme importance to the country and to parliament until the latter part of the session, and make the introduction of these items coincide with the speed-up of the session, hoping thereby, as I said, to legislate by exhaustion. The members of the opposition, because of the fact that they are in opposition, have to do an extra amount of research and study, an extra amount of debate and discussion on these items as compared with government backbenchers who, generally speaking, do relatively little in this field. v
This motion, therefore, is for the convenience of the government, not for the convenience of parliament or as the result of concern over the effect these pieces of legislation will have on Canada. Certainly, I am quite sure, the Prime Minister would like to see his bill of rights introduced, debated and passed within one afternoon or within the shortest possible period of time. The item of business with which we will be dealing following the consideration of this motion is the amendment of the Combines Investigation Act. The Minister of Justice would like to see

this matter considered within the shortest possible time so the amendment can become law. There are other items such as the establishment of a forestry department and the amendment of the Civil Service Act, all of which are probably questions of major importance in this session, and this undue rush by attempting to keep parliament sitting morning, noon and night-I expect later on we will be sitting Saturdays, if past practice is followed-is designed so the government will meet the least amount of criticism during debate of the ideas which they propose.
The government knows full well it does not have to worry too much about undue criticism from members of its own party. It appears to be the traditional way government backbenchers function; that is, they place far more reliance in the government itself than they might if the government were formed by a different political party. Probably this is the normal course which government backbenchers follow.
The reasons for wanting to rush things at the end of the session were given by the government. They are looking toward completion of the work by July 1. If the government wanted to do something to ensure that its proposals received the fullest consideration, it could organize its activities in an orderly fashion in the early part of the session. The hon. member for Cariboo, who is sitting on the other side, is one member, for instance, who is extremely interested in a joint committee of this house and of the other place on Indian affairs. He is in regular attendance at the meetings of that committee. It is unfortunate, as practically every member of the committee has suggested, that we had to wait until the 44th day of this session before that particular committee was established. The committee on privileges and elections is in the same position. I am talking now, Mr. Speaker, about the conflict in time between the sittings of the committees and the sittings of the house, as well as the conflict between the sittings of various committees.
If the government had undertaken to speed up the progress of these items of extreme importance, we would not now be faced with additional conflicts in time and with the impossibility of not only trying to be in two places at the same time but in trying to be in three or four places at the same time. We can only come to the conclusion, because of the failure to proceed with these items at the proper time, that the government did not want detailed consideration to be given to these particular items.
I know full well that, so far as the general public are concerned, they generally could not care less whether parliament sits
Business of the House
six hours a day or eight hours or ten hours. Generally, this is a matter which does not enter into their consideration, because there are many people who are not even sure whether parliament is sitting. These are matters of extreme importance which will be of benefit to the whole of Canada, not for the benefit of members of parliament. The hon. member for Vancouver East set forth this argument very clearly and very succinctly. Naturally I endorse it. In any event, if our amendment is turned down, and it looks as though it is going to be, I do not think we should proceed with the initial motion which has been proposed.
I must apologize to you, sir, for getting off to a bad start by making reference to the frustration that develops amongst government backbenchers because of their inability or unwillingness to participate in debate, and who show their frustration in this way.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: It is a rather difficult position in which I find myself, Mr. Speaker, in following two or three of my colleagues in a debate of this kind. In their usual highly capable manner they have covered most of the points I had intended to use before they spoke. However, there are a few other points I should like to raise, and I should also like to underline a little more heavily some of the points with which they dealt.
There is much truth in the valid point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I think this is something to which this house gives far too little consideration. I refer to the family responsibilities of the members of this house. I realize that in a country of this size it is perhaps impossible to work out a completely satisfactory arrangement as to whether hon. members should bring their families with them to Ottawa. I think that is a matter that should be given much greater consideration than it has been given in the past. On more than one occasion in the past extremely unfortunate developments have arisen because of the length of time the father is away from his children.
I think there is something else as well that should get more consideration than it has received in the past, namely the health of hon. members. This morning I attended the funeral of one who had been a member of this house. I should just like to bring to the attention of hon. members that this is the seventh hon. member who has passed on since the 1958 election. If we compare this situation to that of hon. members of the other place we find that although there is a great difference in age, to my knowledge at least

Business of the House
only one of the senators has passed on during that time. I think that is something we should consider when we are thinking about sitting extra hours and adding a further burden to hon. members of this house, with the consequent effect on their health.
I should like once more to underline just how much has been accomplished so far this session. We have passed the estimates of one department. A quick glance at the blue book shows that we have something in the neighbourhood of 37 more to pass before the session is concluded. Those estimates passed I believe total approximately $138,240,950. We still have something over $6 billion to pass before the session is over. What we have done so far we have been able to accomplish in about five months and, according to the Prime Minister, we hope to do all the rest in the next five weeks.
I do not see how this can be done, Mr. Speaker. I think it is an utter impossibility. If hon. members will stop for a moment and think, they will realize that if we carry on in that way, if we want to see our children this summer we had better bring them to Ottawa, because we shall be here until September.
Some complaint has been made in some of the newspapers that during this session we have had much sound and toy. That may be so. I am not making any remarks one way or the other on that matter. Possibly time has been used that could have been saved for some of the important business still left to be dealt with by this house. But the fact cannot be altered that the important business is still before this house, and it is going to have to be dealt with if members of this house are to carry out the responsibilities they accepted when they stood for office.
The hon. member for Skeena pointed out an extremely dangerous trend. It is one which I have noted is becoming more and more apparent each session that I have been down here. I refer to the fact that the important and possibly controversial legislation is always held up until the dying days of the session. I cannot blame the government for doing that. We would probably do the same thing if we were in their shoes; and if we did it they would probably do the same thing we are doing right now, namely criticize, and justifiably so.
To set a deadline of July 6, as we have heard suggested here, leaves only one choice to hon. members of this house. They either must abdicate their responsibilities in order to meet that deadline or they must jeopardize their health and practically kill themselves by working 24 hours a day. That is the only

way we can hope to accomplish the twofold job of concluding the session by July 5, 6, 7 or even July 30 and still give this legislation and these estimates the consideration that we were sent here to give them.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to support the amendment suggesting that this motion do not become effective now but that it be delayed until July 1. I do that for the simple reason that most of us are sitting on committees. These committees are of importance or they would not have been named. A few months ago, when there was discussion on the setting up of one of these committees, it was pointed out that there was not any point in setting up these committees unless they were going to be able to do something. If we are going to be good opposition members there are certain things we must do. We are very few in number in the opposition; I refer to the total opposition. I want to claim no credit for that part of the opposition to which I do not belong, but in numbers the opposition are very small.
If we are going to start this rush movement I think we are going to be obliged to abdicate our positions on committees and do the work in the house. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this will amount to almost the same thing. If we wish to raise a matter, instead of doing so in committee we will raise it in the house on the estimates or in the appropriate place. I cannot see where this procedure is going to shorten the length of time the house sits.
Very shortly there will be a motion to extend the hours beyond ten o'clock at night, and to extend the sittings to include Saturdays. I am a young member. As far as I am concerned, if we want to have round the clock sittings that is perfectly all right; I will be here as much as anybody else during those sittings. But it seems to me that this is not a sensible system to follow. It is not the system used in other democratic countries. It is not the system used in Great Britain. It was decided there some time ago that a permanent arrangement would have to be made; that members of parliament were on a full time, year round basis. We are not sessional members of parliament, Mr. Speaker; we are members of parliament by the year, and we are expected to do a year's business.
I do not believe the country, when they made this concession, decided that they were going to allow the cabinet to run the government. I think the present Prime Minister is on the record many times as having said he did not like government run by order in council, and that he wanted government rim by parliament. Yet how is government being



I960

[Stage Direction]
run now? It is being run right off its feet. If the Prime Minister sat in this house as often as some of the other members, I suggest that he would be quite glad to cut down the hours rather than extend them because his health, and the health of other members, will not carry that kind of strain.
Just let us take a look at what happens in a committee of the House of Commons. We will go back just one week. These are the arrangements made, according to Votes and Proceedings:
Wednesday, May 25: public accounts committee, 9.30; joint committee on Indian affairs,
9.30	and 3.30; defence expenditures, 9.30.
Thursday: railways, canals and telegraphs,
9.30	and 3.00; privileges and elections, 9.30; joint committee on Indian affairs, 9.30 and 3.30.
Friday: agriculture and colonization, 9.30; defence expenditures, 9.30.
Monday: Mines, forest and waters, 11.00; estimates committee 11.00.
Tuesday: Mines, forests and waters, estimates-water resources; privileges and elections, the Canada Elections Act, both at 9.30.
Wednesday, June 1: public accounts, 9.30; defence expenditures, 9.30; joint committee on Indian affairs, 9.30 and 3.30.
I think it is ridiculous for us to have all these committees meeting. It may be advisable for the Canadian people to decide that they intend to change completely the form of government we have. It may be necessary to get rid of some of the things which may not serve as much purpose as looking after the estimates and certain other business. This might mean the elimination of the budget speech, the elimination of the throne speech and the elimination of some of the days which were set aside-the formal days-when the leaders on the front benches do the talking for two or three days at a time. It may be that hon. members themselves will need to give much closer consideration to the work they are sent here to do. Only now are we getting into the major committee work.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) went around this country during the last two or three years and said: I will set up a committee on anything that is important, and that committee will be given lots of responsibility, lots of scope; it will even be able to dabble in policy to some extent. That may be. But what will happen after the committee has made its report? We know what will happen. We will be putting our coats and hats on and leaving, because that will be the day when we prorogue. That will be the end of the session.
Business of the House
I have no objection to some of the western members going home and doing their farming. Unfortunately they had a bad year last year and some of them went home, not to put in the seed but to cut the grain. I would not mind that situation, because this house will run really effectively in the absence of 100 of the government's supporters. If that is what they want to do, I am all for them going home. I would not like to ask them to do something I would not like to do myself.
I accepted the job as member of parliament knowing full well the responsibilities that belong to the office, though I may not have known how much money I was going to get or what little distance it would' go. I knew it was a full-time job, and I expected that it would be a full-time job. If you are going to have young people run for parliament- people with young families, with children who are in school, then the time which would be most to their advantage would be the summer when they could take their families out to the lake. Goodness knows, the summer here in Canada is short enough, and if we were to decide to take July and August off we could probably enjoy the larger part of the summer.
There may be good reasons for some hon. members not wanting to sit here the year round. There may be-and I think there is- a really good chance of our doing the business that we do in six months much more effectively spread over the six months or a little longer. But how many things were on the order paper three weeks ago? How much legislation had already been introduced when 80 days of the session had gone by. I looked this up in order to do a radio broadcast, and found that very little legislation has been passed yet, while there was nothing of any importance on the order paper. When we asked the leader of the house not long ago what the business was going to be for the rest of the session he said: wait till the Prime Minister comes back from his conference in Europe, and we will sit down and decide how much of the legislation is still to come.
I have talked to some of the officials of the civil service. Maybe the government disagrees, but some of the members of the civil service association believe that amendments to the legislation governing the civil service are very important. They think that such amendments are worthy of a great deal of deliberation and discussion. What is going to happen is this: one morning we are going to find them on our desks. These amendments will be there, and we will be expected to approve them in the course of the afternoon. It will be something like the Combines Investigation Act. Yet it is a major piece of
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House
legislation. When it is sent to the committee the committee will handle it for a week or so during the time when hon. members are supposed to be working on the estimates in the house. The committee will be discussing that which should have been discussed in the early part of the session.
If we are not sufficiently grown up in Canada to decide what we are going to do at the time when the government brings in the speech from the throne; if we cannot decide that and get it down at the beginning of the session, instead of playing around with tea parties and the other things we do during the first two or three days, we are not going to solve our difficulties by trying to do it in the last few days of a session. The government should have the ability to lay these things down on the order paper, and say: these are the important things: these are the things which are necessary for the well-being of the Canadian people; these are the things that are worthy of serious discussion; these are the things we recommend to the consideration of hon. members because they are important to the people they represent.
I may say, personally, that I do not see why we should not take a recess and come back in the fall. I can see no reason for not following that course. In Ontario they decided they were going to extend the school year. One can imagine what the children said about it. But you were probably surprised, Mr. Speaker, at what the teachers said about it. They said you could not extend the school year into the hot summer months and expect to get any more done than if you had taken those months off and come back refreshed.
I know exactly why the Prime Minister does not want to do this, and it is not because he is the least interested in his backbenchers. The reason he does not want to do it is because he thinks the opposition will get some backbone, that they will be told, when they get back to their ridings: why didn't you go after this, or why didn't you go after that; don't you know I am unemployed; don't you know I am not getting unemployment insurance, and so on. The opposition may come back with a stiffer backbone, and buckle down and go after some of the things we have already discussed. I agree that this might happen. It has happened before.
But I think if there were a little honesty between the government and those who sit on the front benches of the opposition, and the people they elect to represent them, then all those concerned could get together and work out some arrangement so that there would not be any undue repetition. It always appears to us that the whip is brought right down when we would like to go home,

too; advantage is taken of that situation, and everything is done as if we were working on a log boom somewhere.
It is quite true that if we came back in the fall there would probably be a little discussion on the unemployment situation. I believe there might be some talk of what the crops are doing in the west. There would, no doubt, be a little repetition of what the wheat problem is. But I think allowance should be made for these things. We could probably limit such debates to reviewing the situation. There would be no need for another speech from the throne, but some consideration should be given to these subjects.
I do not know whether the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee) is going to introduce his bill on capital punishment again. He has been promised an opportunity, but I am sure he will be told: if you bring that in it is going to mean a whole day's debate-a whole day lost-and we would like to get away. However, that would not be very honest, because the Prime Minister told us in the house that there would be another day, and not a private members' day either, but a government day.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not want to interrupt relevant debate but it seems to me the hon. member is discussing almost every aspect of the business of the house. The matter before the house is whether this motion shall become effective June 1 or July 1. I suggest that the hon. member direct his attention to that question.


William Arnold Peters: Let us not tell the Canadian people we have been sitting idly by. Some hon. members are on 8 or 9 committees. We obviously cannot attend them all and if we are in the house we cannot attend any. We have passed only l/37th of the estimates. In another 20 days we may have passed another 20. We could then examine our position. We are not now anywhere near the end of the session. I could take 15 minutes to enumerate what has yet to be done. The work that is yet outstanding is of more public importance than what has been accomplished.
We ask that consideration of morning sittings be delayed until July 1. In the meantime the matter should be considered by the house leader. He should consider what he wants done and seek our co-operation. If the proposed course of action seems feasible we will co-operate but if not it is his obligation to suggest to the government that we recess and come back in the fall. If that were done the opposition could agree not to engage in a repetition of debate.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question before he takes

his seat. Which hon. member of his group could speak on behalf of the group with regard to such questions as the allocation of time for debate and so on?


William Arnold Peters: I can speak on behalf of this group.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is the house ready for the question?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, after having listened very closely to the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) will agree as to the importance of committee and caucus meetings this week. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin):
That the motion he amended by deleting therefrom the words "Wednesday, June 1", and substituting therefor "Monday, June 6".
I hope the Prime Minister will agree to this amendment.


Mr. Lamberi:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Harold Edward Winch: Let the Speaker speak. He has already figured it out.


Norman Platt Lambert: I submit to Your Honour that as the hon. member has spoken on the main motion by seconding the first amendment he is now precluded from again speaking and advancing another amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam did not speak on the main motion but on the amendment. Therefore he is completely in order in speaking now. The hon. member for Edmonton West ought to sit down and think more before he rises.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is whether an hon. member who submits a further amendment after having seconded an earlier amendment is in order in doing so. There is a ruling by the Speaker in the debates of 1952-53, page 1806, where the Speaker had this to say:
However, the rule also is to the effect that an hon. member who moves or seconds a subamendment and speaks, not only speaks to the subamendment but also speaks to the amendment. In the latter part of citation 293., I find these words:
"The mover and seconder of the amendment having spoken to the main question cannot speak again to it. The same rule applies, of course, to the case of an amendment to an amendment."
My ruling is that the hon. member for Assiniboia, having seconded the subamendment and having spoken to the subamendment, is prevented from speaking to the amendment. This does not, however, prevent other hon. members who have not spoken to the amendment from speaking to the amendment at this time. The hon. members who moved and seconded the subamendment along with the hon. member who moved the main amendment cannot speak at this time.
There is also a reference in Beauchesne, fourth edition, page 138. Paragraph 9 of citation 165 reads in part as follows:
The mover and seconder of the amendment having spoken to the main question cannot speak

Business of the House
again to it. The same rule applies, of course, to the case of an amendment to an amendment. The mover and seconder of an amendment are not penalized as compared with other members, because they speak both to the main question and the amendment which they are moving or seconding, in one speech.
The third paragraph of citation 165 reads as follows:
By moving or seconding an amendment a member, if he utters a few words, actually speaks to the main motion. It is only after the amendment has been put by the Speaker that it is considered a new question.
In the circumstances the amendment when offered by the hon. member seems to me to be out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply on a point of order at the moment, not to conclude the debate. So far as the government is concerned, I wish to say that when I speak I intend to accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not concluding the debate now.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express our appreciation to the Prime Minister. I had intended to move the same amendment but now it will not be necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to traverse the field that has been covered during the course of this debate. I do, however, wish to say immediately to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Ohevrier) that their attitude of co-operation in order to achieve the most effective operation of parliament is appreciated and in keeping with what one might expect from the hon. gentlemen with their regard for parliamentary procedure.
I think I should say a word too in respect of some of the remarks that came from the group to your immediate left, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the statements of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who has had considerable experience in public life both in the House of Commons and in a provincial legislature. I found it somewhat difficult to understand some of those things to which he gave such high espousal today when considered in the light of some of the statements he has made in the past.
He spoke of parliament, the constitution and the necessity of maintaining parliament in all its amplitude, and with that I agree. There is nothing in this motion that interferes

in any way with the right of hon. members to speak to the fullest degree possible. The only thing it does is to give them more hours in which to place their views before the house.
As I listened to the hon. member I could not but recaU that on November 10, 1943 he brought before an audience he was addressing in the city of Calgary something of what the C.C.F. would do if they formed the government. To begin with, he said that they would scrap the British North America Act. That being so, Mr. Speaker, I can only believe that in the intervening years he has changed his views. He has never denied the accuracy of that statement. It was brought before parliament in his presence on one or two occasions and in fairness to him I can say there was no denial on his part then that he had in fact held those views and, indeed, there is nothing to indicate that he does not hold those views today.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the hon. member give the rest of that sentence?


John George Diefenbaker: I think that sentence is pretty well complete by itself. However, if the hon. member wants the rest of it I will give it. The hon. member said:
A change is coming, peacefully or not. When we become the government we will institute socialism immediately and would use the power of the police and the military forces to force those opposed to obey the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I had not intended to give the rest of the statement.


Harold Edward Winch: Just the same as you do today.


John George Diefenbaker: He went on to say:
Those who defied the government would be treated as criminals. If capitalism says "no" then we know the answer. So did Russia. We are going to scrap the B.N.A. Act.
Mr. Speaker, I was not going to cover that. I was dealing expressly with his views on parliament. As I listened to those views today I thought how different they were from those that he uttered on that occasion and also on subsequent occasions, but I do not have the record before me of those other occasions. Some offence was being committed against parliament. He said the attitude of the government and the official opposition is to get rid of parliament as soon as possible. It is nothing of the kind. There is nothing unusual in this motion.
Sometimes I find it difficult to know who speaks for that group of eight. One is the leader of the group in the house, and he spoke on this subject. I quote his words as an answer to those of his followers who spoke

today. On page 4238 of Hansard for June 2, 1959 the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is true to say that this is approximately the usual stage during a session when a motion is brought forward to provide for morning sittings.
As I pointed out when I introduced this motion, we are one day earlier on this occasion. I do not want to leave out anything the hon. member said. He went on to say this:
However, I do believe that at least some hon. members in this house are slightly in error in their thinking and in their hope that being a member of parliament is really just a part-time job. It seems to me that as the nation expands and parliament has to deal each session with an increasing volume of legislation, the fact becomes more and more clear that being a member is a full time job.
Then he goes on to say this:
In fairness I should also say that this motion to a substantial degree is a compromise motion. It is not a motion to call for morning sittings five days a week, nor does it call for evening sittings five days a week or on Saturdays. Instead it is asking that parliament sit Wednesday and Thursday mornings as well as Friday evenings in addition to the regular hours of sitting. At this particular stage of the session and in view of the attitude of the parties generally as to how sessions should be managed, we feel this is an appropriate time to bring forward a motion of this nature.
What has changed in one year? This is the appropriate time; that is what the house leader of that party, today absent on parliamentary business or absent from the house in any event, said one year ago. I accept, and the government of the day accepts, the views expressed last year in this regard by the leader of that party.
Then something was said regarding the necessity for having a planned session, and that the legislative program was not ready. May I say that the legislative program was ready when this house began its sessions. This was the course of action we determined upon last September. We placed the legislative program before parliament in exact proportion to the manner in which that program was being cleared off the order paper. This is not a question of a target date. In so far as I am concerned, I did say something about this on one occasion, and again I show that consistency which the eight expect from time to time.
I pointed out when I spoke in the house on March 11 that I had always been of the opinion that a divided session in one year was not in keeping with the tremendous responsibilities that rest on members, particularly in this country where members are so far from their homes and are unable to present their arguments as are members in 79951-0-273
Business of the House
the British House of Commons. I said, however, that if the legislative program dragged I might be forced to change my opinion. What was the attitude then? In an interview given by the house leader of the C.C.F. party, in absentia, outside the house, he said, "Reprehensible." Then he went on to say:
-if the government really is thinking of adopting the principle of dividing the sessions into winter, spring and fall sittings, there should be a conference among party leaders first.
Then he went on to say that such a suggestion on my part was a reprehensible one. What was reprehensible to the house leader in March has become the corner pillar of his followers in the month of June.


Harold Edward Winch: What is reprehensible about consultation?


John George Diefenbaker: Passing on from there, let me tell you this: The mother of parliaments is an example of the business-like and efficient conduct of parliament. I suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker, if one or two members in a small group in the British House of Commons decided that day by day they would hold up the legislative program placed before the house that would not be considered a proper or appropriate course. I need not identify what I have in mind. When eight hon. members decide that no matter what the rest of the house may consider proper and necessary with due regard to the full rights of the minority, they will delay legislation, then I ask them to read what has been repeatedly stated in that mother House of Commons in that regard.
Let me further say this, that parliament and the speed with which it shall discharge its responsibilities is not to be compared to a convoy, the speed of which is dependent upon the slowest ship. Over and over again this constant repetition is the measure of contribution to this House of Commons, not by quality but by quantity. I do not want in any way to prejudge the work of the committee on rules, but I am sure that the house will welcome suggestions from that committee which will ensure that parliament shall be able to advance and discharge its responsibilities, and carry out its legislative program in the most efficient and effective way.
May I say this, too: Some mention was made of certain measures that have yet to be considered. These measures will be placed before the house within the next day or so. In so far as the Civil Service Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act are concerned, they will be introduced within about a week. It is the government's intention to propose that the two bills be referred, after

Business of the House
second reading, to a special committee. This procedure will contribute to a more effective review of the measures, and I think expedite proceedings of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: When does the committee
meet?


John George Diefenbaker: After all, the legislation has to be introduced and then a determination will be made as to the time and place of that committee meeting.


Harold Edward Winch: I was not thinking of that. I was thinking that it will meet at 11 o'clock every morning, the same time as the house.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member well knows from that knowledge of parliamentary government to which I have already paid such warm tribute, the committee will make that decision.
It is well to look over the record of the committees this session. I think the hon. member for Vancouver East has said that they have done well; at least, that is my recollection. The committees that have met and have finished their work are the external affairs committee; the estimates committee; the railways, airlines and shipping committee; the standing orders committee; veterans affairs committee; marine and fisheries committee and the committee on industrial relations. The committee on privileges and elections should be finished by June 7.
With regard to the future legislative program, may I say this? Further to the items already on the order paper will be the bill of rights. The Leader of the Opposition asked me particularly whether it will be submitted to a committee of the house. That is the purpose following second reading. Then there is the Russian trade treaty, the setting up of the department of forestry, the C.N.R. financing bill and the three budget bills. In addition to those I have named there will, of course, be the Civil Service Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act. As to other matters of legislation, as I have said, the house will be advised thereof within the next day or so.
Again in accepting the suggestion amending the motion as moved, may I say that our purpose must always be to make this chamber efficient and effective. No target date has been set. I expressed the hope that if each hon. member would make his contribution on the basis of providing the fullest and most complete examination of the legislation that is brought before parliament- if even that were done-my expectation was that we would be in a position to prorogue at that time. However, hon. gentlemen tell me that is not so, that that objective cannot

be achieved. I will not argue with them. The house will determine that matter. If it is the desire to continue beyond that date-and I have set that as an objective that all of us would work to-I have no argument about the matter. I simply say this. The legislative program that is before the house, or is to be introduced, will require to be given attention and before the conclusion of the session will, I hope, have received the support and commendation of this house.
Before I conclude there is one other matter to which I want to make an allusion. I agree most wholeheartedly that we in this house must maintain strictly the proprieties in debate. No action must be taken on the part of anyone and no word must be spoken that conveys the suggestion that any hon. member has not the full right to speak as he will, provided he does so within the rules. I am not here in the position of condemning anyone. However, today during the course of his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver East made the suggestion that somebody had told him to shut up.


Harold Edward Winch: Did you not hear it?


John George Diefenbaker: I made an examination to see what actually took place. My examination shows this, and I think the record will show it; I have written down the notes in that regard. During his remarks the hon. gentleman said this: "If this house is to meet at eleven o'clock on Monday through Friday, then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how does an ordinary member take care of his work on a constituency basis; how does he find time to attend to grievances, attend committees and attend the House of Commons at the same time?"
The hon. gentleman was asking for information. He was craving an answer to that question. He found himself in a difficult position, Mr. Speaker. He found that he could not trifurcate himself, as it were, so he asked a natural question: how does one find time to attend to grievances, attend committees and attend the House of Commons at the same time? Then he started to answer his own question and he was helped.
What he said was this: there is only one thing a member can do on that basis. We shall never know, Mr. Speaker, what answer the hon. gentleman was going to give to his own question but somebody answered "that is, shut up".
I would be the first to take the strongest objection to anyone directing that admonition to any hon. member. But I am sure that on reflection the hon. member for Vancouver East with his parliamentary experience, long

and effective as it has been, to that extent will agree that when you ask a question you sometimes get an answer.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I never thought-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Edward Winch: -that the Prime Minister could get that small.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let us find out on what basis the hon. member is rising. Does the hon. member wish to speak on a question of privilege?


Harold Edward Winch: It was on a question of privilege but I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not worthy of that much attention.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Before the motion is put, will the Prime Minister answer a question arising out of his remarks?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


George James McIlraith: When he referred to the legislation pertaining to the civil service and the sending of it to a committee after second reading did he anticipate that that legislation would be dealt with at all stages by the committee and returned to the house and be dealt with before the termination of this session of parliament which he indicated he thought would be by June 30?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the position.


Erhart Regier: I should like to rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated that he had had a look at the words of the hon. member for Vancouver East. He was in the house when the hon. member for Vancouver East was speaking, as was I. In all humility I submit that the Prime Minister has no right to receive the Hansard record of what the hon. member for Vancouver East had to say any earlier than I do in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that there is any question of privilege involved. There is a definite arrangement with regard to dealing with "takes" as they are called, the copies and the distribution of them. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Erhart Regier: If I may, I should like to pursue this matter for a moment, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions I have walked up to the Hansard office and asked to be shown what was said by some hon. member who had preceded me in speaking in the House of Commons and I have been refused that information. I do not think it right that any hon. member of this house has that information until all hon. members of this house have it.
79951-0-2735
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member's point is that he has been refused something which he feels other members are entitled to, he should raise it at the time the incident occurs.
There is a proposal which is not incorporated in this resolution which was made and I think accepted by a spokesman for all parts of the house, namely that the date in the first line be changed from Wednesday, June 1, to Monday, June 6.
If the house is prepared to give unanimous consent to the substitution of those words, the motion could then be put that way without formal amendment.
Is it agreed by unanimous consent that "Wednesday, June 1" be changed to read "Monday, June 6"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion as amended will please say "Aye".


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against the motion as amended will please say "Nay".


An hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the ayes have


Harold Edward Winch: On division.
Motion (Mr. Diefenbaker) as amended agreed to, on division.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
May 27-The Minister of Agriculture-The following proposed motion: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to inquire into the prices of farm machinery and to report to the house thereon.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
May 27-The Minister of National Revenue- The following proposed motion:	That a select
committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider radio and television broadcasting with power to examine and inquire into the matters herein
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers
referred to and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon and to send for persons, papers and records;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable or necessary.
That the committee shall consist of 35 members;
That standing orders 66 and 67 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 113-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of the reports made by a special team of the Department of Transport and the Department fo Public Works, concerning improvements to navigation and port and harbour facilities in the following places from October, 1957 to date: Belleville, Ontario: Brockville, Ontario: Chandler, Quebec; Collingwood, Ontario; Cornwall, Ontario; Dorion, Quebec; Gaspe, Quebec; Goderich, Ontario; Grand Manan, New Brunswick; Hamilton, Ontario; Kingston, Ontario; Fort William and Port Arthur, Ontario; Magdalen islands, Quebec; Matane, Quebec; Midland, Ontario; Minas Basin; Morrisburg, Ontario; Oshawa, Ontario; Prescott, Ontario; Ri-mouski-Pointe-au-Pere, Quebec; Port Colborne, Ontario; Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec; Sarnia, Ontario; Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; St. Charles river area; Sydney, Nova Scotia and area; Wallaceburg, Ontario; Whitby, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario.
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: The reports referred to in this motion are reports by officials of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport to their ministers. As such they fall clearly under the heading of privileged papers. It is the recognized and long-established practice that intradepartmental and interdepartmental documents should not be produced, and in the circumstances perhaps the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to rise on a point of order, and the point of order is this. When a minister draws upon the contents of certain documents and imparts to the house his knowledge of them, he must table them. I refer to Beauchesne, page 134, citation 159, paragraph (2) which reads:
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house unless he be prepared to lay it on the table.
Then paragraph 3 reads:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited-
The word "cited" here means "mentioned".
-ought to be laid on the table of the house if it can be done without injury to the public interest.

The point I am about to make is that on May 18 the minister did not only refer to the documents but discussed them at some length.
I do not want to deal with this at undue length, but there are a number of passages of the minister which can be found at pages 4010 and 4011 of Hansard, and later on the minister referred to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is raising a point of order in respect to something which occurred some time ago in the house. There is a rule about the production of documents from which a member of the government quotes and, as I understand it, the point of order which the hon. gentleman now raises could have been raised at that time. However, I do not think I should consider a point of order at this late date arising out of other facts, particularly when we have before us an order dealing with this very document. The question before the house is the present motion.


Lionel Chevrier: Would Your Honour hear me on the point of order? I was not here when this debate took place; therefore I could not have asked for the production of the document. Then again there is the further point that they were discussed by the minister and used during the course of the discussion. For that reason it occurred to me they were producible.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not denying what the hon. member is seeking to argue. I am simply saying that it is not in order to raise the point at this late date, and I cannot hear the point of order now. That question should have been taken up at the time, if there had been any desire for the production of this document.


George Harris Hees: On this point of order, may I say that at the time referred to I did not read or quote from these dispatches. I did not have them at the time, nor would I have quoted them if they had been in my possession.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but I am really not hearing argument on that point.


Mr. Fulton:: It is the last paragraph of the citation which the hon. member carefully refrained from reading.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is clear that the point of order must be raised at the time it is relevant. What is relevant now is this motion to which the minister objects, for the reasons he has stated, and it is a question of whether or not the hon. member who moved the motion will withdraw it.


Lionel Chevrier: 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite matters I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has a report to make on his recent trip to Latin America, and more particularly whether he has anything to say on the possibility of Canada's association with the organization of American states?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that question, perhaps the house will excuse me if I take a few minutes to give a short report of my trip. The purpose, of course, was to attend the celebrations commemorating 150 years of independence of Argentina and also while in South America to pay brief visits to Chile and Peru.
Roughly speaking, I had in mind furthering the good will between Canada and the Latin American countries and also endeavouring to learn something about our southern neighbours.
I must say at once that I was very much impressed by all those countries which I had the good fortune to visit. Argentina is, I found, very similar to Canada. Of course, they have ranches producing wheat and cattle. They have the great port of Buenos Aires, one of the main ports of the world, and also they are active in the Antarctic just as we are in the Arctic. The population is slightly larger than that of Canada. Argentina ranks in the world today as a middle power, in the same status as our own nation.
There I had a very helpful conference with the president of Argentina and the foreign minister. In fact I had two with the foreign minister, having been invited to dinner at the Brazilian embassy with him by the foreign minister of Brazil, Hon. Mr. Lafer, who made such a friendly visit here a few months ago.
Argentina had over 80 delegations visiting the country for this celebration. That did not mean 80 foreign ministers; of course all the

Inquiries of the Ministry heads of delegations were not foreign ministers. It meant that they were entertaining five or ten times as many as 80, which is quite a big exercise, and they did it in an extremely efficient and friendly way. I think it did them great credit.
Of course one had opportunities for meetings and discussions with other representatives, other foreign ministers and other ministers and heads of delegations from various countries. As I pointed out a moment ago, I had more than one occasion for discussions with Mr. Lafer, of Brazil.
There were, of course, many important events. One was the celebration of the Te Deum in the cathedral of Buenos Aires, which was a most impressive ceremony. A state dinner was given by the president and there was a military parade which took four hours to pass and which was extremely good. I was very much impressed by the young men of Argentina who participated in it. There were men not only from the navy but also they have marines; infantry and also paratroops, ski troops for the Antarctic and mountain troops for the Andes. They have a very impressive force. Also participating were small forces from the neighbouring countries and, significantly, forces from Spain were given the place of honour at the head of the parade.
In Buenos Aires they have one of the finest theatres in the world. It ranks, I think, as the third best in the world. There was an excellent ballet performance one evening with ballet companies from Paris, Buenos Aires and London.
There was one visit I paid which might be of interest to hon. members. It was to a school in Buenos Aires. They have two schools there, one elementary and one secondary, which are named Canada schools. I visited one of those schools. It was a holiday but the children had all been brought out to meet the foreign minister from Canada, and that was quite a test. I did not find out this was happening until the children had all gone home. There they were. They all wore white smocks, both the boys and the girls. They had a Canadian flag and the flag of Argentina. They sang songs and a very nice speech was made by one of the teachers but as it was in Spanish I did not get the full drift of it. In any event, this was a very wonderful lesson to me with respect to the way in which good will can be spread among the nations.
When I was speaking to the youngsters afterward I asked the girls whether their mothers washed their smocks or whether they did and they admitted that their mothers did. I said, "Don't you think that is terrible?


Why don't you do it yourselves?" One little girl looked at me and said, "Who washes the smocks in Canada?" This had me floored and they laughed at that. One of these schools is affiliated with a school in Toronto and I am hoping that a secondary school will be affiliated with a high school in the remarkable riding of Vancouver Quadra. Other schools are named after other countries. Our ambassador is helping by getting reading material to these schools and to further understanding the children are supposed to write to children in Canada and vice versa.
In Chile I found great tragedy. I visited the minister of the interior who is in charge of the relief measures. He told me they had over 500,000 people homeless in the stricken area, and with winter coming on and the season of heavy rain the whole situation is very serious for them. I also visited the minister of finance and the acting minister of foreign affairs. It will cost at least half a billion dollars to repair the damage that has been done. Roads have been destroyed. Homes, public buildings, wharves and harbours have been destroyed. They do not know what has happened to the harbours. Much of the shoreline in that part of Chile has been changed. New islands have come up out of the sea and old islands have been submerged. There are also four new volcanoes.
All this has happened in one of the country's very best regions, a district where they have their only steel plant and their only pulp and paper plant. People in the capital of Santiago could not get word of what had happened to their relatives in the earthquake zone. People were sitting outside the office of the minister of the interior trying to find out something about their relatives. We saw quite a few trucks heading south with bedding and all sorts of materials for the people there. On the airfield at Santiago there were huge United States Globemasters. The United States at once flew two large mobile hospitals to Chile, these hospitals having over 250 beds each. Not only did I see Globe-masters at Santiago but there was also another at Antofagasta on my way north and at Lima, Peru, there were two or three more. From all over the world help was coming for these people.
The people of Chile have shown remarkable courage. The ministers were under terrific pressure, of course and had been working day and night. Disaster struck the country just when it was recovering from a very difficult period economically. They do not know how they will bring about rehabilitation under these conditions. This is the worst disaster they have ever suffered but I am sure that every Canadian, if he could be

there, would admire the way in which the people of Chile are facing this tragedy.
Last Saturday night, I believe, 10 cases of clothing were shipped from Vancouver by the Canadian Red Cross through the courtesy of Canadian Pacific Air Lines. Forty-eight cases of new, not used, clothing as well as medicines have also been sent to Chile by our Red Cross.
One of the most urgent requirements was for mobile hospitals of a smaller size. The large United States mobile hospitals were very helpful but it was difficult to get the injured people to the large centres. So the Chilean minister of the interior asked if we could send a small mobile field hospital. Through the co-operation of the departments of national defence and national health and welfare complete medical equipment for a 30-bed field hospital, together with 40 stretchers, 160 blankets and extra instruments and dressings, was dispatched Saturday afternoon and will be in Santiago tomorrow. In addition, 50,000 water sterilization tablets, 10,000 penicillin and 10,000 tetracycline tablets and 40 pounds of refrigerated antitetanus toxoid and tetanus vaccine were also sent.
I think further help will be needed and provision has been made for some help in the way of food. The minister asked for flour and canned meats and 1 million pounds of canned pork has now been turned over to the Gold Cross by the Department of Agriculture and will be forwarded without cost to Chile. This pork is worth $600,000. We shall be doing what we can to help in this very tragic situation and it may be that we will have to ask the house for authority to give further assistance. The Chileans were deeply grateful for help and, as I have said, help is coming from all over the world. This is one of the great disasters of our time.
I flew up the coast to Lima, Peru, on Friday afternoon. Lima was the seat of the viceroy in the old Spanish days. It is a city of over a million people, as in Santiago; and Buenos Aires, of course, has between four and five million people. In Lima I had conferences with the president and with the prime minister. I met him on two occasions and had very useful talks with him. He has been in Canada and the United States and is doing an outstanding job. He is the owner of La Prensa, one of the leading papers in Lima. Incidentally, I also met Dr. Gain Za Pas, the owner of La Prensa in Argentina. Both of these men have suffered for freedom of the press. Dr. Gain Za Pas, as you know, fled Argentina a few years ago. His actions have been hailed all over the world and, of course,
Inquiries of the Ministry from coast to coast in Canada. The prime minister of Peru was in jail at one time because of the views he had put forward in his paper.
On Saturday afternoon we had a reception for Canadians in Lima. The delegation received an exceedingly warm welcome there as we did in each of the other places we visited.
In Mexico City yesterday I was met at the airport by Hon. Mr. Tello, the foreign minister. We had a very helpful talk. He drove me to the University of Mexico which has 50,000 students and provides a good objective for Canadian universities in the way of buildings and developments of that type.
On the way down we landed for gas at Brasilia. It was planned to go to Rio which we did eventually but at that time it was fogged in and we landed first at Brasilia. This is the most impressive development I have ever seen. I had read a great deal about it but that is different from actually seeing this brand new capital carved out of the woods, with huge apartment buildings and government buildings that must have cost a great many millions of dollars. It will be a wonderful capital and it means so much to the people of Brazil as a symbol of their development and of the great nation they have become.
In all these countries our Canadian ambassadors and their staffs are doing a splendid job for Canada. In a very real way, they are in the front line in our relations with other countries, and I found them all doing a splendid job.
All of these countries are very much interested in Canada. They are very friendly. Their outlook on world affairs is very much the same as our own. They place great value on their independence. They are all strong supporters of the United Nations and, as a matter of fact, each one of them has had a president of the United Nations, that is, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Mexico. I think one of them has had two presidents of the United Nations. Canada has always enjoyed the co-operation of these countries in the United Nations, but they are deeply puzzled that Canadians do not seem to realize that Canada is a very important member of the western hemisphere family. I met this attitude everywhere I went, just a little feeling that Canadians are of the opinion they do not want to be too much involved with these Latin American nations.
I can only say to the house that each one of these countries would make a very staunch friend of Canada. They are all playing a very important part in world affairs, and they are steadily growing in stature. I believe

Inquiries of the Ministry it will not be very many years until there are more people south of the Rio Grande than there are north of it. I think that Latin America is on the move. These nations, as I have said, are very much like our own, and I believe are extremely important to Canada.
I cannot go farther than that with regard to Canadian policy at the moment. I do say this, however, that the policy of the government has been and is to further improve the good relations which exist between Canada and the Latin American nations. For example 9 plan to set up in the department of external affairs a Latin American division. At the present time we only have a subdivision dealing with Latin American business, but it is far too important to be treated in that way. We have very much in mind the need for closer co-operation with these western hemisphere neighbours of ours and steps will be taken toward that end.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister say what progress, if any, has been made by the government in its reported attempt to secure more money for housing without approaching the market directly?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: I would be glad to accept that question as notice.


REPORTED REJECTION OF SUBSIDIZED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is based on a story in today's Journal concerning the Ontario government's rejection of an Ottawa bid for subsidized rental housing for the underprivileged. My question is this: was the federal government or its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, consulted by the province of Ontario before this rejection?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): I have not read the article; therefore I do not like to make any comment on an article I have not seen.


John Richard Garland: I shall be glad to send it over.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the investigations presently under way, will the minister assure the house and the country that the normal and legitimate applications for immigration by orientals are being processed with normal dispatch?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Most certainly, Mr. Speaker.


R.C.M.P. STATEMENTS RESPECTING ILLEGAL ENTRY OF CHINESE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Does the minister have knowledge of, and does he take responsibility for, statements made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in connection with illegal Chinese immigration?


Edmund Davie Fulton: think that question was answered rather fully in reply to a question the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) asked last week.


Lionel Chevrier: The question that I have in mind is directed to statements which were made over television during the week end, so this is an entirely new question. I think the minister should tell the house whether or not he takes responsibility for these statements.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the minister and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is clearly defined in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. I am afraid I was not able to watch every television program over the week end for the good reason that on Saturday I was reviewing the first Battalion, the Queen's Own Rifles at Calgary in connection with the one hundredth anniversary of that regiment, and on Sunday I was honoured by being the recipient of an honorary degree from the University of Ottawa. For these reasons I was not watching television very much.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me congratulate my hon. friend for having received an honorary doctorate from the University of Ottawa. I am sure there is no other university from which I would rather receive an honorary degree than the University of Ottawa.
May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house, notwithstanding

his very busy week end, under what authority and under whose responsibility statements made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police take place, such as the ones that were made over the week end?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I say I have no knowledge of what the statements were. From time to time officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are interviewed by the press and asked questions, and they do their best to enlighten the press in accordance with the limits of their authority and the secrecy of investigations. I am afraid I cannot answer the question without knowing what specific statements the hon. member has in mind. If he is prepared to elaborate, I will do my best to give him a definitive answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the best thing I can do is to get the script and send it to the minister.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. On May 24 when I was speaking on the supply motion I was referring to an advertisement which appeared in a Belfast newspaper calling for workers to come to Canada. At the time I reported the fact that I wrote to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) and told him we had the case of Mr. Rene D. Lamothe, who was unemployed and who was a meat cutter, which was one of the occupations appearing in the ad.
During the debate I said that I wrote to the minister on March 18 and up to that time, May 24, the man had not been placed. I have learned since that I was misinformed and I want to take this opportunity of apologizing to the minister for repeating the misinformation I had at the time.



LAKE NIPISSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the flood situation on lake Nipissing, is the department giving consideration to opening the portage gates at the outlet of the lake?


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for asking the 79951-0-274
Combines Investigation Act question. The reply is no, as this would further flood downstream on the French river. The discharge at the French river dam is continuing to be maintained as in the state of nature. The peak of flood waters has been reached and it is expected that the level of lake Nipissing will continue to drop.



GAGNON, QUE.    INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR AID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: May
I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is aware of the forest fire that is threatening the village of Gagnon in the province of Quebec. If so, can he inform the house whether any assistance has been requested from his department?
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National
Defence): I was informed at 3.45 this afternoon that there were some 300 women and children in grave danger in the village of Gagnon, as the village was likely to be overrun by a fire this evening. I got in touch with the transport command and planes of the R.C.A.F. are on their way now and should be arriving at Gagnon any minute.



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

Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. 58, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since it is now so close to six o'clock and as it is sometimes helpful to the house and to the press if one makes a presentation complete rather than having to break it, may I ask if it would be the wish of the house to call it six o'clock now?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that it is now six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate very much indeed the courtesy which the house showed me just before six o'clock this evening.
In discussing the position and the policy of the government in connection with the bill
4340	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act now before the house-Bill No. C-58 to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code-I should like to make it clear that what we have presented to the house are amendments to the combines legislation, not a general revision. I know there have been suggestions from time to time that there should be a general revision of the legislation in this field, but it is my view-and it is shared by my colleagues, and I think it will be shared by the house and the country generally-that a general revision would require, possibly, a royal commission and at least a study of the principles of the legislation by a parliamentary committee-a far-reaching and important study beyond the scope of the study we have given to the matter so far and certainly beyond the scope of the amendments which are introduced here tonight.
I should like, therefore, to make it clear that the bill, whose second reading I now move, proceeds on the basis of the inherent soundness of the principles of the present anti-combines legislation. I shall have more to say later with regard to my own view as to the principles of that legislation, and I shall have something to say also with regard to the particular application of those principles. However, I do wish to emphasize that the bill before the house is framed and presented within the general ambit of the principles of combines legislation as we now have it.
In this connection, and in the light of some of the comments which appeared in the press with regard to the bill both this year and last year, perhaps I may be permitted to remind the house that the first anti-combines legislation in Canada was introduced by a Conservative government in 1889. It antedated by one year the introduction of the first federal anti-combines legislation in the United States which, I believe, was the Sherman act.
In 1889, as a result of a committee study, a private member introduced a bill which was later taken over by the government of the day. It was moved by Sir John Thompson, the then minister of justice, that the order be transferred from public bills and orders to government orders. It was then put through as a government measure. That act was followed in 1892 by a further piece of amending legislation introduced on that occasion by the government of which Sir John Thompson was then prime minister, containing in essence the definition of a combine and the essential provisions under which combines were outlawed; provisions which are still contained, with only minor alterations, in the


Criminal Code of today in that very important section of the code under which over the years the great majority of combines charges have been laid and prosecuted.
I mention this in order that we may get the whole discussion into perspective, because there have been many suggestions over the years that the governments formed by the party of which I have the honour of being a member have been opposed to combine legislation, and that today we are attempting to do something to weaken the central theme and the operative effect of this legislation. It is, I feel, important that I should give this piece of background in order to remind the house that both the enactment and the amendment-the bringing up to date of anti-combines legislation-is completely in accord with the position of the Conservative party and of Conservative governments over the years, that position being one of belief in the protection of the general interest of society against special interests.
However, this position is based on a fundamental principle that legislation must be workable and practicable and must be kept in touch with the movement of the times. The effect and intention of legislation must be clear, both in order that those who are affected by it may know what their position is, and in order that another very important principle may be maintained, namely that it should not be the government which from day to day determines by private decision what are the rules governing business and society generally, but that the rules governing business and society should be laid down in legislation which speaks clearly and which is capable of fair and immediate application. It is in this spirit and with this traditional background that this government introduces the present amendment to the combines legislation.
While I want to make it clear that the amendments do proceed within the ambit of the principles of the present provisions, we have felt, and do feel, that there are a number of improvements which could be made to the act as it exists. It was with this feeling in mind that immediately upon assuming office with the approval of my colleagues I commenced a study of the combines legislation within my department.
This study was carried out in conjunction with the advisers of my department and of the combines investigation branch, as well as with representatives of business and business organizations who lost no time in making representations to us. It was also carried out in conjunction with organizations representing small businesses and with many other organizations representing every variety of

interests throughout the country. I should like to express my appreciation, and that of the government of Canada, for the contribution which was made by all these organizations and individuals in taking the time and the trouble to bring their views before us and to make constructive and helpful suggestions with regard to the present legislation.
These discussions have been continuing since the time we assumed office in June of 1957 and they have been full and detailed. As a result of these discussions we came to the conclusion that our feeling that there should be and could be improvements to the present legislation were entirely justified.
It was our conclusion that the room for improvement lies in two main areas. The first is in the field of combines legislation as it affects small business. The second is in the field of general improvement.
As to the first, I should like to remind the house of the consistent philosophy of Conservative governments with regard to the problems of small business and small businessmen. I shall have more to say about this in detail later but I just lay the groundwork now by the statement that in general this government believes and Conservative governments have believed over the years that the best and soundest economy is that economy which is based upon the maximum participation of the greatest possible number of independent operators in that economy, and that it is an unsound economy which relies for its operations either on the employment of everybody by the government or the employment of everybody by some giant corporation or corporations. Our objective, therefore, and our philosophy in this field is to bring the maximum reconciliation in the way of the protection of small businessmen, on the one hand, and the interests of the community, of the consumers and of society generally on the other.
I should perhaps remind the house here that our interest in the welfare of small business is demonstrated not only by the amendments which we are introducing to the combines legislation at the present time as a result of those studies which we have made, but also by the establishment a year or so ago, in accordance with a previous pledge, of the small business section of the Department of Trade and Commerce which has been working quietly and effectively with the representatives of small business and small businessmen to devise policies which would protect and promote the interests of the small independent operators.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, in what I am saying that this is a consistent policy adopted
79951-0-274J
Combines Investigation Act by this government and this party over the years. I am sure that many hon. members in the house today will remember the position we took in 1951 when there was before parliament an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act which resulted in the enactment of the present section 34 of that act. At that time the position taken by the Conservative party, then in opposition, was that the legislation was hasty and ill conceived because, although based upon a principle which in theory commanded some popular support and indeed some general support, it was enacted at a time and in a manner which left small business completely defenceless against the operation of their more powerful competitors and the large chain concerns and particularly which left them defenceless against that practice known as loss leader selling as well as a variety of other types of unfair competition.
It was on that basis that we took our position in opposition to the enactment of section 34 in 1951-on the basis that while we would not condemn the principle that manufacturers should not have the right to impose their own price structure throughout the whole chain of distribution and retail selling, nevertheless the legislation of that day left the small businessman defenceless against the evils to which we anticipated he would be exposed. Our fears were substantiated and have been substantiated by the experience of small business over the years since that time. Particularly they were substantiated by the complaints and representations that I received during the months and years within which, as I have outlined to the house, our study of this legislation has been carried on since we assumed office in June of 1957.
As a result of the consideration of the representations that were made to us we came to the conclusion that we would be justified and that indeed it was essential that we amend section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act to give a measure of protection to the small businessman. We came to the conclusion that we would not be justified in repealing the section and we made that clear to those with whom we discussed it from the very outset but we said we did believe their position required protection and that we would study and consider the introduction of amendments to the section to give them some degree of protection to which they were legitimately entitled.
The second of the two main fields in which we came to the conclusion that improvements to the combines legislation could and should be made was in the area of bringing up to date and clarifying the law so as to make it more adaptable to the mid-twentieth

Combines Investigation Act century economy in which Canada, Canadian business and the national economy must exist and compete.
I want to emphasize for a moment that in a country such as Canada with an economy dependent as it is on successful competition in international as well as domestic markets it is essential that this type of legislation with which we are dealing, the anti-combines legislation, should take account of the type of economic climate in which the nation exists. It is not my purpose either at this time or at any time during the discussion of the legislation which I have the honour to present to enter a plea for or against business or individual businessmen as such. I rather base my position on what I believe to be a realistic assessment of the position of the Canadian economy generally. I do suggest, however, it is an essential fact for us to realize that the Canadian economy depends in very large measure upon the success of Canadian business and the welfare of the Canadian worker depends to a very large extent, as does the ability of the Canadian government to meet its responsibilities, upon the welfare of Canadian business.
I think this can and should be said but certainly in saying it-and I emphasize this -I am not entering a plea for or against the individual position of any particular business or businessman. In the light of this- what I take to be a reasonably self-evident fact with which I doubt if my hon. friends in the opposition will quarrel; in the light of this proposition-I am somewhat surprised to find the lengths to which certain newspapers, new organs,-generally speaking, those which support the party to which my hon. friends in the official opposition belong-have gone in discussing this legislation. I am somewhat surprised to find the virulence of their attack upon Canadian business. I make this comment merely by way of general comment because I am quite certain that you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members of this house and members of the public outside this house will have read some of those articles. I do not think that at the present time, at any rate, I need to go any further than to make the general comment because it is my view, that the very virulence and violence of those attacks destroy their effectiveness.
However, I shall come back later to this question of the general philosophy which should govern the attitude toward the various people affected by the combines legislation when I discuss some particular changes we are making. At the moment, however, I was making the point that we are living in the mid-twentieth century, and the laws by which

we govern-and those laws include the government and welfare of individuals as well as business-must keep pace with the economic developments of the times. It is in part in that spirit that we have approached the problems of amending the combines legislation.
As I say, as a result of our studies we came to the conclusion that there could be improvements made in the law in the light of those considerations. We came to the conclusion that there are uncertainties in the law and that, as a result of those uncertainties, there have arisen rigidities in the patterns and in the attitudes of business itself. It is as a result of those rigidities, which in turn arise from the uncertainties with regard to the law, that some practices are discouraged-not practices which might be but practices which would be beneficial in their results to society-simply because of the uncertainties which exist in the minds of those concerned with regard to the provisions of the law and their general extent and effect.
It seemed to us that it is a responsibility of the government in reviewing the law and in the circumstances under which we reviewed it that, having come to this conclusion, we should take what steps we could to remove those uncertainties in order that we might make it possible-not dictate, because we do not dictate either to the individual or to business-but make it possible that those practices which would be beneficial to the economy might be carried out, and we believe will be carried out, by business when those uncertainties are removed.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that in the particular field of combines legislation-I am here dealing with combines as a technical term as distinguished from mergers and monopolies-we came to the conclusion that what is called the per se rule should be retained and maintained in its full vigour and effect. I want to state here and to make clear beyond the bounds of controversy-and I shall be restating it from time to time in the course of this discussion-that with regard to a combination in restraint of trade which has for instance the elements of price fixing or the parcelling up of markets, or the prevention of entry into the field by other individuals or enterprises, there is no weakening, no lessening in our position of condemnation of that kind of operation. And by the same token and to the same extent there is no weakening, no lessening, no cutting away of the foundation of the legislation or of the case law which condemns such operations under what I have called the per se rule, which is the result of the application of judicial decisions to the legislation and which has in effect laid down

the policy that such combinations are offences per se. There is no weakening of this principle but, Mr. Speaker, within this framework we believe that clarity and improvement could be achieved even in that branch of the law which relates to combines as distinct from mergers and monopolies.
And so as the result of this process of study and discussion, we came to the conclusion that legislation should be introduced having as its end three main purposes: first, the consolidation of the existing provisions of the anti-combines legislation; second, the clarification of those provisions; and, third, the provision of new procedures and remedies open to the government, procedures and remedies by which the combines branch and my department may more readily enforce the law in the interests of society generally.
It is, I think, interesting, and it is appropriate for me to point out at this time, that two of those three headings which I have mentioned as main purposes of the legislation, namely consolidation, and provision of new procedures, are covered by the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee which was appointed by our predecessors, and whose report is found in the volume entitled, "Report of the committee to study combines legislation" printed in 1952. I would refer the house particularly to page 37, pages 40 to 41 and page 48 of that report as the foundation for the statement I made that two out of those three purposes are included in and supported by the report of the MacQuarrie committee.
Within that general background, Mr. Speaker, may I turn to the history of the amendments before the house. You will remember that during the course of the last session the government introduced a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code with the purposes as I have mentioned in mind. That bill was No. C-59. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker-and I know I must not revive a debate-to recall, in the light of what was said this afternoon that this year we seem to be one stage ahead because the bill we have this year is No. C-58. To that extent the house is better off than perhaps some of my hon. friends were suggesting during the course of this afternoon.
After the introduction of that bill we received representations from businessmen, retail merchants associations, professional economists, consumer and other groups, that the bill should be deferred so that those groups might have an opportunity to study it more thoroughly and make representations to us about it. In view of the importance of legislation of this kind for the welfare of our whole economy we considered it our duty to
Combines Investigation Act ensure that the legislation which would ultimately be enacted would be in the most adequate, effective and workable form. We accordingly decided to postpone until this session the consideration of such amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
At that time I declared that while the bill might not be in exactly the same form as the one introduced last year, it was our firm intention to reintroduce legislation along the same lines at the present session and to deal with that legislation at this session. As a result, we received a large number of representations from various organizations and people representing all sections of the community. I should like once again to express my appreciation to all those who have made representations for the assistance they have given in the study which we felt should be made of the legislation which we proposed to introduce, which study has been carried on again in great detail since last year.
The result of this study is the bill which was introduced in this house on May 6 and is now before us. In reading this bill, hon. members will, I know, have noticed that it embodies some modifications from last year's proposed amendments, and also some new provisions which did not appear in the previous bill and perhaps, for convenience of reference and discussion, I might be permitted to divide the provisions of the present bill into three main groups.
First, there is the set of substantive amendments, amendments affecting the offences as they are spelled out in the law. These are, in short, the amendment of the provisions relating to conspiracy and several amendments in the matter of unfair trade practices, especially in relation to the operations of small businesses.
Second, there is a set of what could be called procedural amendments. They relate in particular to the new jurisdiction conferred on the Exchequer Court of Canada, an amendment permitting a restraining or dissolution order without a conviction where the offence has been completed; also, a provision requiring the commission to make certain additional specific findings where it appears that a combine has existed.
Next in this group are the amendments consolidating the related provisions of the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act and ensuring the uninterrupted continuation of the law contained in section 411 of the Criminal Code.
Third, there is a group of what I would call consequential amendments. These are represented in particular by restatements of

Combines Investigation Act definitions made necessary as a result of consolidation of the legislation, and a certain number of amendments dealing with changes in the cross-references. I should like to emphasize at this point, Mr. Speaker, that although there have been restatements of definitions made necessary as a result of consolidation there has been no change in the effect of the definitions. We have been as careful as we could be to make certain that, although we were carrying out the rewording made necessary by these consolidations, there was no change in the effect and that the only change that was made was along the lines of greater clarification.
Having summarized the nature and groupings of the amendments, perhaps I should proceed now to a brief discussion of the principles behind the anti-combines legislation because I think it is important to emphasize again that the principles behind these amendments are the fundamental principles so far contained in Canadian anti-combines legislation. I should also like at this point to come to the discussion which I forecast, namely a discussion of the government's position with relation to those principles.
As I have previously indicated, the government believes that the principles of the legislation now in effect are sound, and it could hardly be otherwise inasmuch as I may perhaps be permitted to remind the house again that it was a Conservative government which first introduced the main operative provision of the anti-combines legislation. What are these principles? I think it should be recalled by the house that the Canadian legislation in this field is of very long standing. As I have pointed out, the first provision in our history antedates by one year the first federal provision in the United States. All through these years the principle at the basis of the 1889 act has been constantly maintained by parliament. We find that principle in the present Combines Investigation Act; and in the proposed amendments before the house it is maintained in its full integrity.
The basic principle is that a free enterprise system is the system which will yield the highest material standard of living in conjunction with the greatest possible degree of political, economic and social freedom for the individual and that this system of free enterprise will be best maintained through the operation and preservation of active competition between the various sectors of the economy. It is our belief that in most sectors of society competition is still the best mechanism for allocating resources and distributing what those resources produce and for regulating relationships between men in the course of production and consumption.

We reject on the one hand the rigid and unfair system of a cartelized economy whereby huge industrial concerns and financial empires would completely control the destinies of the economy and in the end the affairs of our society. We categorically refuse such a system of allocation of resources, relying as it must upon the mechanism of monopolies and combines and other similar trade and industry arrangements. But we also reject on the other hand the paraphernalia of state planning, a system of state regimentation whereby the government would make deliberate decisions as to the amount of resources that would be allocated to each of the different needs of the community and where the government would determine not only the conditions and quantities of production but also, of course, the price and the quality of the product, and would also have to determine and dictate who and how many people would engage and where they would engage in the production, the distribution and the retailing of the particular product.
We as the government, Mr. Speaker, do not want business to take over government but neither do we want the government to take over business. What we want, to the greatest extent possible, is a free enterprise system according to which the allocation and distribution of resources will be determined by the operation of active competition, and this is where the anti-combines legislation comes into the picture. This legislation is a program designed to maintain those competitive conditions which will make a free enterprise system work and work to the advantage of society and all segments of that society.
In order to achieve that purpose the anticombines legislation, however, must deal with various types of situations, price fixing combines, mergers, monopolies and various unfair trade practices. It is thus apparent that there must be two main groups of provisions found in any effective anti-combines legislation and these two main groups of provisions are found in the Canadian anti-combines legislation. The principles of these provisions are accepted by the government in accordance with the philosophy I have just outlined, and it is on the basis of those principles that we have brought in this bill to improve, modernize and make more effective the machinery by which these principles are carried into practice.
Perhaps at this point I should elaborate in somewhat greater detail what are the concepts and effects of these two main groups of provisions. The first group is that group dealing with combinations, mergers and monopolies. The purpose and effect of this

group of provisions are to protect the interests of society in free competition, to protect that interest against the temptations, the pressures if you like, to which business, if left free to its own devices, would be exposed and subjected, pressures and temptations which would and on occasion have led them into the pattern of combination, merger or monopoly.
The second main group of provisions is a group dealing with specific unfair trade practices. The purpose of this group of provisions, as contrasted with the first group, is to bring a degree of protection, particularly for small businesses, against the power of the purse and the danger that such small businesses will be eliminated not because in their own field they are inefficient but simply because they do not command the size and weight of resources which their competitors command and which resources can be used ruthlessly or unfairly to eliminate their smaller competitors.
In protecting thus, in specific detail if you like, the position primarily of the smaller businessmen and smaller businesses we are, I submit, also protecting society itself because, as I have indicated previously, it is our view that society also has an interest in seeing to it that the maximum number of independent businesses consistent with efficiency are kept in operation.


An hon. Member:: Consistent with efficiency.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We believe, as I have said before, that that economy is in the soundest condition which is based upon the participation of the maximum number of independent operators. I heard somebody on the other side say "consistent with efficiency", thereby picking up a remark that I had made. May I remind the house that in the same way as we believe that bigness is not necessarily badness, notwithstanding what some of the newspapers have said, so we also believe that bigness is not necessarily synonymous with efficiency, and it is our view that there are just as efficient operators in the field of small business as there are in the field of big business. It is our desire and our aim in this legislation to protect these efficient small operators against the power of the purse which is sometimes brought against them ruthlessly and unfairly by very large and powerful competitors.
And so, Mr. Speaker, this bill starts from these basic assumptions I have outlined and proceeds on the basis that there are, and should be, these two main groups of provisions. On this basic assumption, the bill seeks to accomplish two things. First, it is
Combines Investigation Act designed to improve the existing provisions of the legislation by way of clarification and consolidation and, second, it is designed to bring the law in important particulars into line with twentieth century developments and to adapt it to the problems and situations of the twentieth century economy.
On the basis of this classification of the provisions into two main groups, may I offer first an analysis of the amendments. Among those amendments conducive to the first objective I would suggest the following: The consolidation of the Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act provisions; the clarification and consolidation of the definition sections-again emphasizing that there is no change in effect; the provision making it clear that acts which are beneficial to the public, such as the pooling of resources for research and do not constitute a combine as defined can be carried on without danger of mis-construction or conviction.
Among the amendments conducive to the second objective, for instance, are those such as the provision to protect the small businessman against discriminatory and unfair trade and pricing practices; the provision against misleading advertising; the provision-with respect to this one I must say that to some extent it promotes both the first and second objectives-to establish that various types of co-operative activity which are beneficial can be carried on. Again, I mention the type of activity which is embraced within the provision regarding the pooling of resources for research.
Perhaps I should stop here for a moment to mention one of the submissions that was made to us and which, quite frankly, carried a very great deal of weight with us. It is a statement of fact that in comparison with United States industries Canadian industries are at a great disadvantage. One can think of almost any number-certainly a considerable number-of United States industries which would embrace within the single scope of their activities the market and the productive capacity, of a large number of Canadian industries. In other words, it would generally take several Canadian industries to equal just one of these giant United States corporations. Each one of these big United States corporations carries on extensive research work within their own ambit. Research, as is well known, leads to economies of production; it leads to benefits to the public; it leads to benefits to the workingman; it leads to benefits generally to the national economy.
One of our problems is that researchwise we are very deficient as compared with the United States. In the field of industry it is
4346	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act surely self-evident that very few of our individual industries can begin to compete re-searchwise with these giant United States corporations. It, therefore, seems to me to be equally self-evident that it is desirable if we can bring about a situation in Canada under which our industries can pool their facilities for research, so that together, co-operatively, they can begin to compete in this one field alone with what is carried on in the United States by their competitors.
We were faced, therefore, with the problem of whether we could find a legislative device or a legislative provision which would permit the carrying on of a co-operative arrangement between industries in Canada to produce this desirable objective without, at the same time, providing a cloak or umbrella, if you like, under which industries could in fact combine in a manner contrary to the best interests of the economy and of the public generally. We came to the conclusion that we could devise such a legislative formula, and we came to the further conclusion it would be in the interests of the Canadian economy for us to do so. This is the reason for this provision in the amending bill before the house. I am prepared to defend that provision in debate here and in debate elsewhere.
I was dealing, before I went into this aside, although it is an important aside, with the amendments conducive to the second of the two main objectives I have mentioned, that is the objective of bringing the law up to date and making it fit with the twentieth century economy. I should like to conclude this list of such provisions by mentioning the amendments establishing new methods of procedure. I should like to emphasize here that these amendments are contemplated by and, indeed, recommended by the MacQuarrie committee report.
I would suggest without hesitation that all the amendments before the house are faithful to the history and spirit of anti-combines legislation as it has existed over the years, but they have the advantage that they bring this legislation up to date; they bring it into line with the needs of the mid-twentieth century economy. They not only accomplish this objective, but they do so while obtaining a workable and effective system of legislation against antisocial combines or arrangements. They do so also while at the same time bringing a degree of protection to the small businessman who is so vital to our continued free economy.
It is against this background I should like now to give a more detailed discussion of the actual provisions of the amending bill. I will begin by discussing the substantive changes, then the changes of a procedural


nature and I should like to conclude by a few remarks on the amendments of a consequential nature. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of the rule against discussion of the details of a bill, and particularly of the clauses, in a debate on second reading. I shall do all I can not to transgress the prohibitions of the rule. It is, however, difficult, as I know you will appreciate and as my colleagues in the house will appreciate, to discuss an amending bill which contains a lot of particular amendments without some discussion of the reasons for the amendments. Therefore, while I will attempt to avoid reference to the clauses in detail, I should like to assist the house by discussing the arguments, if you like, which have given rise to these specific amendments.
First, in so far as the substantive changes are concerned, it will have been noted, I am sure, that the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to combinations in restraint of trade are moved out of the Criminal Code and into the Combines Investigation Act. The result will be, when the new bill passes, that the Combines Investigation Act will contain all the anti-combines legislation. Sections 411, 412 and 416 of the Criminal Code would then be repealed. There are a variety of arguments, which have been made both for and against this proposition. Many of them were summarized in the MacQuarrie committee report to which I have referred. After listening to the representations and discussing them in detail with those who made them, as well as reviewing the MacQuarrie committee study, we came to the conclusion that in view of the desirability of achieving certainty and clarification in the combines legislation, and in view of the changing nature of economic conditions, it would be desirable to consolidate all the provisions into the one combines act.
But I should point out here that the definition of a combine as contained in the Criminal Code has been retained. All that has been done in effect is to transfer it from the Criminal Code into the Combines Investigation Act. It is this definition which was the operative definition under which the great majority of cases were brought and under which definitive jurisprudence has been developed. This definition is contained, with only consequential changes in the wording, in the new bill.
Other substantive amendments deal with the desirability of ensuring that the combines law does not become so rigid that, while discouraging the doing of that which is antisocial and which has been in effect defined by the jurisprudence as being subject to condemnation by the courts, it might also

deprive society and the country of the benefit of practices or developments that are not only not harmful but indeed are positively beneficial. Thus, while combines in restraint of trade, combines which fix prices or discourage competition or prevent entry into trade or industry-all those combines which over the years legislation and the courts have declared to be harmful and have prohibited subject to heavy penalty-while these are still left under the full condemnation and operation of the undiluted law, nevertheless it is recognized in the legislation that certain forms of co-operation are beneficial.
A few moments ago I mentioned one of the forms of co-operation, namely that in research, which will itself be beneficial to the economy generally. Other forms of co-operation which it is recognized may be beneficial are enumerated in the bill, particularly in clause 32. Perhaps I should not mention the clause in detail, but one of them that I might mention generally is the exchange of credit information. There are six of them that are specifically mentioned, all of which we believe can be demonstrated to be positively beneficial to society and to the economy generally.
To give effect to this principle the bill first repeats the definition of a combine as contained in the Criminal Code. Incidentally, I should point out that the word "unduly", of which mention has been made in certain newspaper articles, was always there. It has been there since a Conservative government first enacted it in 1889 and it is still there. The bill repeats the combines definition of the code, but then in order to carry out this principle I have enunciated it provides that there shall be no conviction if the cooperative arrangement relates to only one or more of the demonstrably beneficial purposes, two of which I have mentioned. The others are spelled out in the bill.
Finally, in order to make assurance doubly sure that there can be no possibility of carrying on an illegitimate type of combine activity, the bill concludes in this respect by making it clear that the defence of beneficial arrangement cannot be used as a cloak or umbrella under which to carry on an antisocial or illegitimate type of combine activity.
If I add that all of the combination cases that have been dealt with by the courts under the anti-combine legislation have been cases of price fixing it will be seen that the present bill does not affect the law against price fixing and any combination case of any kind under which a conviction was secured in Canada would be equally liable to secure a conviction under the amended provision; but at the same time we hope this amendment will contribute to alleviate the concern of
Combines Investigation Act legitimate business and make it clear that they may engage in activities which would benefit the Canadian economy and that if they confine their co-operative activities to these beneficial activities they need have no fear of prosecution or conviction under the combines legislation.
I should like next to draw the attention of the house to a second group of amendments affecting the substance of the Combines Investigation Act. It relates to a certain number of trade practices and aims toward a legitimate degree of protection for smaller business against what would otherwise be the unrestricted and dominating economic strength of their more powerful competitors. In this second group there are four amendments of particular importance. One relates to the practice of loss leader selling and other similar practices. Another relates to making more efficient the present provisions of the Criminal Code which are translated into the Combines Investigation Act, regarding discriminatory pricing. Another deals with promotional allowances and finally there is an amendment affecting misleading advertising.
With relation to the amendment affecting loss leader selling and related practices, it will be recalled that when section 34 of the Combines Investigation Act was passed in 1951 we as the opposition took the stand that it was being passed in undue haste and without consideration of the safeguards that would be necessary to protect smaller merchants against the practice of loss leader selling which we believe this section would encourage. We have received in detail a large number of complaints from small merchants and their organizations with regard to the practice of loss leader prices and certain other undesirable practices that have become prevalent with the results that we feared.
May I emphasize that in virtually every case the representations received in this field came from small business or their representatives, not from large concerns or from the manufacturers. The representations we received were to the effect that small business is powerless to protect itself and that small businessmen are powerless to protect themselves against the power of a large concern; that their interest in continuing as an established outlet of a known line of goods is jeopardized and therefore their ability to continue in business at all is at stake. Anyone who is familiar in any way with the interests and the operations of small business I think will appreciate the urgency of these representations.
We are satisfied that the practices of which they complain and which they brought to our attention are not in general beneficial to

Combines Investigation Act consumers. Many of the practices complained of are based on one form or another of misrepresentation with regard to the availability of the goods or with regard to the standard of services to be provided by the person or concern that sells them or by some other come-on device which the consumer finds, to his disadvantage, has misled him when he purchased the goods. Some of these practices constitute an attack on the legitimate interests of both the established retailer and the manufacturer in regard to the reputation, the quality and the availability of the goods and all of them operate to the detriment both of the retailer and in the long run of the consumer himself.
There are therefore in this field two problems. The first is how to get at this situation and find an effective method of dealing with it without doing the consumer or the retailer a disservice or eliminating the genuine type of sale and therefore eliminating the possibility of reduced price advantage.
The second problem is how to do this without getting into the field of such detailed regulation of trade and business as to be impracticable and undesirable, if not actually unconstitutional, for the federal government to embark upon.
Notwithstanding these problems we were determined, for the reasons I have given, to protect the legitimate interests and position of the small businessman whom we still regard as the backbone of a truly free economy. We regard it as desirable to retain the maximum number of independent operators. We regard it as desirable to ensure that we shall not end up with the position where everyone is working for someone else, whether it be a giant corporation or the government.
The problem is difficult, and there have been criticisms, I know, of the solutions we have found. It would have been easy enough to have taken the attitude: let her rip, after all it is a free economy; let it find its own level. The giant corporations would have been happy, but I do not think we would have been doing a proper service or doing our duty to the Canadian public generally. So we determined to find a solution, and I believe the solution we have found meets both the problems that I mentioned a few moments ago.
The solution in general provides that if supplies to merchants are discontinued only for one of the legitimate reasons mentioned in the legislation and not for the illegitimate purpose of forcing a manufacturer's price level on the public, then there is no offence. Such an answer would be a defence to a prosecution, if one should be brought. This


amendment to section 34 has two beneficial results. First, it is in clarification of the law. I want to make this clear: it does not restore resale price maintenance, in spite of what the Winnipeg Free Press said, but it will bring about a situation where small businessmen may be helped to meet practices which confer no lasting benefit on the consumer and which are as undesirable from a consumer standpoint as from that of competitors and manufacturers. It should help the small merchant to stay in business so long as he is efficient, to the advantage of the consumer and of the economy generally without the danger of his being callously eliminated by the mere power of a rival's purse. It will also tend to prevent the monopolization of certain trades by particular merchants through the instrumentality of unfair and undesirable business practices. At the same time the amendment does not prevent downward pressure upon prices which are occasioned by the ability of some merchants, due to their efficiency or methods of operation, to sell at prices lower than others, nor does it restrain the genuine clearance sale.
Another amendment to which I should like to draw the attention of the house is the one relating to what is presently section 412 of the Criminal Code, which will become section 33A of the Combines Investigation Act. This section, in part, forbids businessmen to follow a policy of selling articles in any part of Canada at lower prices than they charge elsewhere in Canada, where that policy has or is designed to have the effect of substantially lessening competition or eliminating a competitor, and it also forbids the policy of selling articles anywhere at prices unreasonably low, having or designed to have the same effect. In operation it was found that the requirement which the crown had to meet was such as to make this section of little effect. It has therefore been amended to provide that if the policy has a tendency to substantially lessen competition or eliminate a competitor, this is sufficient to constitute the offence.
A third amendment in this group would insert a new provision dealing with promotional allowances. A report of the restrictive trade practices commission published in 1958 and relating to discriminatory pricing in the grocery trade pointed out that a common source of discrimination lay in promotional allowances lying outside the scope of present legislation. It has been decided to eliminate the element of discrimination to which this report pointed, and the new section therefore provides that where a merchant or other supplier grants promotional allowances, he must do so on a reasonably proportionate basis to all his competing customers. I might



I960

[Stage Direction]
also add in this connection that the recent report of the royal commission on price spreads of food products stressed the desirability of restricting promotional allowances in favour of price reductions as a method of competition. While it might, on first view, appear paradoxical to try to achieve this purpose by requiring that promotional allowances, where granted, be without discrimination, we believe that this provision is likely to have the effect of discouraging such promotional allowances by the very fact of requiring that if granted at all they be granted generally to competing customers. And certainly if it does not have this result it will at least restore equality of competition as between large and small merchants by requiring such an allowance to be granted proportionately to all purchasers.
The fourth and last amendment to which I wish to refer in this group is a new section forbidding anyone, for the purpose of promoting the sale or use of an article, to make a materially misleading representation to the public concerning the price at which such article is ordinarily sold. Quite a few instances have come to the attention of the combines branch, some of them occurring in the catalogues of so-called catalogue houses, but occurring in other places as well, where a merchant, in order to make it appear that the price at which he was offering an article was more favourable than was actually the case, misrepresented to the public the price at which such article was ordinarily sold elsewhere. Besides being deceptive as far as the buying public is concerned this practice also constitutes an unfair method of competition with respect to other merchants.
In summary, these amendments relating to discriminatory and predatory pricing and deceptive price advertising have a multiple purpose and effect. In all instances they directly or indirectly protect the consumer and will bring greater honesty into all branches of trade. In some instances they also protect, or give a chance for protection, to merchants, usually the smaller merchants, against unfair competition which does not relate to competitive efficiency; they confirm to a manufacturer some right to prevent his product from being abused or used as a come-on device; and, finally, but not least, they are in the long term direction of maintaining competition by cutting down practices or assisting in the prevention of practices which may serve to eliminate competitors and therefore competition through means other than straightforward and real competition itself.
May I now draw the attention of the house to certain amendment of a procedural nature. I should mention a procedural innovation of
Combines Investigation Act particular interest. It consists of conferring upon the Exchequer Court of Canada concurrent jurisdiction with that of the superior courts of the provinces to try the more serious of the anti-combines offences or to entertain applications for orders of injunction or dissolution. This jurisdiction of the exchequer court could only be invoked, in the case of a prosecution, with the consent of the accused and of the crown, and the section is made subject to proclamation by the governor in council in order to permit us to consider what arrangements might be necessary for its implementation. Such a procedure, we believe, would be very beneficial to all parties concerned, since it would lead to more expeditious and less expensive handling of cases; it would also eventually develop a corps of judges expert in anti-combines jurisprudence and permit such cases to be presented to the court by members of the bar of any province. This seems only fair in view of the fact that major anticombines cases ordinarily extend over a number or even all of the provinces and have effects beyond the province in which the venue for trial is ordinarily laid. May I again emphasize in this connection that the procedure of reference to the exchequer court in the case of a prosecution for a completed offence or an action in respect to a completed offence can only be followed at the instance of the crown with the consent of the accused.
In addition, by way of other procedural amendments, the bill would permit as an alternative to prosecution leading to conviction and fine or imprisonment an action directed to obtain an injunction or, in the case of a merger an order of dissolution, even in a case where the offence has already been completed. Such an action may already be brought in the case of an incipient offence but the wording of the section leaves in doubt, at least, whether it could be invoked where the offence has been completed.
In the case, for example, of price fixing combinations the law is now clearly established and it is not intended to apply the amendment in such cases. Everybody knows what a combine is and prosecution and conviction are the appropriate procedures there, but there are other cases where the difference between legality and illegality may depend upon a pretty fine judgment on the part of the parties concerned and their counsel. It seems appropriate that in such cases it should be possible to redress the situation by other means.
May I emphasize here, too, that this is an alternative procedure the choice of which will lie with the prosecuting authority and that it will provide a speedier method of disposing of appropriate cases and of building
[Stage Direction]
Combines Investigation Act up a body of jurisprudence, while still leaving it open to prosecute in the ordinary way where the appropriate course is prosecution and conviction. Because a great deal has been made of this in places outside this house, may I again emphasize here that this also is inherent in the recommendations of the MacQuarrie committee which reported in 1952.
Next comes an amendment which will be a useful guide to the department. May I pause here for a moment to say that one of the difficulties of the present law is that it is a difficult one to interpret and apply. We do not want to relieve ourselves of this difficulty simply for our own convenience but we think it would be desirable to resolve or remove the difficulty if possible in order that the application of the act and the remedies under the act might be more clear, more certain and more speedy because this is certainly in the best interests of the government as well as the parties concerned and the economy generally.
There will be a useful guide to the department in the new amendment, in determining whether the appropriate remedy lies in a prosecution or in a suit for an injunction to restrain the further operation of the combination. It would also make clearer to the public the nature of the combination which was made the subject of an investigation and a report. This amendment in question adds to the terms of reference of the restrictive trade practices commission by directing the commission in the case of a combination to make a specific finding as to whether or not the combination relates to practices such as price fixing, which parliament and the courts have unequivocally condemned, or other like practices; or whether it relates to one or more of the other matters which I have described as matters in respect of which cooperation among firms is not necessarily to the public detriment. The amendment also requires the commission, if it finds that the combination relates to one of these latter matters, to make a further finding whether, in spite of the appearance of the combination, it does adversely affect competition in respect of prices, entry to market or like matters.
The last group of provisions in this bill are what I have called consequential amendments of a mainly ancillary nature. Certain definitions have been inserted for convenient reference. Certain sections have undergone clarification or other changes necessarily incidental to the main provisions which I have mentioned. Here I should merely like to draw the attention of the house to an amendment in relation to mergers. The section making it an offence to be party to a merger
[Stage Direction]

remains in effect the same. However, hon. members will notice that a new definition of the merger has been introduced in the Combines Investigation Act.
In the present legislation we have a composite expression "merger, trust or monopoly", which is given an all-embracing definition. It has been found that the word "trust" is really redundant and that the first part of the definition may be said to relate to a merger and the second part to a monopoly. It was decided, therefore, to remove the word "trust" and with this and the removal of the definition of "combination" to a new section which, as explained, carries forward the present Criminal Code definition, a rewording of the present definition section became necessary. There is no change in the effect of the definition of merger but it is made clear that the gist of the offence is the lessening or the likelihood of lessening competition and that the degree of lessening which is necessary in order to constitute the offence is a degree that the court would find to be against the interest of the public. At the same time, it was decided to give the court a measure of guidance by indicating that it might look for a lessening of competition, in the case of mergers, not only in horizontal integration but also in vertical integration.
I have tried Mr. Speaker, to give the house a fairly comprehensive description of the significant provisions of the bill. I shall expect to add some details later on as the house proceeds with its study of the legislation. But before concluding I should, I think, say a word or two about some of the changes in the present bill as compared to the bill introduced into the house last year. Here I wish to refer primarily to modifications with respect to combinations and mergers. Representations were received concerning the drafting of clause 32 in last year's bill. Businessmen and lawyers in particular feared that our amendment actually resulted in a shifting of the burden of proof from the crown to the accused. Let me say first that such a thing was never in the contemplation or intention of the government and we think the fears expressed were misplaced and exaggerated, but there were fears and they were expressed forcibly and genuinely. In order to make the situation clear, therefore, we have redrafted section 32 so that there can be no doubt whatever that the burden of proof lies upon the crown as has always been the case in the anti-combines legislation.
Second, certain provisions with regard to mergers have been dropped After reconsidering all of the factors involved and in view of the fact that a number of cases relating to mergers are now before the courts or before the restrictive trade practices commission we

decided that it would be preferable not to proceed with any change in the substantive law with regard to the merger provisions for the time being. When a larger body of jurisprudence has been developed as a result of the cases before the courts or before the commission and when several reports of the commission have been made public then we will be in a position to give consideration to whatever amendments may be required in this connection.
In the latter part of my remarks I have been discussing the bill itself and some of the changes in this bill as compared with last year's bill. I have endeavoured to be as noncontroversial as appropriate or possible in a discussion of legislation of this kind and particularly with regard to the presentation of the material in the bill itself I have tried to make a factual presentation. I hope to conclude my remarks in that same vein. I do not think, however, that I can overlook in this connection some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) in the course of the annual meeting of the association of his party. He said at that time, in effect, that our enforcement of the Combines Investigation Act was not such as his party would engage in; they believed in anticombines legislation but they would not, in contrast to us, persecute big business.
I think I should point out that what we have been doing since we assumed office is enforcing as fairly, impartially and vigorously as possible legislation with respect to which all the most recent parts were placed on the statute books by the Liberal government. I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that in fairness I may challenge the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that before this debate is concluded he must either justify his innuendo of our persecution of business or stand branded as one who makes remarks of this sort for the sake of political advantage.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Something you have never been known to do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would be interested to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say in this respect; but perhaps it is also fair to note that the attitude of the official opposition at any rate has been revealed for us in part by some other remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in a television broadcast in January of this year. I suppose to some extent we might have been left in the dark otherwise if the hon. gentleman had not thus revealed his hand, although we probably would not have been quite so much in the dark as to the attitude of the C.C.F. group in this house. But I recall that in January of this year the Leader of the
Combines Investigation Act Opposition told the country in the course of a television broadcast that the Liberals in parliament would strongly oppose the government's forthcoming amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. This, mind you, Mr. Speaker, was said before the details of our present amendments had ever been revealed.
Mr. Pearson. The bill had been distributed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not the new bill. It is a difficult task to enlighten or to undertake to enlighten persons who have indicated such a preconceived and prejudiced view of legislation which is going to be introduced.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was introduced last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have said that the details of the present amendments were not known to the house or to the hon. gentleman when he made that statement, and I stand by what I say. It is difficult to suppose that we shall be able to enlighten those persons who take such a preconceived and prejudiced view in advance of the bill, but we shall do our best. We are prepared to defend the legislation and to discuss it, and to discuss any points which my hon. friends may bring forward.
We remember also another occasion-I do not think it is inapt to recall it here-in this parliament. In 1956 statements were made outside the house with regard to the attitude to be taken by the opposition with respect to legislation to be introduced by the government of that day. I remember that we said we were going to oppose the legislation vigorously and violently and to the utmost of our ability. I also remember closure-I also remember, Mr. Speaker, that that indication of our attitude on that occasion called forth the immediate application of closure by the government so that the House of Commons might not have the opportunity which the opposition wished to have of discussing the legislation freely and fully.
Mr. Speaker, times have changed. I regret the preconceived and prejudiced attitude of the opposition revealed in that television statement, but I assure the Leader of the Opposition, and all hon. members opposite, that they will have the fullest and freest opportunity to discuss this legislation because we believe in it. We believe it to be sound. We know it to be for the advantage of the people of Canada and we shall be interested indeed to listen to and to have the opportunity of meeting and of refuting the points and arguments to be advanced against it. I can only say that if the arguments advanced against it are the same as those advanced in

Combines Investigation Act some of the press of this country supporting my hon. friend's party they will not be very difficult to refute.
Now if I may be permitted a short departure from the spirit of non-controversial discussion and coming back to the bill itself, I can assure the house that a great deal of study has gone into the provisions which we have introduced. We believe that they represent a substantial improvement over the law as it exists at the present time, but we recognize that neither the members of the government-certainly I speak for myself anyway; perhaps I should not speak for my colleagues in this way-nor the members of any department are the sole repositories of all wisdom or all knowledge and' ideas in the field of anti-combines legislation. We recognize also that there is a very great deal of interest and naturally a very real concern on the part of practically every segment of our community, of our society and of our economy in connection with provisions of this nature, and that there is a very real and understandable desire to make representations about them publicly and to have the opportunity of discussing them in public with members of this house.
It is, therefore, our intention, as soon as the house may have given second reading to the bill to refer it to a committee-we think the appropriate committee would be the committee on banking and commerce-for study by that committee in order that members of parliament may have an opportunity, in the atmosphere which committee study makes possible, to consider the provisions of the bill and in order that individuals and organizations may have the opportunity to make representations and to discuss it there with the members of this house who will be called upon eventually to enact the provisions. We are prepared, in other words, to submit the details of our proposals to the detailed discussion and detailed judgment of parliament itself.
While we believe that our proposals, within the framework of the present principles, are as adequate and as far-reaching as at the moment we should submit to the house, nevertheless I can assure the house that our attitude is not rigid. If, after listening to the representations that may be made before the committee and discussing those representations with those who may appear there, the committee feels that improvements in detail can be made they will find the government by no means inflexible in its attitude toward the suggestions, the desires and the expressions of opinion of the committee.
But subject only, as I say, to this readiness to submit it to a committee and to maintain a flexible and reasonable attitude with regard


to suggestions for improvement which may be made, I conclude by saying that our amendments to the Combines Investigation Act will increase the flexibility, the efficiency and the enforceability of anti-combines legislation in Canada. We believe that they bring the law up to date in a realistic manner and make it possible for industry to operate in ways which will be beneficial to the public while at the same time restraining those operations which are harmful to the public interest, that they provide protection to the legitimate interests of small business and in every way produce, within the limitations of the present principles, a beneficial and far-reaching improvement in the legislation in the general interests of this nation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members of the house will have listened with great interest to the minister's statement about the amendments to this legislation. The minister will not be surprised when I tell him that we on this side have listened with more interest than agreement.
I participate in this debate, Mr. Speaker, branded by the minister. His brand, as it applies to me, means that my remarks will have to take a little longer than they otherwise would because it will take a little time, although it will not require much effort, to remove the particular brand which he saw fit to apply to me in closing the remarks of what he said was a very non-controversial and non-political speech.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances it may be necessary later on to discuss some of his own statements beginning in September, 1958 and continuing through 1959 in support of legislation which he introduced into this house and then was forced to withdraw because it was premature and ill conceived. In the face of that record, Mr. Speaker, in the face of that legislation, in the face of the minister's statements about that legislation, to complain that we on this side said we would oppose such legislation if it were introduced again and that we would oppose the attitude of the government toward this legislation as already proposed, shows that the minister is a very sensitive person indeed.
The bill before us, as the minister pointed out, does not introduce new legislation. It is an amendment to existing legislation rather than a revision, as he pointed out, of the legislation which is now in effect. But it is a very important and very far-reaching amendment of most important legislation. While we on this side have no desire to prolong the debate unduly because, as the minister indicated, the bill if it gets second reading will go to a committee, nevertheless

in view of the importance of the legislation and the importance of the amendments in the bill they will have to be examined with all the care which that importance warrants.
I am going to begin, Mr. Speaker, at what normally would be the end of my speech and put on the record at once a summary of the position that we will adopt in respect of these amendments and a summary of the position of the Liberal party with respect to monopolistic situations and restrictive trade practices which are covered by the amendments. Having summarized our position in this way, I will then proceed to try to substantiate in detail some of the objections to the legislation which will be mentioned in the summary.
We on this side believe that in the circumstances Canada faces today and has faced now for a good many years, a mixed economic system is the most appropriate form of economic organization for the development of our country; a mixed economic system composed of a public sector, a co-operative sector and a private enterprise sector. We also believe that the private enterprise sector should be as large but only as large as compatible with the public interest and that it should be governed by the competitive rule applied in free markets, having regard, however, as the minister mentioned during his speech, to the changing nature of economic circumstances and the changing nature of economic development.
In that sense we believe that the present Combines Investigation Act with certain administrative amendments-I am going to mention one or two which I think should be made-is adequate to achieve these objectives, particularly the last objective I have mentioned.
Under our present set-up-these are some of the changes which I think might be made in the principle of this legislation-the director of investigation and research has wide powers of investigation. This is as it should be although I say now, as I have said before outside the house, that all possible abuses of those powers should be avoided in order to ensure justice and fairness for all, including businesses, and so that the public respect for this legislation and its procedures will be strong. Moreover, concrete and empirical research on monopolistic situations and practices should in our view be greatly expanded and a special research division should be created under the authority of the director in the present legislation.
Finally, we think that the hearing before the restrictive trade practices commission and the report it publishes in each case should not be a mere preliminary step to a criminal prosecution. As the present act says, that report should "appraise the effect on the public
Combines Investigation Act interest of arrangements and practices disclosed in the evidence" and should contain recommendations in each case as to remedies other than criminal prosecution and specifically designed to correct a given undesirable situation.
Those three suggestions would in our view represent major improvements in the present legislation and would make Canadian combines policy more flexible and more effective. The minister had a good deal to say about flexibility. To be implemented these changes would not require any change in the present act at all.
While we suggest that some administrative changes can be made to make the present legislation more effective, we are strongly opposed to the bill now before us to amend the Combines Investigation Act. We believe, notwithstanding what the minister has said, that the bill will weaken the act, that it will facilitate undesirable private control over the economy and, in particular, that it will injure the interests of the consumers. I may be wrong but I do not recall the minister mentioning the consumers in his hour and a half speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You did not listen very carefully then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If he did I accept his word. He did not dwell very much on the interests of the consumers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Again you did not listen very carefully.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will read the minister's speech tomorrow and we will see who was right. We have several minor objections to the bill which will be presented at a later stage of the discussion, but our main objection, and at the moment the only one I will deal with, is on three fundamental points of principle.
As the minister pointed out in some detail, the bill permits firms within an industry to pursue certain joint activities provided those joint activities, those combinations if you like, do not have the effect of lessening competition unduly in respect of prices, production, markets, distribution or the number of units within an industry. In order to decide whether or not those joint activities, those combined activities, are objectionable the courts will have to appraise their effects. There is no other way of doing it.
The courts have not been asked in the past to make such an appraisal and the courts themselves have contended that they were not equipped to make it. So, and surely this is an important point, the courts may well be put in a position where they will have to interpret this new provision in such a way as

Combines Investigation Act to exempt, for all practical purposes, a great variety of joint activities from the operation of the act. I will come back to this in more detail later. If that is the case, parliament might as well exempt all combinations from the act. That is why we believe this particular new provision, whatever may have been its intention, does indeed have very dangerous implications.
Up to now when an offence has been committed under the act the only recognized procedure was criminal prosecution. If the accused were found guilty they were liable to a heavy fine or to imprisonment. This bill, as the minister pointed out, now provides for an alternative procedure whereby the minister on his own discretion can simply inform the courts that an offence has been committed and merely ask the courts to issue an order prohibiting the continuation of the offence. We on this side have grave doubts as to the constitutionality of that particular provision because it contemplates a civil remedy for what is a criminal offence. Moreover, it gives rise to the possibility of undesirable discrimination. For the same offence, and at the discretion of the minister, different persons will be liable to a heavy fine and imprisonment or subject merely to a court order prohibiting the continuation of the offence. Finally, this relatively mild procedure will remove the preventive value of present remedies and will create a great inducement, in our view, to form combinations and monopolies.
The practice of resale price maintenance will continue to be prohibited in theory. Perhaps in view of the attitude of the minister and some of his colleagues with regard to resale price maintenance in 1956 we have a right to be a little surprised that they left it in the act, but they have in theory. They have in this bill, notwithstanding what the minister said tonight, ensured that resale price maintenance can be reintroduced through the back door by a technique which will amount to a system of private law. As I shall try to point out in detail later, it imposes a kind of commercial feudalism. A manufacturer or supplier will be in a position to enforce at his own discretion, if this bill becomes law, a series of vague and arbitrary provisions affecting the retailer. He will be entitled to refuse to sell his products to a dealer on the basis of reports made to him by informers who will often, in the normal course of things, be competitors of that particular dealer.
Under such a system, therefore, the manufacturer cannot be an impartial, free judge. He will be exposed to constant pressures


from retailers wishing to eliminate competitors and to prevent price cutting. Under the new provisions, if they become law, the manufacturer will be caught between the courts, if he tries to enforce a scheme of resale price maintenance, and retailers urging him to enforce such a scheme. He may certainly find it more difficult to carry on his own business under such conditions.
In so far as the retailer is concerned, he will not be free under this bill, if it becomes law, to conduct his own business as he wishes. He will always be liable to denunciation by a competitor and to arbitrary arrangements by a manufacturer. The grounds giving rise to such a denunciation and arrangements are numerous. They are vague, and they may well hurt the independent small retailer far more than the big chain stores. In any case, these new provisions will create a very unhealthy climate in the whole sector of the retail trade.
Finally, and most important, if these new provisions are implemented the main victim will be the man who so often has nobody to speak for him, the consumer. His choice will be restricted and the prices he will have to pay will be higher. The only way, under this provision, that the manufacturer can live in peace with retailers will be to determine a higher resale price for his products and include a reasonable mark-up. The only way that the retailer can live in peace with his competitors, and avoid getting into trouble, will be to maintain the resale prices determined by the manufacturer. If peace is maintained, therefore, among manufacturers and retailers it will only be at the expense of the consumer who will be the forgotten person in so far as this new deal is concerned.
If the government feels that some of the practices it is asking the manufacturer to prevent, asking the supplier to prevent, are really undesirable from the point of view of the public interest, then surely the only fair and honourable course of action to take is to make those practices illegal and let the courts decide when an offence has been committed. A system of private law, even if it is to be governed under the supervision of the courts, is not acceptable. What about the civil rights of the individual with respect to this particular provision?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are not affected under this law.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister will have a hard time convincing us of that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is obvious; you made up your mind before you even saw it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Conservative party in 1919, and during the regime of the Right Hon.

R. B. Bennett, attempted to weaken our combines legislation, as I will point out later in detail. I shall try to correct some of the historical distortions of my hon. friend the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You do not like history lessons, do you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be easy to do that, and I propose to do it. The Conservative party is now trying to do the same thing again in respect of this law in a different way. Well, we on this side will fight as vigorously as possible to prevent this third attempt from succeeding because there have been two preceding ones. In so doing we will hope to safeguard competition as the governing rule of the free enterprise sector of the economy, to protect the necessary freedom of enterprise within our mixed economy and in the interest of the consumer. This bill does none of those things.
That, Mr. Speaker, is our position in principle in regard to this particular bill. It does, as the minister has said and as I have said myself a few moments ago, introduce some important amendments to one of our most important pieces of legislation in this country, the combines legislation, which has been in existence since 1910.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since 1889.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will come back to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Remaking history.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The first combines act was passed in 1910. That legislation imposed upon an important sector of our economy, namely the industrial sector-the importance of which the minister has stressed and which is, of course, obvious to us all-a specific structure and definite standards of behaviour. This bill, if it is passed, will change that structure and will weaken those standards. That is why, having stated our position on the general principle, it is important also to understand the history leading up to this legislation and the basic and historical differences between the two parties on this subject of combines legislation.
The minister talked about combines legislation going back to 1889 introduced by a Conservative government. It is certainly true that the provision in the Criminal Code dealing with combines was introduced by a Conservative government in 1889. It is also perfectly true that the Conservative party, in the years during which it was in office after that time, did nothing to make this provision of the Criminal Code effective. The minister knows that the enforcement of the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the
Combines Investigation Act provinces. There was no administrative machinery. There was no Combines Investigation Act setting up any machinery to make this provision effective.
The minister may also perhaps know

and his experts will tell him if he does not know -that the first prosecution under this piece of Conservative criminal legislation was in 1903 when a Liberal government was in power. During the years 1889 to 1903 there was not a single prosecution under a Conservative administration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Business was honest under a Conservative government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister perhaps also
knows, because he is a student of history, about the experience of Canada from 1900 to 1910 in respect to mergers and the development of monopolies. He perhaps also knows that in 1910 a Liberal government took notice of this situation and passed-Right Hon. Mackenzie King was the minister who introduced the legislation-the first Combines Investigation Act in our history to make this provision of the Criminal Code effective. The minister may also know-if he does not know, he might look it up-that action was taken after 1910 under that act until 1919 when the Conservative party was in power again. They then destroyed the Combines Investigation Act or introduced legislation of their own which had that effect but which was later declared unconstitutional.
In the course of time-and it was not very long because there is never a very long gap in these matters-in 1923 the Liberals were in power again and a new Combines Investigation Act was passed by a Liberal government, the earlier one having been destroyed by a Conservative government. That act of 1923 is essentially the legislation we have on the statute books today. That law, in contrast to the Conservative law from 1889 to 1903 in the Criminal Code-I refer to the law of 1923-was effectively enforced until 1930. There were several investigations and prosecutions under that law and a vigorous anti-monopoly policy was enforced by the government of that particular day.
Then we came to 1930 when we had another Conservative government which in effect suspended once more the operation of that act. In 1935, as a result of a royal commission of which I have some memory because I was the secretary of that particular royal commission, the Conservative government of Mr. Bennett introduced the Dominion Trade and Industry Act which provided for the acceptance of almost any kind of combine, monopoly and restrictive trade

Combines Investigation Act practice if the commission set up by this act so recommended on the ground that it would prevent wasteful competition, would not unduly restrain trade or operate against public interest. The recommendations of this commission were to be approved by the governor in council and it thus brought the operations of this commission under the authority of the government. Therefore under this act, instead of competition, the government through order in council would be in a position to regulate the activities of the private sector of our economy. Not only did this change have dangerous implications for the economy and not only was it prejudicial 1 believe to the public interest, but it was also found by the courts to be unconstitutional.
So in 1936, with a Liberal government again in power, we had to start all over again and restore the act of 1923 with some improvements. What happened then? This history, Mr. Speaker, is very interesting, especially in the light of the version we were given by the minister. What happened to this legislation of 1936? In contrast to the situation we have in parliament today, and though this legislation was passed by the House of Commons it was thrown out by a Tory majority in the Senate. Mr. King, then prime minister, introduced it again in 1937 and it was allowed to go through. On the second occasion time it was allowed to go

through a Conservative Senate. In 1946 the act was modified, as we know. In 1951 some important administrative changes were made and there was the prohibition of resale price maintenance against which my hon. friends opposite fought day in and day out and which they swore they would remove from the statute books if they ever had the chance to do so. However, it is still there in spite of these amendments.
In 1952 there was a further amendment which changed the administrative set-up of the act and I believe established the restrictive trade practices commission. That is the history behind this legislation. That is the position taken by the Conservative party over the years with regard to combines legislation. In the face of that record the minister has told us this evening that his party from 1889 had always stood behind the combines legislation and against monopolies and mergers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Quite right. We introduced it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I take it that tomorrow we will go on with this legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Continuation of this debate tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[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. McWilliam: 1.	Were any contracts awarded for construction or repairs to wharves in Halifax county, Nova Scotia, during the years 1958 and 1959?
2.	If so, (a) what contracts: (b) in what locations, and the amount of each contract?
3.	In what fiscal years were the moneys voted for these projects?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1. Yes.
2 and 3. See attached list.
See table on page 4358.


C.M.H.C. FORECLOSURES, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Garland: 1.	Have any foreclosures been instituted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the province of British Columbia since November, 1959?
2.	If so, how many?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1. Yes.
Questions
2. For the period November 1, 1959 to May 23, 1960:
3	mortgage foreclosure actions.
3	agreement for sale forfeiture actions.


ARMS SHIPMENTS TO SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Within the last three years have any shipments of arms been made to South Africa?
2.	If so, what types of arms, in what quantity, and when was the last such shipment made?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Yes.
2.	Shipments of arms were limited to aircraft parts and tank spares to the following value:
1957	Aircraft spare parts-Value $115,695.00.
1957	Tank spare parts

Value $187,444.26.
1958	Aircraft spare parts-Value $145,533.70.
1958	Tank spare parts-Value $8,374.50.
1959	Aircraft spare parts-Value $87,694.53.
1959	Tank spare parts-Value $122,027.35.
1960	Aircraft spare parts-Value $162,002.85.
1960	Tank spare parts-Value $123,785.39. Last reported shipment was tank spares, on May 16, 1960 with a value of $5,957.
Date Contract	Amount	Amount	Fiscal YearLocation	Work and Contractor	Awarded	1957-1958	1958-1959	Funds ProvidedCarter's Point	.. Breakwater-wharf	June, 1958	-	35,049.42	1958-59Cooper's Point	Mosher and Rawding Ltd. . Breakwater repairs and improvements	June,1958	31,069.00	1958-59Eastern Passage	Campbell & Mclsaac . .Levelling breakwater	November, 1958..	10,147.33	1958-59Ecum Secum West	Continental Construction Co. Ltd. .. Breakwater reconstruction	July, 1958	30,107.00	1958-59Factory Cove	F. W. Digdon & Sons Ltd. . .Construction of wharf	September, 1958..	6,553.47	1958-59Halifax	Campbell & Mclsaac . Construction of parking area (Repairs to Queen's wharf north and south)	April, 1959	(Completed 1959-60) 669.60	1958-59Harrigan (McDonald's Cove)..	Campbell & Mclsaac . . Construction of breakwater	December, 1958...	(Completed 1959-60) 6,553.47	1958-59Indian Harbour	Campbell & Mclsaac . .Wharf improvements and repairs	4,793.64	1957-58Head of Ship Harbour	(Local agreement) . .Demolition of wharf	September, 1958 .	2,346.00	1958-59Herring Cove	Naugle's Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd. .. Repairs and re-decking wharf, etc	(Completed 1959-60) 2,338.84	1958-59(Local agreement) Mauger Beach (McNab's Island). Breakwater repairs	May, 1957	276,652.50	_	1957-58Cameron Contracting Ltd.	1,059.41	1957-58Port Dufferin West	(Local agreement) .. Removal of wharf	November, 1958..	1,630.00	1958-59Sainbro	Naugle's Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd. . Wharf extension	March, 1957	21,078.11	1957-58Sambro	Mosher and Rawding Ltd. . Wharf repairs	July, 1958	11,954.25	1958-59Sober Island	L. G. & M. H. Smith .. Wharf repairs	2,028.47	1958-59Three Fathom Harbour	(Local agreement) . .Construction of wharf	October, 1957	10,955.03	1957-58Turner's Island	Naugle's Sand and Gravel Co. Ltd. . .Wharf improvements and repairs	1,063.73	1957-58(Local agreement)	4358	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Tuesday, May 31, 1960