Mr. LAPOINTE:

There is something in that.

Mr. BENNETT:

I do not think, however, that we should place upon the statute books of Canada the idea that you can merely say to someone who has violated a statute, "Don't be a naughty boy." If there is a violation proceedings must be taken. We shall have to indicate that we cannot agree to that amendment. The next amendment, on page 8, line 29, provides that the public prosecutor shall be an official of the Department of Justice, and we will disagree with that. That is not the theory on which he is appointed. He is an official of the commission, and though

Trade Commission-Senate Amendments

directed by the Minister of Justice he is not an official of that department. With that one we disagree. The next one is in line 43, where the words "undertake or carry on" are struck out. There is no difficulty about that. On page 9, for the words "is likely" there are substituted the words "appears to be about;" that is to say, instead of saying that it is likely to be committed the words are, "appears to be about to be committed." I am not sure that that is better, but I will not quarrel with it;, we will agree to that. In section 23, after the word "may" in the first line the words "from time to time" are inserted.

The commission may from time to time at the instance of the governor in council or at the request of representative persons engaged in any industry ...

The added words are unnecessary, but out of abundant precaution the addition will not make any difference. In section 25 the words "have authority" in the first line are struck out and the word "to" before the word "study" is therefore also properly struck out.

Now we come to a much more difficult one. They have struck out the provisions of section 26 with respect to investigation of securities issued, and I do not think we should agree with that amendment. This does not place upon the commission any duty except when requested by the Secretary of State to do so. It seems to me that may be a very useful provision having regard to some of the difficulties pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Usley) and the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). I should like that section to remain. Section 27 has been altered to 26. The numbering is only a matter for the law clerks; that need not give us concern. Section 29 which will become section 28 has been changed to read:

In any case where the governor in council has approved an agreement under this section, no prosecution of a party to such agreement shall be instituted under the Combines Investigation Act or under sections 498A or any other relevant section of the criminal code for an offence arising in the performance of such agreement, except with the consent of the commission.

That is, if the proceedings are being taken under the criminal code, they will be taken with the consent of the commission. I do not like that provision.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I was going to say that it vpould prevent the attorney general of a province from proceeding under the criminal code. I do not think the clause should be retained.

Mr. BENNETT:

I do not either. I would move second reading and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate; No. 1 insection 11; No. 2 in section 14; No. 3 insubsection 4 of section 14; No. 5 in section 15; No. 6 in section 15; No. 7 in section 15; No. 8 in section 16; No. 9 in section 16; No. 10 in section 16; No. 11 in section 19, subsection 1; No. 12 in section 22; No. 13 insection 23; No. 14 in section 25 and No. 15

in section 25.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

With regard to section

22, I believe it is, concerning the public prosecutor, my hon. friend does not agree with the amendment of the Senate that this officer shall be an official of the Department of Justice; it says that he will be under the commission but will be subject to the supervision of the Minister of Justice. I am not sure that the amendment of the Senate is not a good one. We are now proceeding in a way which is rather an anomaly. Under the statute as it is, the Department of Justice is responsible for all the legal work of the government or of any department, but in recent years, in our time as well as now, ministers in other departments seem to have developed the autonomy complex that they should have under themselves in their own departments their own legal officers, for whom, I repeat, under the statute as it is, the Minister of Justice is responsible, but he does not know what they do. They are doing their work in the various departments; they never refer to the officers of the Department of Justice, but the minister is responsible for anything they do, whether it is right or wrong. Let us amend the statute if parliament considers it is a good thing that each department should be responsible for its own legal work, and not have anything to do with the Minister of Justice. But I do not think it is fair to my hon. friend or to whoever is the incumbent of the office of Minister of Justice to be responsible for the work of gentlemen with whom he has nothing to do, who are not appointed by him and who are doing their work without referring to him. This provision that it will be under the supervision of the Minister of Justice will not, I think, correct what is at issue. Under the statute the minister is responsible. Why not accept the amendment of the Senate that this gentleman will be an officer of the Department of Justice, so that not only the ministeir but even the deputy minister could have some control over him? What is the objection to that?

4296 COMMONS

Trade Commission-Senate Amendments

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I would fully agree with my hon. friend in his general statement that all the legal work of the various departments should be exclusively under the Department of Justice, but I would make an exception in the present instance. We .are setting up a special board for a special purpose as a result of the price spreads inquiry, and we are appointing a prosecutor as a special agent or officer of that board to see that the law is carried out; otherwise I would agree entirely with the principles set forth by my hon. friend.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

My hon. friend will be

responsible for the work of that man.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I see the anomaly, but

the idea is to convince the public, the business people of the country, that this measure is to be enforced, and we are putting a special prosecutor under the control of the trade and industry commission for that purpose.

Mr. BENNETT:

I want .to make it clear,

in case there is any letter we have overlooked -there may be a change of a letter plural or singular-that the motion is for the second reading and concurrence in all the amendments made by the Senate except the following: the amendment to section 14; this house accepts the amendment if there is added after the word "the" and before the word "opinion" in the second line thereof the word "unanimous," so that it would read "in the unanimous opinion." That is No. 1. That is for the reason that inasmuch as the former part of the section provides for unanimity of opinion, it is desirable that the same should characterize the action taken under the proposed amendment. The next one is the amendment to section 20. The house does not agree in the amendments made by their honours for the following reason, that it is regarded as a bad precedent to state in a statute that anybody can direct those who violate the statute to cease or desist, for if there is a breach to the knowledge of the commission, it should be its duty to take appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the law in that regard. Does that cover what we wish to say?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Have a greater penalty than simply being told to cease and desist.

Mr. BENNETT:

It does provide for

greater proceedings after, but I think the principle is wrong.

The amendment at the end of line 29 in section 21 is not agreed to for the reason that under the special circumstances in this case

it is desirable that the director of prosecutions should not be an official of the Department of Justice, although in carrying out his work he is under the superintendence of the minister.

This house does not agree to the deletion of section 26, which it regards as an important section, if in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is desirable to make investigation for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the capital structure of any company is not in accordance with the principles of the Companies Act.

This house does not agree to the amendment to new section 28 for the reason that it is not desirable that the right of the provincial authorities to institute criminal proceedings should be dependent upon the leave of the commission.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Bennett moves,

seconded by Mr.-Guthrie:

That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting their honours that this house concurs in the amendments specified by the Prime Minister for the reasons set forth by him, and that the clerk of the house do convey the message to their honours. '

Mr. POULIOT:

Speaking to the motion

I want to make my last remarks for this session. In regard to this proposed legislation, the ex-Ministar of Trade and Commerce stands half-way between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister himself is halfway between the ruthlessness of the iron heel and Messrs. Litvinoff, Strachey and the like. The reason I am against this absurd legislation is because it is a consomme made with the skeleton bone of broken promises. That is all, sir.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

I want to say

to my right hon. friend that it is customary to give the leader of the opposition a copy of the amendments. I know it has been just an oversight that I have not been furnished

Criminal Code-Senate Amendments

with copies, but I would like t,o have a complete set in order to be able to follow the discussion.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am bound to say that

I only saw them a few .minutes ago myself, because the law clerk only concluded his work upon them since half past ten. I shall ask that they be sent to the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, I realize that it is not anyone's fault, but I should like to have them as well on file.

Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and Concurred in.