Combines Investigation Act
| Author | Salter A. Hayden |
| DOI | 10.1177/0003603X7602100207 |
| Published date | 01 June 1976 |
| Date | 01 June 1976 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Excerpts From Senate Debate
Report of Standing Committee on
Banking,
Trade, and Commerce
Text of the 1975 Canadian Combines Investigation
Act
and the
Bank
Act
1.
EXCERPTS
FROM
SENATE
DEBATE
Senator
Hayden:
Honourable senators, Idesire to
pre-
sent a
report
of the
Standing
Senate Committee on Banking,
'I'rade
and
Commerce on Bill C-2, to amend the Combines
Investigation Act
and
the
Bank
Act
and
to repeal
an
Act to
amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation
Act
and
the Criminal Code.
Honourable senators, I would
ask
that
the
report
be
printed
as an appendix to the Debates of the Senate
and
to
the Minutes
of
the Proceedings of the
Senate
of this
day
to
form
part
of the
permanent
records of this house.
The Hon. the
Speaker:
Is
it agreed, honourable
senators'
Hon.
Senators:
Agreed.
.
(For
text
of
report see appendix pp.
1589-1595.)
Senator
Hayden:
Honourable senators, with leave Ishould
like to give a
short
explanation of the observations contained
in this report.
The Hon. the
Speaker:
Is
it
agreed, honourable
senators'
Hon.
Senators:
Agreed.
Senator
Hayden:
The
history
of this legislation goes back
to October 16, 1974, when the Senate, by resolution, authorized
the
Standing
Senate
Committee on Banking,
Trade
and
Com-
merce to "examine
and
report
upon
any
bill
relating
to com-
petition in
Canada
or
to the Combines Investigation Act, in
351
352
THE
ANTITRUST
BULLETIN
advance of the said bill coming before the Senate, or
any
mat-
ter
relating thereto."
41< 41<
41<
'I'hs second interim
report
of the committee, presented in
the Senate on Jnne 26, 1975 involved only one subject. This
arose from the fact
that
Bill C-2 extended the application of
the Combines Investigation Act to "services." This innova-
tion
had
many
ramifications. The committee
heard
witnesses
in connection with
air
travel, including representatives of
the
International
Air
Transport
Association, since
it
seemed
to them
that
the complications which
appeared
to them to
exist, if they continued to fix
tariffs
and
tolls, might make
them subject to the "services" provisions of the Combines
Investigation Act.
At
that
time
your
committee proposed an amendment, the
purpose of which was to provide an exemption.
vVe
had
con-
ferences with the minister
and
his officials,
but
the minister
felt
that
he would
prefer
not
to provide an exemption.
In
the
course of
further
development of the evidence, however, the
minister gave
certain
undertakings, which
are
referred
to
in the report. He has undertaken
that
the government will
not
proclaim the bill in relation to services
for
purposes of
section 32 of the
act
for
aperiod of six months
after
proclama-
tion of the
other
provisions of the bill. The Minister agreed
that
this phase of the
matter,
air
transport,
affected both his
department
and
the
Department
of
Transport,
and
that
the
legislation
arising
out of
and
affecting the
air
transport
in-
dustry
should be the subject
matter
of review by these two
departments
and
possibly some determination as to where
the control
and
direction should come from.
In
other
words,
whether it should come from the
department
of
Transport
by way of enlarging their
present
legislation, if
it
does not go
far
enough, or whether by
way
of a decision to prosecute or
not
to prosecute
and
leaving
it
in the hands of the combines
investigation administration.
The minister, in meeting with the committee, agreed
that
these conferences which have
started
could not, by
virtue
of
COMBINES
INVESTIGATION
ACT
353
their
subject
matter,
be
terminated
quickly. He agreed, there-
fore,
that
this second proclamation, which would make the
prosecution sections of the Combines
Investigation
Act
appli-
cable to services, would not be made
earlier
than
six months
from
this
date
so as to afford the
opportunity
for
the develop-
ment
of some
understanding
in this
area.
The
other
undertakings
had
to do with a
variety
of sub-
jects,
and
the
minister
stated
in committee
that
in
the
next
session of
Parliament
he proposed to introduce
Phase
II
of
the combines legislation, dealing
with
mergers, monopolies,
specialization agreements
and
things of
that
kind.
He
said
that
many
of the subject
matters
we
had
raised
in the services
part
of Bill C-2 would be in
Phase
II,
and
therefore we could
deal
with
them
at
that
time. So, honourable senators, we were
not
being
shut
out
in recommending
that
this bill be
reported
without amendment, because the areas,
and
the subject mat-
ters
will still be open when we get to
Phase
II.
Irecall in one
particular
instance
that
anumber of amend-
ments were made in the House of Commons dealing with in-
creases in penalty provisions.
For
some reason, Isuppose due
to
pressure,
the language of
three
of those amendments varied.
It
became aquestion of determining
whether
this
variety
in
terms
to describe fines
and
sentences conflicted with ageneral
statement
in the Criminal Code indicating
that
a
trial
judge
is not obliged to impose a fixed
penalty
unless
it
is
said
to be
a fixed penalty. A
judge
may
impose a fine of $1 million or,
in
default
of payment, 15
years'
imprisonment.
In
other
words,
under
the Criminal Code the
judge
has
discretion. We
were concerned
with
the
variety
of
language
used.
The
judge
in the first instance
might
feel
there
was
an
intention on the
part
of
Parliament
to superimpose these penalties
and
sen-
tences,
and
therefore
destroy
the
effectiveness of this discre-
tionary
provision in
the
Criminal Code.
The
minister
gave an
undertaking
that
when we reach
Phase
II
this whole
matter
of the language to describe these
fines
and
imprisonment
terms
will be reviewed with
the
object
of making
it
uniform.
In
the circumstances, we felt
that
those
To continue reading
Request your trial