1933-03-29

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton) :: 1.	Were any complaints received by the chief electoral officer for Canada from any candidate for election to the House of Commons for the constituency of South Oxford in the last Dominion general election, held on July 28, 1930?
2.	Were such complaints, if made, transmitted or reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons?
3.	What were those complaints?
4.	If such complaints were received by the chief electoral officer, why were they not reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons ?
5.	What was the name of the returning officer for the constituency of South Oxford in the election of 1930, and does he still hold that position?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	(a) Delay in supplying a list of deputy returning officers to one of the candidates; (b) Default by the returning officer in sending out a declaration of the election.
4.	Because the chief electoral officer having been asked by the candidate to indicate what action should be taken, had a few days before making his report advised the institution of proceedings and assumed that his suggestion was being followed.
5.	(a) Frank H. Harris, of Mount Elgin, Ont.; (b) Yes.


TRENT RIVER DAMS
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Have tenders been called for replacing dams 4 and 5 on the Trent river, north of Peterborough ?
2.	If any tenders have been accepted, who was the successful tenderer?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to replace one of these wooden dams with a concrete dam this year?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	As to dam 4 (now dam 23): No; this is a new concrete dam completed in 1927. As to darn 5 (now dam 22): Yes.
2.	The successful tenderer for dam 5 (now dam 22) was Mr. W. J. Kitts, Toronto.
3.	Construction of dam 5 (now dam 22) will be proceeded with under Mr. W. J. Kitts' contract this year.


* HYDRO POWER EXPORT
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Has the government been advised of the introduction of a bill providing for the export of hydro power to the United States in the Legislative Assembly of the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, does the Dominion government propose to take any action in connection with this matter ?


Mr. BENNETT:: The first part of this
question, if answered with a written answer, might be open to a wrong construction. As is known, the governments of the several provinces forward to departments of the federal government copies of bills as introduced, but no formal intimation has been given by the government of Quebec of the introduction into the legislature of that province of any bill dealing with the matter mentioned in the question.
The second part of the question as to what action the Dominion government might take in the premises, is answered by the statement that nothing which the province could legally do would divest the federal government of its jurisdiction under the appropriate statute, in this case, the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.	.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What punishment was given constables Humphrey, Spencer, and Sennia, of the R.C.M.P., by the police officials for the offences of which they were convicted on the 15th day of March, 1933, by Stipendiary Barnhill of Halifax?
2.	How many cases have arisen since the organization of the R.C.M.P. in Nova Scotia where the constables of the force have been fined or punished by their superior officers?
3.	What are the names of the constables so punished?
4.	"What was the nature of the offences for which they were punished in each case?
5.	What was the penalty imposed in each case?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Constables Humphrey, Spencer and Sin-nema were found guilty of being found in a

Motions for Papers
boarding house where liquor was said to be for sale at Halifax and were fined $5 each by Superintendent C. D. LaNauze on March 3, 1933.
2,	3, 4 and 5. It is not deemed to be in the public interest to furnish the details in the internal discipline of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Mil. NEREE PERRON


Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Has Mr. Neree Perron, postmaster of St-Felieien, county of Lake St-John, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	If any complaint -was lodged against him fa) what was the nature of such complaint; (b) who lodged same?
4.	Did one Joseph Gilbert, of Dolbeau, lodge a complaint?
5. If so, what was the nature of such complaint?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Dismissal authorized by order in council, but not yet effected.
2.	Postmaster found guilty of active political partisanship by commissioner.
3.	Request was transferred to the department by Mr. Duguay, M.P.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.


CROMOCTO, N.B., RURAL ROUTE NO. 3
Mr. RRADETTE:: What is the yearly amount paid for the carrying^ of mail at Oromocto, rural route No. 3, New Brunswick?


Air. SAUVE:: S921 per annum.


WOOL PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND EXPORTS
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What quantity of wool was produced in Canada in the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, in pounds, as purchased from the producer?
2.	What quantity was (a) consumed in Canada; (b) exported to other countries?


Air. STEVENS:: The wool clip was as follows:	1929, 20,-
253.000	pounds; 1930, 21,016.000 pounds; 1931,
20.365.000	pounds; 1932, 20,518,000 pounds.
No statistics are available showing the
amount purchased from the producer.
(a)	Estimated consumption:	1929, 14,193,-
175 pounds; 1930, 16,634,246 pounds; 1931, 15,595,426 pounds; 1932, 16,805,531 pounds.
(b)	Exported to other countries: (calendar years) 1929, 6,089,825 pounds; 1930, 4,381,754 pounds; 1931, 4,769.574 pounds; 1932, 3,712,469 pounds.
53719-222J


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MacLEAN:: What is the per capita amount paid to each province under the Unemployment Relief Act on the basis of population in each province for the past three years or since the short session of 1930, as follows (a) direct relief; (b) public works; (c) loans to farmers;^ (d) loans to provinces; (e) loans to corporations; (f) total for all purposes in percentage of population in each province?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FONTAINE (for Air. Fournier) moved:: For a copy of all regulations laid down by the Dominion Fire Commissioner's office respecting match factories; also copy of all documents, communications, telegrams and letters addressed by the Dominion Fire Commissioner's office to match manufacturers requesting compliance with said regulations and any reply made 'by said manufacturers to such request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No period of time is
specified. I suppose the hon. member means within a reasonable time, I presume the last two years.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As the hon. member who sponsors the motion is not present, it had better stand.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The leader of the opposition suggests that two years is ample. With that understanding, the motion might pass.


[Stage Direction]
Alotion agreed to.
veteran's UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and resolutions, emanating from ex-service men's associations throughout Canada dealing *with veterans' unemployment relief, and received by the Prime Alindster, the Alinister of Pensions and National Health or the Department of Pensions and National Health, from October 1, 1932, to date.


NEWPORT POINT, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, affidavits, telegrams and other documents respecting the change made in connection with the post office at Newport Point, in the county of Gaspe, since 1930.
Income Tax


STE-ANGELIQUE, QUEBEC FOST OFFICE
Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams and other documents, respecting the removal of the post office and the changing of the postmaster at Ste-Angelique, parish of St-Rasile, in the county of Portneuf, during the present year.


LOBSTER FISHING-GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY
Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents passing between the Acting Minister of Fisheries or any of his officials of the department at Ottawa, and any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia or elsewhere, regarding the opening of the lobster season, in the district between dole Harbour, in the county of Halifax, and Cape Argos, in the county of Guysborough, on April the first, 1933, instead of April the 20th.


CORRECTION-MR. ILSLEY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a correction in part of the speech I made last night on the budget. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) interjected the remark, at page 3497 of Hansard:
They got four shillings sixpence per barrel more than the Americans did.
I understood him to say not that, but that they got four shillings and sixpence per barrel more than they otherwise would have, and I replied accordingly. My reply to the interjection would have been different but for that misunderstanding.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of any new tax there is bound at its inception to be some confusion, if only in getting the mechanics into proper and smooth operation. That difficulty is accentuated in the case of bearer bonds which are held in varying amounts by large numbers of people throughout the world. Having that in mind the commissioner of income tax on March 23 prepared a document entitled "A brief interim summary of the budget proposals with respect to ownership certificates and deduction of the five per cent tax at the source." Several

hundreds of these have been circulated to the Canadian banks and to certain financial and trust companies in Canada. They have also been forwarded in ample time to New York, and to-day they arrive in the city of London, England, with instructions that they be reprinted there in French for circulation in France. One paragraph only of this document I desire to read:
There is no deduction in respect of interest paid on bonds of Dominion of Canada issued free of income tax or upon interest on bonds paid by the Canadian National Railways wherein the Canadian National Railways or any of its subsidiaries undertakes to pay any tax imposed Upon the holder thereof, these payments requiring no covering ownership certificates, either forms 600 or 601.
I desire in addition to make it very clear that it is not intended that the five per cent tax shall apply in the case of a foreign holder of a bond of the Dominion of Canada which in terms provides that the dominion shall pay an amount certain; also in the case of British or foreign non-resident holders of bearer coupons and share warrants, unless the holder requests an ownership certificate, such coupon and share warrants may be cashed without the necessity of ownership certificates being attached. It is understood, however, that the five per cent tax must be withheld by the paying agent.
Of necessity these documents had to be printed somewhat hurriedly, and as a sufficient number is not available at the moment for every hon. member of the house, I desire to lay on the table -two copies in English, stating at the same time that as soon as possible a larger number will be available both in English and French. I desire also for the information of the house to lay on the table in English and French specimen copies of the ownership certificates which will be required to be attached to these documents.


BEAUHARNOIS POWER COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he or the government has been made aware of a proposed financial reorganization of Beauharnois, and if eo has the government or the Prime Minister approved of the same?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The $30,000,000, bondholders of Beauharnois Power Corporation, after default in the payment of interest, met together and, as is usual in such cases, and in accordance

Central Gold Reserve Trustees
with the provisions of the trust deed, appointed a committee to deal with the situation that arose because of the default in payment of such interest. The committee has fixed upon a plan which will be submitted to the bondholders for their approval. The government does not conceive it to be its duty to undertake to determine what the bondholders must determine for themselves, but the government has discharged the duty which it undertook to discharge, namely, to protect the debenture holders or the collateral trust gold bondholders, as they were called, to the extent of enabling them to make their own arrangements with respect to their own property. I could have amplified this statement, but the hon. gentleman did not give me any notice of his question, and I am speaking entirely from memory with respect to the matter, but I think I have correctly indicated the position.
SOLDIERS' PENSIONS On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question
to direct to the hon. Minister of Finance. On Friday, March 24, the minister, in answer to a question by the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) relating to the announcement in the budget regarding veterans' pensions, said that he would have a statement to make to parliament dealing with same. Seeing that a further conference has taken place between the associated veterans and the government concerning the cut in disability pensions, may I ask the minister if he has anything conclusive to tell the house and country as to what the intentions of the government are on this very important matter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is wrong in his statement of facts. The further conference with the heads of the veteran organizations which met the government has not yet taken place. After it does take place, the house will be advised in due course and in conformity with the statement I made to my 'hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa.
CENTRAL GOLD RESERVE TRUSTEES On the orders of the day:


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked who were the trustees of the central gold reserve. I indicated that I was not then in a position to answer him with accuracy, but I find that the trustees are the Royal Trust Company,
the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank of Canada. Each of these organizations delegates one of its officers to act as its representative in connection with the central gold reserve. The Deputy Minister of Finance whom I mentioned in that regard is responsible only for audit and checking, and not as a trustee.


CONSERVATION OF HERRING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) made inquiries as to regulations concerning the conservation of herring and processes of salting, canning, and so forth. He wanted to know if new regulations had been adopted since, I presume, the amendments which were made last session to the Fish Inspection Act. The answer is that by order in council of November 7 last, the regulations have been amended in order to conform with the amendments made to the act. I have in my hand a memorandum giving the different changes which I shall be glad to forward to my hon. friend or to lay on the table of the house.	[DOT]


Mr. VENIOT:: Please forward it.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR FISHERMEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: May I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if he will kindly tell me in a word what arrangement has been arrived at in the province of Quebec regarding technical education for fishermen at Gaspe and other ports of the province?


Alfred Duranleau: On Monday a conference took place between the Minister of Fisheries of the province of Quebec with his officials and the Acting Minister of Fisheries at Ottawa with his officials. We have discussed at length the question of giving to the French element not only of the province of Quebec but also of New Brunswick and the Magdalen islands the opportunity to get proper instructions as to curing fish. Though we have not come to a definite conclusion our discussions were very cordial, and I believe will lead to reasonable arrangements in that direction.


Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, in that connection I should like to ask another question. In a dispatch appearing in a newspaper which I saw yesterday it is stated that there has been a decision
3512	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
to open and maintain a biological station at Gaspe, and that that was one of the conclusions arrived at when the conference took place. Is that so?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, no
definite arrangement was made. The suggestions, winch appear to be satisfactory to our department in Ottawa, were that a couple of French Canadians would >be sent to the school at Halifax, there to receive training during the year. Afterwards the biological board would open a branch at Gaspe at which those two French Canadians would be teachers of the inspectors and fishermen speaking the French language. I hope a definite arrangement will be concluded to that effect, because I understand it would involve a very small expense, perhaps only $8,000 or $10,000 a year. In that event the province would supply the school building.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I ask the minister
if Conservatives will be appointed?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minster of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 53, to amend the criminal code (offensive weapons).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Offensive weapons.
Mr. LAPOINTE':	May I ask the minister
whether this bill is the same that was passed by the Senate on two or three occasions in recent years?
Mr. GUTHRIE:: No. I believe this bill
has originated in the Department of Justice in response to many requests which have come from municipal bodies, boards of trade and various other societies throughout Canada, asking that more drastic legislation be passed in regard to the use or carrying of pistols and revolvers. Requests which from time to time have come in have been very sweeping, and the penalties which we have been requested to impose have been very severe. However, after consultation with the law officers of the Department of Justice, with representatives of the various police associations and with the officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police it has been decided to introduce the present measure, particularly directed against pistols and revolvers on the

one hand and offensive weapons on the other. In the bill there is a distinction between pistols and revolvers and what are known as offensive weapons. The term "offensive weapon" is defined in the criminal code as follows:
"Offensive weapon" or "weapon" includes any gnn or other fire arm, or air-gun, or any part thereof, or any sword, sword blade, bayonet, pike, pike-head, spear, spear-head, dirk, dagger, knife, or other instrument intended for cutting or stabbing, or any metal knuckles, or other deadly or dangerous weapon, and any instrument or thing intended to be used as a weapon, and all ammunition which may be used with or for any weapon.
We are maintaining the clauses against the use of offensive weapons, but are presenting new clauses in regard to pistols and revolvers as distinct from other offensive weapons. One request which has come from all quarters of Canad'a is that we should pass an enactment in the House of Commons to prevent the importation, manufacture and sale of pistols and revolvers. As the house will readily understand, if we were to attempt legislation of that kind we should immediately be confronted with constitutional difficulties. However it is perhaps some satisfaction to know that the question of the importation of such weapons is at the present time subject to permit; such weapons cannot be imported into Canada to-day without a permit issued by the Department of National Revenue. On the other hand it must give some satisfaction to know that to-day there is no manufacture whatever of pistols or revolvers in the Dominion of Canada. So that at the present time we are relieved from any difficulty on that score.
The other matter is one of sale, namely whether or not we have the power to prevent sale within the provinces. That is a nice question. In this bill we have sought to regulate the sale, without actually prohibiting it, and we believe that in the regulations proposed in the bill we are within our constitutional rights. There are some amendments which will have to be offered as the bill proceeds, and I think as we have now reached the first section we might mention the first amendment which presents itself.
The penalty imposed by the first section for the carrying of a pistol or revolver is a term of imprisonment of five years. I think the house will agree that the penalty is rather severe. Five years or more was the penalty suggested by the petitioners, but on this section I propose to ask that it be amended by fixing the term at from one to not more than five years, thereby giving the court or judge some discretion in the matter.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Mr. EULER:: Is it within the discretion
of the magistrate or the court to impose a sentence of less than a year, or can he pass a suspended sentence, or anything of that sort?


Hugh Guthrie: Of course a judge has
power to suspend sentence, unless we take away that power. But the idea was that a man who is carrying 'concealed weapons should be subject to a term of one year for the offence but not more than five. I am sorry to say that according to the reports from the police associations of various cities in Canada the number of persons found carrying pistols and revolvers has in recent years very largely increased. It is the commonest thing now when a man is arrested for crime, upon searching him in the police court, to discover that he has in his possession a pistol or revolver. He may be a man with a long criminal record. The present penalties for carrying such a weapon are not considered very severe. It is felt that if restrictions are placed upon the sale, and greater penalties are imposed for the offence of carrying, the traffic in these weapons will at least be considerably diminished.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Section 1 replaces eleven sections of the criminal code by new sections. I suggest that we should take every section individually.


Hugh Guthrie: It does not replace them all by new sections. Many are just repetitions of the old.


Ernest Lapointe: But it is better to adopt each one separately.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I understand this action is being taken largely on the recommendation of the various police associations?


Hugh Guthrie: No; I did not intend to convey that idea. I consulted some police associations, but the action is taken on the representation of city councils, boards of trade and other organizations of the kind throughout Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no objection whatever to making the law as stringent as may be necessary, with regard to the carrying of arms. But there is one point I should like to raise, and it is this: What sort of regulation is there with regard to the carrying of revolvers and pistols by the police themselves? In the old country, as a good many know, the ordinary police constables do not carry revolvers. They have batons merely. A few days ago in the city of Montreal there was brought to our notice an outrageous case of
a man being shot during the course of an eviction. I understand he was shot in the back by a police constable named Zappa. According to the press it seems there was a man there who had got behind in his rent owing to the compensation board not being prompt in paying him, and he was being evicted. A boarder went to the house to rescue some of his own personal belongings. Just what took place is not clear; according to the police he resisted; according to bystanders he had nothing whatever in his hand, and made no resistance. However, the fact is he was shot. Later there was a most disgraceful scene: It seems to be established by the reports of nearly all the papers in Montreal that at the time of the funeral, when some of the friends and sympathizers of the man who had thus been shot were proceeding with the cortege, the police intervened and broke up the funeral procession, using extreme violence, women and children being brutally knocked down. There was said by the papers to be no riot whatever and nothing in the way of disorder in the procession until the police intervened. That particular incident, to which a great deal of publicity was given in all the Montreal papers, both English and French, seems to point to the need of some supervision of the police themselves. If we are going to insist, as I think we should, that ordinary civilians do not go around armed with revolvers, I do not think it is fair that the police should be armed without having definite restrictions placed upon them. As I said a while ago, we talk about British traditions; police constables in England are not armed, they are in the United States, and apparently we are introducing that kind of thing here. I submit that one of the reasons we have armed criminals in this country is that they know they have to deal with constables who are armed with lethal weapons. I would like to see the government hold the police responsible.


Mr. HANBURY:: May it be the reverse,
that the police are armed because so many people are armed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I do not want to be misunderstood-I hope this measure passes. At the same time I think there ought to be very much more definite control of the police themselves. That one instance of a man shot in the back without any clear evidence that he was resisting arrest is sufficient, I think, to make any one who has any idea of British traditions rebel against the idea of the police being given such a free hand. This policeman, according to his own
3514	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
statement, became angry and shot the man. We have courts to decide whether or not a man is guilty, and we have certain officers charged with executing judgment, but certainly the task of the police is not that of judge and executioner. If a man is to be killed let him be executed after his case has gone through the regular judicial process.


An hon. MEMBER:: After he has been
shot.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, not after he
is shot. Of course the police ought to be protected and to have a fair break, but I submit that in the drafting of this legislation there should be some provision by which guns should not be permitted even to the police except under strict supervision, the police being made definitely responsible for their use. I would say that the policeman who shoots a man in the back, I do not care if he is an officer, is cowardly, and you are not going to get respect for the law as long as the police are allowed liberty of that kind.


Hugh Guthrie: If the question was
addressed to me, I may say that the control of provincial police and municipal police is strictly within the powers of the various provincial governments. The provisions of this bill as it is drafted apply to all persons, but there is a provision therein that permits for the carrying of revolvers for the protection of life and property may be granted by the attorneys general of the various provinces, and if in the judgment of the provincial authorities police forces should not be armed they will not be armed. On the other hand if the various provincial authorities think their police forces should be armed they can grant the necessary permits. But that is hardly a matter that concerns this federal parliament. We have not sought in any way to interfere with the jurisdiction either of the municipalities or of the provinces in respect to police matters.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But I think that
hardly answers my point. This is general legislation applying to every citizen, every individual in this country. We have here still another example of division of jurisdiction. This is federal legislation, yet when it comes to dealing with the particular class that we call police constables we are told that it is entirely a provincial matter, I think the body that legislates on behalf of the great mass of the people should also provide adequate restrictions for the granting of permits even to police officers.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The minister's remarks regarding provincial authority over their own police may be quite in order. Yet we have at this time a decided growth in the duties and work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is taking over police jurisdiction in various localities. I believe that every one in this house is thoroughly in accord with any legislation designed to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. It is an evil which we have acquired from our neighbours to the south. None of us believes in it in any way, shape or form. Only a very few decades ago you would not find a policeman on the streets of any American or Canadian city with the two gun holsters exposed. The whole business of gun carrying has been much increased simply by the ostentatious display of weapons by the police. Of late years the Ontario provincial police have gone to an absolutely absurd length in this regard. In small towns and country districts all through Ontario, for the first time in history we now see provincial police going around with a holster and two exposed guns. The thing is absurd from any angle. There are no dangerous criminals in the rural districts of Ontario, and the duties of our police do not demand the carrying of either concealed or exposed weapons. The idea of using guns in dealing with thugs and gunmen in some of the large cities may be quite justified, but the work performed by the provincial police of Ontario does not demand the use of weapons.
I thoroughly agree with the general remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the carrying of revolvers by police, which is an American system absolutely opposed to the whole idea of police methods in Great Britain, has induced the use of revolvers by a great many people who have no need of them. I do submit to the Minister of Justice that the department of police over which he has jurisdiction, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have erred very little in the display of revolvers, and I hope the minister will see that they continue this practice. It does seem to me, however, that when the mounted police can do their work without the use of firearms the minister would be quite justified in asking the provincial governments to pass concurrent legislation to prevent their police forces from making such a display of firearms as we see throughout the country today.


Charles Marcil: In justice to the government of Quebec which is charged with the maintenance of law and order in that province I should like to say that yesterday in the

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
legislature the premier, referring to the case *to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has alluded, declared that the matter had been fully investigated by a judge of the sessions in Montreal as well as by a coroner's jury, and that in both cases this policeman had been exonerated from any blame in the matter. I do not know anything of the matter more than that. It was also stated yesterday, and endorsed by the leader of the opposition in the legislature, that the laws for the maintenance of order in the province of Quebec would be revised in order to give some protection to the citizens of 'that province against the actions of the foreign element which has come to Quebec in the last few years. This brings the matter to a head. Our province has had the reputation of being very peaceful and law-abiding; everyone wants it to remain so, but those who read the Montreal papers no doubt are aware that there is a very strong communistic element now established in that city, and certain things which have occurred lately have brought this matter to the attention of the government, who intend to deal with it.
With regard to the carrying of firearms, as the Minister of Justice properly said, there is a question of jurisdiction. The province of Quebec has its own police force; the Dominion government has its police force. If the Dominion government wishes to authorize its men to carry firearms it has full power to do so, and the province may do the same thing. The cities, if they wish their police to be armed, must obtain the authority of the legislatures of the provinces. This is a complicated question, but I have lived in the city of Montreal for many years, and I have often wondered why the windows of the pawnshops and second hand stores were permitted to be filled with cast off revolvers selling for a dollar, a dollar and a half or two dollars. Who should control this? I have no doubt this matter has been inquired into by the Minister of Justice, but that is where the cheap revolver is obtained which is used by the man committing a crime. If a way could be found to curtail the sale of firearms except by properly authorized and responsible persons I think a great forward step would be taken.


Ernest Lapointe: That is provided for in
this bill.


Charles Marcil: The ex-Minister of Justice
tells me that this is dealt with in the bill now before us, and I am glad to hear it. With the recent fires and other occurrences in
Montreal the people have come to realize that something must be done to maintain the reputation of Canada and her citizens, and I am glad that this matter is being taken up now.


Mr. REID:: I am afraid that I must differ with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for North Bruce. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was not quite correct when he told the house that the policemen in England are not armed. It is true that for generations the members of the police forces of the old country were not allowed to carry arms, but a wave of crime has swept the old country, with bandits going around with guns, and to-day many of the metropolitan cities are arming their policemen with guns in order to combat this wave of crime. I have in my hand some statistics with regard to Vancouver, and I believe this house will be startled to learn that in the first eleven months of 1932 there were 411 armed holdups in that city. Out there life and limb are not safe. Some of the bandits are so cruel that if they hold up a man who has no money they beat him almost to death with their guns. They leave the cities in fast motor cars and go to peaceful settlements where, at the point of the gun, they hold up storekeepers and beat them up if they have not enough money to satisfy the bandits. I think it would be a dastardly crime to leave our local policemen without some means of protection against these bandits.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in support of this bill, and I should have liked to see it go even further. In connection with these holdup men I believe most of those who are caught are hardened criminals. I have a reference before me to the case of one man who admitted that he had been in one hundred holdups. How are we to deal with that sort of people if we have not some protection? I believe in drastic measures if we are to have any protection at all against these thugs and bandits, and certainly I believe in arming local policemen.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think all members of this house hope the time will come when our policemen will not need to be armed, but when we have so many men going around the country carrying arms I think it would be a shame and a disgrace to take from our policemen their means of protecting the lives of our citizens. The hon. member for New Westminster has just referred to the holdups that took place in Vancouver during the first eleven months of 1932. These figures were
3516	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
furnished to me, and I believe to other members of the house, by Mr. Charles Delbridge, who was police commissioner of that city for the year 1932. Of the 411 holdups 324 were carried out with arms, and there were 23 attempted armed holdups. There we have over eighty per cent of the total holdups in Vancouver during that period carried out with the use of arms. Then there were twenty cases in which it was doubtful whether or not arms were used; the attempt was made to convince the victim that the holdup man was armed.
I think this all goes to prove the necessity for some legislation such as we have before us to-day. Perhaps in Vancouver our population is a little more cosmopolitan than it is in some other centres, but certainly there we have been victims of the holdup artists.


Charles Marcil: The same thing applies to Montreal.


Wilfred Hanbury: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre inquired from the minister whether this legislation was advocated and supported by police boards in various parts of Canada. I should say that perhaps it is, but in addition to that, it is being supported by members of the council and, on my part, by one member of this House of Commons, and I think it is legislation that we should have. The city council of Vancouver has on several occasions advocated legislation along this line and, like the hon. member for New Westminster, I do not think we can make the law in this regard too drastic. The minister is suggesting an amendment whereby he is going to fix the gaol term from one to five years. It is conceivable that a man might inadvertently be carrying a weapon with him and in that case perhaps it might work an injustice to put him in gaol for a period of five years. On the other hand, the man who is carrying an offensive weapon should show good cause for having it in his possession, and if he has it for offensive purposes, against the peace of the people of this country, I do not think five years is too long. Indeed, if I had my way, I would put him in gaol for the rest of his life. The man who goes around with an offensive weapon is a potential murderer;
I do not look upon him in any other way. I hope the minister will keep this legislation as drastic as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree with the provisions of this bill, and more particularly with the provision that the attorney general of the province should have the right to issue permits either to the police or to other persons carrying offensive weapons.


Mr. MITCHELL:: In my opinion there is absolutely no reason why any civilian should carry arms. I have never owned a weapon in my life and I do not believe there is any reason for anyone to own firearms. The man w'ho carries around a firearm is a moral coward. My hon. friend from one of the British Columbia constituencies spoke of people who might carry arms inadvertently. It seems to me that if we leave that loophole in the legislation to take care of such cases everyone who is arrested under this law will endeavour to get from under by invoking that amendment. What I want to point out in connection with the Montreal case however is that this man had no opportunity to defend himself. It cannot be said that he carried arms. He was absolutely unarmed and was shot in the back.


Mr. JEAN:: That is not correct.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is.


Joseph Jean: No. The case was heard before Magistrate Cusson who heard twenty witnesses and offered to hear as many more as might come forward, and he absolutely justified Constable Zappa in the action he had taken.


Humphrey Mitchell: This man was unarmed.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: He had picked
up an iron bar.


Humphrey Mitchell: I still maintain that
he was unarmed. I absolutely agree with the contention that it is unnecessary for the police force of the country to walk around armed like soldiers in the midst of a war. It may be necessary under certain circumstances for them to carry arms, and I am not one of those who would suggest that the police force should not sometimes be armed. I should like to know however what proportion of the men who took part in holdups in Vancouver district *were natives of this country.


Wilfred Hanbury: That does not alter the position.


Humphrey Mitchell: The responsibility rests with the police forces of the country to see to it that there is no unnecessary display of arms on their part. Any such display is in my opinion utterly wrong. I do not think it is a good thing to display arms to boys who, particularly at this time, have very little to do. In my opinion this legislation should if possible have some stipulations along that line.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for East Hamilton have not stated correctly the facts in connection with this

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
case as they are known in Montreal, when they say that the matter was not thoroughly investigated, and that the action of the constable was not justified. As the hon. member for Bonaventure said, after this unfortunate incident occurred the matter was taken to a judge of the sessions and some twenty witnesses were heard in regard to the warrant that was applied for by some of the friends of the man who had been killed. They wished to charge the constable with manslaughter. The result of the investigation thoroughly justified the action of the constable. This man had been visited on three occasions because he was behind in his rent and on the third occasion such action was taken as the law required. On his eviction, this disorderly crowd in Montreal-and as the hon. member for Bonaventure says, it is growing in numbers-decided to take the law into its own hands. Now, we pride ourselves in Montreal on our police force, which has properly maintained law and order and, I hope, will continue to do so. The constable in question resorted to the only means open to him when someone in the crowd picked up an iron bar to strike down his fellow constable. When they applied for a warrant charging the accused constable with manslaughter, the facts were thoroughly reviewed and it was found that he had merely attempted to protect one of his own fellow constables from being murdered by one of the crowd who had picked up this iron bar, or at any rate from sustaining severe bodily injury. He took his revolver and threatened the crowd in order to keep them back; otherwise he would shoot. They came on despite the warning, and in order to save his comrade he was obliged to shoot this man. That is the whole case, and when hon. members try to leave the impression with the house that the police in Montreal are overstepping their bounds and that murder is being committed by members of the force, I, as a member from Montreal, would ask hon. gentlemen to state all the facts and not half of them.


Mr. YOUNG:: How did the policeman shoot this man in the back if the man was coming on?


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was not present, but if the hon. member knows more about the judiciary of Montreal than I do I would ask him to get the facts. I am not a judge.


Edward James Young: I simply ask my hon. friend to explain how the man happened to be shot in the back if he was coming on.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If the hon. gentleman wishes to get the evidence I shall be glad to send it to him. Do I understand that he also agrees with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Edward James Young: That is not an answer to my question. I simply want to know how the man was shot in the back if he was coming on.


Leslie Gordon Bell: How do you
know?


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he shot in the back?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I am absolutely in favour of the principle of this bill. The only fault I would find with it would be in regard to the undue burden that may be placed upon those whose business it is to sell these various weapons. I do believe the time has come when those whose duty it is to protect the lives and property of our citizens should themselves be safeguarded. The whole discussion with regard to the unfortunate incident that has occurred is altogether beside the question. I think that those who are charged with the enforcement of the law have heretofore shown good judgment in the discharge of their duties. Sometimes when the circumstances are such that it may be extremely difficult to determine just what line of action they ought to take, they may have to act rather quickly, but I would very much prefer quick action on the part of an officer of the law in the discharge of his duty to the quick drawing of a revolver by a thug. For that reason I will support this measure.


Mr. MacINNIS:: To the general tenor of
this bill I do not believe there can be any serious opposition. We all agree, I believe, it is unnecessary for the ordinary civilian to have firearms in his possession or that such firearms should be bought and sold for the purpose of carrying them around for one's own protection or for use for other purposes. But if we take the view that merely passing legislation of this kind will prevent holdups and holdups with violence, we are very much mistaken, because such holdups will take place, not because those who are staging them wish to do so, but becauses the pressure of circumstances drives them to that extreme.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: Just a moment. Anyone who does not agree with this point of view need not accept it; but let me point out present conditions in this country. The fact that the number of inmates in our peniten-
3518	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
tiaries and gaols is increasing by leaps and bounds is due, not to badness of heart, if you like, or to criminal tendencies on the part of our people, but to the economic position in which our people find themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Angus MacInnis: Of course it is. As a
matter of fact, any one who knows anything at all knows it to be the case. If we believe this legislation will prevent that sort of thing, it undoubtedly will not do anything of the kind. The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned that bandits in British Columbia not only held up people at the point of a gun, but if they found those people did not have any money, beat them up. The bandits, in doing that, are only taking a leaf out of the book of the state. The state deprives a man of the means of livelihood and then, when it finds him walking the street, it arrests him and sentences him for vagrancy.
A few years ago when I was on the Vancouver city council, I remember a young man of twenty being brought into court because he had been sleeping in a Canadian Pacific Railway freight car. When he was asked why he slept in a freight car, he said: "I had no money to buy a bed; I had no other place to sleep and I had to sleep somewhere." Despite that fact, the magistrate who, I believe, had no alternative, sentenced him to two or three months in gaol. These are the conditions we make and we shall not do away with them simply by passing legislation of this kind. I do not wish it to be understood that I am opposed to the general tenor of this measure, but I am opposed to an attempt to do by legislation something which can be done only by improving the conditions of the people.


Mr. BAKER:: Does the hon. member
claim that holdups and murder are justified because of poverty?


Angus MacInnis: Decidedly not.


Richard Langton Baker: That is what I understood him to say.


Angus MacInnis: I am not saying anything of the kind. I say that people act according to the conditions in which they find themselves. If we want to make people good, we must improve conditions. That is what I say and what any person who has any understanding of psychology says.


Mr. BROWN:: I am heartily in accord with the general principle of the bill, but I should like to know, if the minister can tell us, precisely the position people will find

themselves in under section 118. Perhaps some of us might have to interpret the law to some of our friends. Section 118 reads:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than five years who, not having a permit in form 76, has upon his person elsewhere than in his own dwelling house, shop, warehouse, counting house, or premises-
That provision might be interpreted as indicating that he might have one in his own dwelling house or upon his own premises.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Albert Joseph Brown: It is not an unknown thing for a man on a farm to have a revolver in his house. Would he be allowed to carry it on his own farm?


Hugh Guthrie: On his own premises.


Albert Joseph Brown: Suppose a farmer owns two or three quarter sections of land and has occasion to cross the road allowance or to go some distance from one to another, he would be liable, I presume, as long as he was not actually on his own premises?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I am heartily in accord with the provisions of this measure. As a matter of 'fact, I may be extreme, but I am not particularly in favour of the reduction of the penalty suggested by the minister. That, however, may be by the way. I think the minister might go a step further and have permits issued for those weapons, no matter where they are. I do not think the mere fact that an individual is allowed to have them in his house or place of business without a permit is sufficient. That provides a place for the weapon to be stored and this may be a convenience to an individual who does not want it altogether for his own protection. I should like the minister to go a step further and provide that no individual under any circumstances should be in possession o.f one of these weapons except under a permit.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I should like to oppose that because it might mean a great deal of hardship. Nearly all returned soldiers have souvenirs, such as revolvers, of which there are probably four or five thousand in this *country. To make all those people take out permits for weapons they never use, that are simply stuck away in a closet as souvenirs, is heartless.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
see that it is any hardship upon a person who desires to have on his premises a weapon, that that fact should be known by reason of

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
his holding a permit, the authorities thus being made aware of the fact. The difficulty is 'that if this bill goes through in its present form, persons who frequently use these weapons for purposes which sometimes end in murder, will keep them in their residences and take them out when they wish to use them. I do not agree with my hon. friend that it would be any terrible hardship on anyone to have to secure a permit if he wants to keep a weapon on his premises.


Peter McGibbon: The law is no good unless it has a penalty attached. People will forget to get a permit, and the first thing they know they will find themselves in the police court and a fine will be imposed. I do not think that is fair because these weapons are practically useless from a defensive standpoint. They are kept largely as souvenirs, and are probably rusty and incapable of being used.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winipeg South Centre):: I am very much interested in the point just raised by the hon. member for West Edmonton and under discussion by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. I think it would be a mistake to make it a crime to have a revolver on your premises or in your home. The hon. member for West Edmonton is quite logical when he says that if that were made a crime those who now have revolvers could take out permits, but the fact is, from a practical point of view, if you make it a crime it will not come to the attention of the great majority of these people who now have them.
The point raised by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario is a very, very practical one. It is quite true that all over this country there are revolvers in homes, particularly in those of the men who served in the Canadian forces overseas, and they are being kept there not with any criminal intent or for any specific purpose, but as souvenirs. I know that one, of the best souvenirs a service man returning from the front could bring home, one that was coveted by them and is in the homes of many who served, is a revolver, particularly a revolver taken from the enemy. They are in the homes of nearly all the ex-service men. They are in the haversacks of the soldiers in garrets. Now if you make it a crime for them to have a revolver in their homes, unwittingly they will become criminals and be subject to the penalty. I think, therefore, it should not be made an offence to have them in a man's home. To do so would be an injustice; you would be legislating into the criminal class thousands upon thousands of innocent citizens of Canada who are guilty of no offence whatever. I strongly oppose any such amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: In regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend from West Edmonton I may say that his proposal was pretty well considered. Originally it was provided that a man might have a pistol in his home, on the theory I suppose that a Canadian's home is his castle, just like an Englishman's, and that he has the right to have anything in it and to act as he likes in his home. Certainly his first duty is to defend his own home.


Charles A. Stewart: He cannot have a still in his home.


Hugh Guthrie: But the consideration
that weighed in discussing this matter was the one raised by my hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario. It was estimated by men who may know that there are probably a quarter of a million homes in this country where there are souvenir revolvers of the great war. One suggestion which was made by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was that all such weapons should be registered, that the number and the make of the particular pistol or revolver should be reported to the police and registered at some central office so that if it ever became necessary its ownership could be traced. However, it was considered that that involved a great deal of work, and probably of unnecessary work. After considering the matter from every angle we decided that pistols in houses and warehouses and private premises should be permitted to remain there. So long as they stay there, they are no menace to the public.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: There is no question about it that pistols in private houses or in warehouses or in any other place, so long as they remain there and are not used, are probably no menace, as the minister says, but the point that was raised by the hon. member for West Edmonton is one that had occurred to me.


Hugh Guthrie: I forgot to say that
certain of our provinces provide that you must have a permit to have such a weapon in your home; Alberta, for instance.


John Campbell Elliott: That is just the point.
The danger from these revolvers, of course, is not when they are remaining unused in the home or in the warehouse, but when they are used. They can be so easily obtained and used, and then they become a danger.


Mr. POULIOT:: The danger is when they are loaded.


John Campbell Elliott: Even then the danger is
not so great unless the trigger is drawn, and the pistol used. I see that one of the places
3520	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
where revolvers are frequently found is not mentioned in the act at all; that is, if a man has a revolver in a motor car. That would not be on- his person because I take it from the description of the revolver on the person that it means in a pocket or concealed somewhere in the clothing of the person, but frequently those who are travelling in motor cars and tenting out at night find it advisable to carry a revolver with them. Is it necessary that a permit should be obtained for a revolver so carried in a motor car? That would not foe covered by any of the places mentioned in the bill. The revolver would be in a vehicle in which revolvers are, unfortunately, frequently considered to be required at the present time. It would not be in the residence. Has the minister considered that phase?


Hugh Guthrie: That point is perhaps
worth considering. My hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) who sits behind me has just suggested a few words that might cure that trouble. We might say, "has upon his person or in his possession elsewhere than in his dwelling-house." It might be in a sleigh oi' cutter or something of that kind.


Mr. GIROUARD:: Are those who take a revolver when they go hunting required to have a permit?


Hugh Guthrie: If they carry a pistol, yes.


Mr. ROSS:: The object in most of this
kind of legislation is to deter crime. I would ask the minister if before this bill was drawn up he considered an enactment such as they have in England where, when a man commits a crime and has upon his person a pistol or revolver or other weapon, five years is added to his sentence, the object being to act as a deterrent?


Hugh Guthrie: That is in this bill; we
provide for adding two years.


Arthur Edward Ross: In the old country they add
five years to the sentence, if the man is carrying a pistol or revolver.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Will game wardens on private property who have already been appointed with the consent of the provincial government have to secure a special permit?


Hugh Guthrie: They will have to get a permit either from the attorney general of the province or someone designated by him or from the mounted police.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister considered
including a weapon known as a sawed-off shotgun? Many bandits carry them around. It can be easily concealed under the coat, and is a very powerful weapon, more powerful than a revolver.


Hugh Guthrie: That was not specially
considered except that it comes under the general clause referring to offensive weapons. That is the clause I read when the bill was first spoken to.


Thomas Reid: The new clause 1 says, "has
upon his person.... or is carrying concealed a pistol or revolver."


Hugh Guthrie: That is framed to meet
requests which came largely from the western provinces in regard to weapons, pistols and revolvers. We have made very drastic provisions in that respect. Then, the provision in respect of offensive weapons covers "any gun or other fire arm, or air gun, or any part thereof, or any sword, sword blade, bayonet" and so on, down a long list. A sawed-off shotgun would be certainly included in that list. I did not know they were actually concealed on the person.


Thomas Reid: Yes; there have been many
cases where men have brought them in, and then drew them out. They can hold them in one hand, just like revolvers, and they should be included along with pistols and revolvers.


Hugh Guthrie: I have never heard a
request to that effect.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: One of the clauses
deals with the sale of weapons, and the wording is "pistol, revolver, or other offensive weapon that may be concealed upon the person." That wording would be sufficient.


Thomas Reid: I think it should be included.


Hugh Guthrie: I was going to amend that section, I may tell my hon. friend.


Alfred Speakman: I believe it will be
sufficient to use the same expression as is contained in the clause to which I have referred.


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
help but think the minister will not accomplish his puipose, which i-s undoubtedly that of preventing the carrying of these weapons, if the person with criminal intent is permitted without registration to keep weapons in his house. Under the provisions of the act, that is possible. He could simply take those weapons out when he Intended to use them, night or day. The whole purpose of the enactment would be thwarted. What is to prevent a man in any city from keeping a weapon in his house at all times, and simply taking it out at any moment he wishes to use it? He can carry it, without any evidence of his doing so, upon his person. The damage which we are seeking to prevent could quite easily be done. For a long time I have felt that there should be very strict regulations

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
with respect not only to the carrying but the possession of weapons. As to the hardships enumerated by gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of the returned men, no magistrate would put a returned man in gaol for the simple reason that he might have neglected to obtain a permit for a weapon which he has brought back from overseas, which he has never used and may never intend to use. I am convinced however that full advantage will be taken of this omission by any person who desires to use weapons for unlawful purposes.


Thomas Reid: I have a case in mind, where four men entered a bank in Vancouver, three of whom had sawed-off shotguns with which they threatened the manager and clerks in the bank. The carrying of sawed-off shotguns is prevalent throughout the west. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of inserting a clause taking care of them, because they are very destructive and dangerous.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a clause which
would include them, but the penalty is not as severe as the clause pertaining to pistols and revolvers. Section 119 states that:
Everyone is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs or to imprisonment for three months or to both fine and costs and imprisonment who,-
(a) not having a permit in form 76a, has upon Iris person elsewhere than in his own dwelling house, shop, warehouse, counting house or premises, or is carrying concealed any offensive weapon that may be concealed upon the person other than a pistol or revolver.
That section would include the sawed-off shotgun, but the penalty is only three months and a fine.


Thomas Reid: I have noticed that.


Alfred Speakman: A blackjack, or something like that-


Edward James Young: Order; the member for New Westminster has the floor.


Thomas Reid: I still think that the sawedoff shotgun should be taken care of either in section 119 or section 118.


Hugh Guthrie: How do you describe it? Wha't is the technical description?


Mr. HOWDEN:: That is what they call it.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the length of a
sawed-off shotgun? I have had shotguns sawed off an inch and a half.


John Power Howden: They saw most of the
stock away, and all but two or three inches of the barrel, making a weapon more devastating and dangerous than a pistol.


Hugh Guthrie: I know what it is, but
how should it be described?


James Malcolm: A clause could be inserted prohibiting the use of these articles by making it an offence to have one either in the house or upon the person. The weapon desoribed by the hon. member for New Westminster is well known. It has been discussed in police circles for some time, and is more dangerous than the revolver. Its existence cannot be justified on any ground. A clause might be inserted providing a severe penalty against a person, who has either in a dwelling or upon his person such a weapon.
Mr. H.ANBURY:	It might be covered,
possibly, by the fact that it is concealed on the person. The ordinary sporting rifle or shotgun could not be so concealed. This weapon, however, can be concealed upon the person.


Alfred Speakman: I had an idea that one clause might be so worded as to refer to any revolver, pistol or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, and then the other clause might be altered so as to include any weapon other than a firearm.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I may be absolutely
wrong, but I understand the section refers only to those offensive weapons, including pistols and revolvers, which may be concealed upon the person. If that is so, I do not think it refers to the ordinary stock rifle or a gun.


Hugh Guthrie: Only to pistols or revolvers.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Is it correct to say that it applies only to firearms such as pistols or revolvers, or such other weapons as may be concealed upon the person?


Hugh Guthrie: This section is confined
exclusively to pistols or revolvers and is distinct from the next section. I think perhaps there is something in the suggestion that sawed-off shotguns should be included.


Wilfred Hanbury: "Or other firearms," because they are concealed on the person.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That does not answer
my question.


Hugh Guthrie: The wording suggested is "pistol, revolver or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person."


Alfred Speakman: That is it.


James Malcolm: That would cover it, but it does not cover cases where these weapons are in dwelling houses. They have no right
3522	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons
to be anywhere. They are weapons intended to be used for criminal purposes. One may judge that the man in whose premises they are found is not holding them for any good
purposes.


Hugh Guthrie: I must correct that. I
know some very wealthy men who have sawed-off firearms in their houses for their own protection. I know that to be a fact.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Suppose I had in my
house a collection of revolvers some of which had been given to me as souvenirs of the great war, others belonging to myself and used on bunting expeditions, and suppose I want to take them out of the province, what would I have to do? If I live in Ontario and want to hunt in the province of Quebec, making use of these firearms, I am quite satisfied to obtain a licence or permit in this province, but what will happen if I carry those firearms into another province? Shall I have to obtain another licence?


Hugh Guthrie: If there is another provincial law you will have to submit to the law.


Wilfred Hanbury: I do not notice anything in the bill about ammunition. *


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it is covered.


Wilfred Hanbury: Then another point: Are members of the militia and the permanent force carrying revolvers covered?


Hugh Guthrie: They will get permits.


The CHAIRMAN:: Carried?


Hugh Guthrie: Wait until we see what we are carrying. I think there is a good deal of force in the suggestion that we cover the sawed-off shotgun. I will move in the first place:
That section 118, line 9, be amended by inserting after the word "than" the following words: "one year nor more than."
That would make it read:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years. . . .


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Then I also move:
That section 118 be amended by striking out the word "or" in the last line and inserting after the word "revolver" the following words:

"or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person."


Edward James Young: That would apply to a .22 rifle, would it not?


Hugh Guthrie: Can you conceal that on the person?


Edward James Young: You can conceal it under your overcoat.


Hugh Guthrie: Then it would leave one liable if he concealed it. I think we had better not pick too many holes if we want to get the bill through.


John Power Howden: If I may make a suggestion, I am inclined to think that the sawed-off shotgun should be dealt with very severely. As suggested by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and others, it is possible to go hunting and take a revolver along with the most innocent intent, but anyone who has a sawed-off shotgun under his coat means business. He is a criminal. A bird of that kind should certainly have a special penalty.


Hugh Guthrie: He can get up to five years.	.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I agree with the principle of this bill, but if this disarmament policy is to be carried out efficiently I wonder if we should not start from the nursery. If the children are educated in carrying firearms, later on we must not be surprised if we find they have developed a taste. I do not know if it would be within the scope of this bill to do something to prevent the carrying of toy pistols, whioli often look exactly like the real thing. This is a complex world, and I wonder sometimes when a criminal is at the bar if humanity itself is not at the bar. Children are getting educated from boyhood to carry arms, I know they are just toys; later on they go to moving pictures and see firearms and pistols displayed, and they copy it in their play. Then later in life the boy having developed the habit of having toy arms will come under the jurisdiction of this bill if he carries a real arm. Sometimes these toys are not easily distinguished from the real thing, and there might be some mistake. I would ask the minister if something could be done.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Unless the hon. member has an amendment I am afraid he is out of order.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am just asking the minister if something could be done within the scope of this bill to take care of such cases. I think it is a serious matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I had not considered going as far as to prohibit children's toys. It is not the first time I have heard the suggestion, I have received letters on the same subject, but I did not think it was a practical idea.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


James Malcolm: Regardless of what the minister says, I do not think that sawed-off shotguns are used by people in their homes as defensive weapons. I do not think there is any justification for a mutilated shotgun or rifle being in existence, either on a man's person or in his home. I think it is an offensive weapon, and the man who has it is a criminal. The gun was shortened for just one purpose, that is to enable it to be concealed on that man's person. I submit that to this section 118 there should be an amendment. This may be badly drafted and may be subject to correction, but I suggest the following:
Has in liis possession, either on his person, or in his dwelling or place of business, any rifle or shotgun which has been shortened from its original length to a length which would permit it being readily concealed on his person.
I do not think that type of weapon should be in existence at all.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot accept that.


James Malcolm: Then I will not even submit it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Did the hon. member move an amendment?


James Malcolm: The minister said he would not accept such an amendment, I merely offered it as a suggestion. If the minister does not care to accept it I will not present it.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. RALSTON:: May I suggest that you leave out the words "capable of being concealed on the person," and say "who is carrying concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm." If it is actually being carried concealed it is capable of being concealed.


Hugh Guthrie: Would that be any
improvement on the language we are using?


James Layton Ralston: I think we are using more language than is necessary. If we say " carrying concealed a pistol, revolver or other firearm" does that not cover it? It is no use to say "carrying concealed something capable of heing concealed" because surely if you are carrying it concealed it is capable of being concealed.


Mr. BURY:: It might not be concealed
when the arrest was made.


James Layton Ralston: It is not a matter of
arrest; it is a matter of offence. My suggestion is that the words "capable of being concealed" contained in the amendment are liable to misinterpretation and that the real offence that is being aimed at is carrying concealed a pistol, revolver or other firearm. I submit that it does not add anything if we say "other firearm capable of being concealed" because how could you carry it concealed and be guilty of the offence of carrying it concealed unless it was capable of being concealed?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member is not
covering the point; he is making one of the conditions for a breach of the provision the fact that the weapon actually must be concealed.


James Layton Ralston: That is one of the conditions.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No; he must be carrying it.


James Layton Ralston: He must be carrying it
concealed.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: It was suggested by one hon. member opposite that the section should cover a revolver or pistol carried in a motor car or a sleigh. The words suggested by the hon. member would not cover such cases.


James Layton Ralston: I am only dealing with
the section as it is proposed to amend it, according to the way the chairman read it.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: In order to carry out
that suggestion I think you would have to add the words "or is carrying concealed a pistol, revolver or other firearm."


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid that if this amendment passes you will have to arrest every duck hunter in the province of Quebec. Every time you go duck hunting in a driving rain you put your shotgun under your overcoat, and if you did that you would be subject to arrest. I do not think that should be so, especially in Rimouski where we have so many mounted police particularly during the hunting season. The game laws in Quebec are very stringent now, and I am afraid that if this amendment goes through half our population will be liable to arrest.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I prefer the
language I first submitted. The offence is concealing the weapon on the person. I quite understand that a weapon may be concealed by being carried in a valise or trunk, but if we describe it as a firearm capable of being concealed on the person I think all cases would be covered.


Eugène Fiset: When you carry a
gun hunting you often have it under your coat.


Hugh Guthrie: Do not conceal it; carry it outside.

3524	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


James Layton Ralston: I think this is limiting it too much.


Hugh Guthrie: The only purpose of the
amendment is to cover sawed-off shotguns and similar weapons.


James Layton Ralston: I would stop at "carrying concealed any pistol, revolver or other firearm." That would include a sawed-off shotgun. You do not want to restrict it to small arms.


Hugh Guthrie: I think all other arms
that can be well imagined are dealt with in the next section, which has to do with offensive weapons.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 119-Dangerous weapons.
Hugh Guthrie: I think at the end of
subsection (a) we might strike out the word "or" between the words "pistol or revolver" and insert the words "or other firearm." This will make it conform to the previous section.


James Layton Ralston: Is there any difference
between these two sections?


Hugh Guthrie: Merely that the words
"which may be concealed upon the person" are included here.


James Layton Ralston: Are not the sections
exactly the same?


Hugh Guthrie: I have been trying to
make them the same. This section excludes the weapons dealt with in the previous section.


James Layton Ralston: In section 118 I think
we have included all firearms that may be concealed upon the person. This section does no more than that; it includes all firearms other than pistols or revolvers which may be concealed upon the person.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What is the purpose behind this section?


Hugh Guthrie: We are trying to include sawed-off shotguns or other firearms that may be concealed upon the person. This section is not designed to apply to pistols, revolvers or firearms; it applies to other offensive weapons.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I take it that this excludes
all the weapons covered by section 118, and therefore it has to follow that section.


John Power Howden: Does this clause include
only those weapons which are not firearms?
JMr. Guthrie.]


Hugh Guthrie: Revolvers and air guns
are included. I read the definition from the criminal code.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there any special provision with regard to the carrying of a pistol or a revolver in an automobile?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Charles Gavan Power: So that anyone carrying a
pistol in an automobile would be obliged to obtain a permit.


Hugh Guthrie: That question was raised
by an hon. member opposite. I will give it consideration before we are out of committee. It is not provided for in the bill.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
Subsection (b) agreed to.
On subsection (c)-Selling or offering for sale.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do not see any great
objection to this, but I do not think that any undue burden should be placed on those who deal in firearms, which is an old calling. Is there any fee provided for in connection with this subsection?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is no fee.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection (d)-Selling or lending.
Charles Gavan Power: What would be considered
lawful excuse under this subsection? Would it be a matter of personal friendship-a friend lending someone a revolver to go hunting?


Hugh Guthrie: A man might have an
excuse which was genuinely lawful. I am not particularly wedded to the words, but I would not make the provision too drastic.


Ernest Lapointe: It is drastic enough.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been in the law
for a long time. I have an amendment to propose. I move that the words "or other offensive weapon" in line 29 be struck out and the words "or other firearm" be substituted therefor.


Charles Gavan Power: Yrou are restricting the
clause. The penalty is for giving away or selling an offensive weapon. There is no necessity for the distinction.


Hugh Guthrie: This applies only to
pistols and revolvers. This is proposed by the expert of the department. Offensive weapons are provided for in the next subsection.


Charles Gavan Power: The next subsection deals
only with keeping a record.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Hugh Guthrie: IV e will let subsection
(d) stand.


Wilfred Hanbury: Before we do so, I
would suggest that some attention be paid to the words in the last two lines, "anyone not being the holder of a permit." What is "a permit"? What is referred to? I think the minister should look into that. It should be defined more clearly.
Subsection stands.
Subsections (e), (f) and (g) agreed to.
On section 120, subsection 1-Persons who may issue permits. Pistol or revolver permits.


Wilfred Hanbury: In connection with subsection 1, I would refer the minister to the practice of members of the militia and permanent forces. They are not necessarily carrying firearms for the protection of life and property.


Mr. GUI HR  IE@: I think the army regulations provide for that.
Subsection 1 agreed to.
On section 120, subsection 2-Other permits.


Arthur Edward Ross: Could a person get a permit from a chief of police?


Mr. GUI  HRIE@: Anybody authorized by the attorney general of the province.


Arthur Edward Ross: How would one know where to get a permit? How do we know who will have power to issue permits?


Hugh Guthrie: I presume the attorney general will give public notice of those to whom application should be made. The law has been the same for a long time.


Angus MacInnis: I was going to ask a question on the same point. There seems to be a division of authority. The subsection refers to the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police an 1 the attorney general of any province. Supposing a person wanting a permit makes application to the commissioner of the mounted police and is refused a permit. The same person might make application to the attorney general and receive one.


Hugh Guthrie: If he is a reputable person. I presume he will have no trouble; he will get the permit.


Angus MacInnis: I am not concerned about that, but there seems to be a division of authority in granting the permit. Perhaps it is - "v'-lapping of authority.
53719- 223J


Hugh Guthrie: When two or more receive authority to perform an act, there is always an overlapping, if one may call it such, but this has been the law for a long time and there has never been any trouble about it.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 120, subsections (3) and (4) agreed to.
Section agreed to.
On section 121-Powers of governor in council.
Wilfred Hanbury: As regards paragraph (a) is this legislation in effect now or is it new?


Hugh Guthrie: It is in effect now.


Alfred Speakman: As regards paragraph (b), I may be wrong in my interpretation, but does this mean that when exceptional conditions arise the proclamation may be issued which in effect tightens up the law and limits the holders of guns to such persons as may be exempted in the proclamation? After the proclamation is issued, those who have these weapons in their possession are liable to a certain penalty. Supposing the law has been running along for some time and a number of persons, acting under the law, obtain permits for firearms: then the proclamation is issued and these people find themselves illegally in possession of these firearms. Will they have to turn them in?
Mr. GTJT1RIE: No; if they will just leave them in their places of abode, no trouble will come to such persons.


Alfred Speakman: They could not carry them? This provision would not affect their possession?


Hugh Guthrie: No. This is the law now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 122-Having pistol or revolver while committing offence.
Arthur Edward Ross: This is the clause to which I referred some time ago. In Great Britain I believe the term of imprisonment is five years in addition to the ordinary sentence and it is certainly working there with great benefit. A man who acts unlawfully, if he is without a gun, receives an ordinary sentence; but if he has a gun he gets five years additional.


Hugh Guthrie: The section formerly provided for a fine of S50 and three months' imprisonment. We have increased this to two years and we thought we were stepping it up pretty well.
3526	COMMONS
Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Thomas Reid: But in British Columbia there were many comments and criticisms regarding this, because men escaped as it could not be proven that they had criminal intent although they had guns in their possession. I know the provision in the old country was brought up. I understand under section 115 criminal intent has to be proven, but this is not the case under section 118, so these people were tried under section 118 because it could not be proven that there was criminal intent simply because a gun was carried.


Hugh Guthrie: In section 118 there is no provision with regard to criminal intent. The fact that a person was carrying a gun constitutes the offence.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think this section
should also be amended to include the carrying of shotguns.


Hugh Guthrie: If that is the sense of the committee, I have no objection.


Wilfred Hanbury: This is the important place; it is where you get the worst criminal, the man who is holding up a bank. This is the man we want to send to gaol and keep there as long as we can.


James Malcolm: Make the same amendment as before.


Alfred Speakman: In this particular case where a man is engaged in a criminal action, the carrying of almost any firearm would be sufficient under the circumstances.


Albert Joseph Brown: I think in this clause we might very well insert the words "or any firearm."


Hugh Guthrie: We had better put it in the words we have used before, and I would move to amend section 122, line 10, by striking out the first word "or" and adding after the word "revolver."
or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person.


Albert Joseph Brown: Does that strengthen the clause in any way?


Hugh Guthrie: It brings in only the sawed-off shotgun.


Alfred Speakman: In that particular clause which applies only to persons who have been convicted of a criminal offence, I do not think it would be too wide if it applied to the possession of any firearm at the time. That would not be a general clause. It would apply only to those convicted of a criminal offence, and the offence would be just as much an offence whether you were carrying a rifle or a sawed-off shotgun.


Hugh Guthrie: The rifle or shotgun is not a concealed weapon, and this is supposed to be a clause in respect of concealed weapons.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Besides, a man might be convicted of an offence that had no connection with the gun at all when he was carrying an ordinary shotgun.


Alfred Speakman: Yes, it might be too
wide.


Albert Joseph Brown: But it says a criminal
offence.
Mr. BURT':	Even so, a man might be
convicted of a criminal offence with which the possession of a shotgun had no connection.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 123.
Wilfred Hanbury: This clause does not
cover firearms?


Hugh Guthrie: It covers rifles and shotguns.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 124 agreed to.
On section 125-Selling pistol or airgun to minor.
Hugh Guthrie: I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that after the word "who" in line 30, the words "sells any firearm or gives or sells any pistol or airgun, or any ammunition therefor," be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "sells or gives any firearm, pistol, revolver or airgun, or any ammunition therefor." The drafting is better than in the section as it stands, they tell me.


Wilfred Hanbury: Do I understand from
section 125 that it is an offence to give an air rifle or the ammunition for an air rifle to a person under sixteen years of age?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, unless it is established "to the satisfaction of the justice before whom he is charged that he used reasonable diligence in endeavouring to ascertain the age of the minor before making such sale or gift and that he had good reason to believe that such minor was not under the age of sixteen years."


Wilfred Hanbury: That does not answer
my question. My question is, is it unlawful for a child under sixteen years of age to possess an air rifle, and is it unlawful for a person to give such a child an air rifle or ammunition therefor?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it is.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Wilfred Hanbury: It is unlawful for a
father to give his child who is under sixteen an air gun?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: Then I do not think
tha't that law is generally understood in Canada.	.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been the law for
ten years.


James Malcolm: It is more honoured in
the breach.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think this may be the
best opportunity we may have for some time to amend the law, if that is the law. It is a ridiculous law whioh says that a child shall not have an air rifle until he is sixteen. I know as a matter of fact that my child had one for years before he was sixteen, and I did not know that it was against the law. I do not think it is generally known to be against the law. It is not a question of age, but of teaching young children how to handle arms, what to do and what not to do. A boy is not interested in an air rifle after sixteen. After that age he wants a -22 or something larger, and if air rifles are permitted at all the law should be amended to make .the age limit much less than sixteen.


Charles Gavan Power: In support of what my
hon. friend says, may I point this out, which I think will serve to show that this bill goes too far? Under section 125 any person who gives to a minor under sixteen years of age an air gun or the ammunition therefor is guilty of an offence. Take the case of any member of parliament here giving his child under sixteen years of age a -22 and the ammunition to go with it, to shoot partridge. He would be guilty of an offence, and under section 122 which we have just passed, if this father happened to have a revolver upon him he would have committed a criminal offence and then the law is that he "shall" receive a sentence of two years. So you would be guilty of the offence of having permitted your child to use a -22, and because you have a revolver along with you on this shooting expedition you have to go to gaol for two years. It would be a pretty dear expedition.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been the law a long time.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think the law read just quite the same way.


Hugh Guthrie: The penalty was not as
severe.


Charles Gavan Power: And I do not know that the word "shall" was in it before. The magistrate has no discretion; that is the worst feature of this bill.


Hugh Guthrie: The answer to that is, do not become convicted of a criminal offence.


Charles Gavan Power: The best answer would be,
do not become a father. We have made a criminal offence of something very trivial, and then-


Hugh Guthrie: What is the suggestion
in regard to the age limit in section 125? That is the crux of the question, I suppose. In the statute now, and for the last ten years, it has been sixteen years of ago. Would it be safe to reduce it?


Wilfred Hanbury: Make it ten.


Hugh Guthrie: What does the committee think? I have no particular views on the subject.


Ernest Lapointe: Have there been any
complaints against the law as it was?


Hugh Guthrie: Not until to-day.


Wilfred Hanbury: Because no one understood that there was such a law. I think the consensus of opinion of the members here is that the responsibility in connection with air rifles is on the father, not on the boy. It is the father's responsibility to teach his boy how to handle the air rifle. I have two boys; from nine years of age they have had air rifles, but they have been taught not to point them at anyone or at anything except when shooting at a target. I think it is up to the parent. Ten years is certainly the limit that should be set, not more than that. I would point out that this bill deals with offensive weapons, not sporting weapons, and it is a question in my mind whether you could consider an air rifle an offensive weapon.


Hugh Guthrie: The air rifle is mentioned in the criminal code.


Mr. GEARY:: Is it not obvious under section 125 that you can give a firearm to a child, but you cannot give a pistol or an air gun?


Wilfred Hanbury: No.


George Reginald Geary: Why not? The wording is
"who sells any firearm."


Hugh Guthrie: It is changed to "who
sells or gives."

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The amendment is,
"Who sells or gives any firearm, pistol, revolver or air gun, or any ammunition therefor."


John Power Howden: This matter ought to
receive serious consideration. I have a boy who has been going duck hunting with me for a good many years, and who has been a first class wing shot since he was twelve years old. He is as good as I am.


John Campbell Elliott: Better.


John Power Howden: All right, better. But I
do not see why a boy with ordinary gumption and common sense could not be allowed to take a shotgun and go hunting with his elders.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The section does not say anything about elders.


John Power Howden: He is not to be given a
gun of any kind if he is under sixteen years.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member said he had to be with elders.


John Power Howden: According to the law it
does not matter whether he is with elders or not.


Hugh Guthrie: The idea is not to protect the ducks or the boy, but to protect the public.


John Power Howden: Is it the considered opinion of the committee that a boy is not capable of intelligently handling a firearm until he is sixteen years old?


Mr. MANION:: Some boys.


John Power Howden: We ought to consider that matter.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Hon. members who have
spoken about their sons having airguns, and the responsibility being upon the parents, must remember that if through the use of the airgun any accident happens, no matter what the parents may say about the responsibility, they will not be responsible.


Mr. ROWE:: They will be.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No; the child will be responsible, unless you can prove that the parent had committed some breach of ordinary reasonable care. If you are not going to retain this provision in the criminal code, and prohibit a child under sixteen using an airgun, you cannot hold the parents responsible. If the child's airgun shoots out somebody's eye, he cannot get damages against the parents; every lawyer in the house knows that. You can get damages against the child, whatever good that may be.


Hugh Guthrie: The question is: what is
the safe age?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I was going to suggest that
a child might get a permit where he could show that he was responsible. Under such circumstances a permit could be issued to a child under sixteen.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There is nothing in the act which says that a child under sixteen may have a permit if someone states that he is worthy of having one. What about the cadets? Can they possess guns or firearms?


Ernest Lapointe: Where is Miss Macphail?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What about the Boy
Scouts? It seems to me that we are going a long way; I did not know that the provision was so drastic. One of my daughters is a very good shot with a twenty-two rifle, and she is not yet sixteen years old. If we put the measure through in its present form I believe we are going a long way.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I did not suggest there was anything in the criminal code requiring permits for children, but what I am suggesting is that if we are going to change this clause, provision ought to be made that before a child-under sixteen years is allowed to have a gun he should have a permit. We should not swing a door wide open for any child of any age to carry an airgun about the country. It is all very well to say that children of members of parliament are reasonable, and can shoot straight, and that they will not do damage. But the proposal is made to give broad leeway and to remove every prohibition and restriction from the issue of airguns to children under sixteen years of age. I say that is a dangerous course to take. If we are going to make any modification of the restriction we should do so either by slightly modifying the age limit, or by providing that airguns may be given to children under sixteen only if they have obtained permits.


John Campbell Elliott: The penalty under section 125 is not upon the child, but upon the parent, or the person who sells or gives the pistol, air gun or ammunition to a minor under the age of sixteen.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I was not talking about the criminal liability.


John Campbell Elliott: The daughter of the hon. member for Ottawa is not guilty of an offence; the hon. member himself is the guilty party. I believe the situation will be remedied by changing the' age limit; I think it should not be above twelve years.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


William Earl Rowe: It seems to me that this is a section which very few hon. members have appreciated. To my mind it is ridiculous to think that a child is not capable of handling an air rifle until he is sixteen years of age. Surely in this discussion we are magnifying the power of an air gun. I doubt if any hon. member has ever heard of a child doing any serious damage with one.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I have.


William Earl Rowe: I handled one when I was ten years old. It seems to me that if a child is not capable of handling an air rifle until he is sixteen years old, we had better prohibit the use of more powerful firearms until men have reached fifty years of age. To-day at sixteen years a child is a pretty capable citizen. I believe that the clause should be amended so that the child would not be breaking the law if he used an air rifle before reaching the age of sixteen years. I know of many children who are out hunting rabbits with .22 rifles before they are sixteen years of age. I am not suggesting the section should be left wide open, but it seems to me unreasonable to make it unlawful for a child to play with an air rifle until he is sixteen years old. Such a provision is in my view an extreme safety measure. I would suggest a change be made so that the guardian might have some responsibility in the matter, and the child would not be charged with carrying an article which is more or less in the nature of a toy.


John Campbell Elliott: I take it that the minister is agreeable to reducing the age limit from sixteen to ten.


William Earl Rowe: To twelve.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think it is possible for a boy who has never handled a gun until his sixteenth year to become a crack shot, or as good as the representatives at the Bisley meet. A boy cannot become a good shot starting at the age of seventeen. Take the boys who go to a camp, or the Cadets; if it were suggested to them that we are seriously considering not allowing any boy to take a gun in his hand until after he attains the age of sixteen they would think this house had become bereft of its reason.


An hon. MEMBER:: That has been suggested.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, can we not settle on something?


Ernest Lapointe: I agree we should settle on something.


Hugh Guthrie: What would you suggest.


Ernest Lapointe: I will move that the age be fourteen.


James Malcolm: A rifle and an air gun
should not be permissible at the same age.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not in favour of such a radical reduction as from sixteen to ten, but if you put it at fourteen it would seem more reasonable. I would be prepared to accept something like this, as suggested by an hon. member a few moments ago, that a person might sell or give to a child under sixteen firearms as described in this section under a permit. It would be a hardship to say that a man cannot go out in the bush with his son or a young boy and enjoy a little hunting.


Alfred Speakman: I doubt whether there is any law more honoured in the breach than this. I know in my country a boy of sixteen is looked upon as being pretty nearly a man.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, he can get a permit.


Alfred Speakman: I do not understand that he is allowed to have a permit now. I know that the great majority of boys in my county are using -22 rifles for shooting small game. Could the parents or guardians of children of that age not be given the right to provide them with these arms and the parents assume the responsibility under the act?


An hon. MEMBER:: What age?


Alfred Speakman: I would say anywhere about ten, eleven, or twelve. Where it was given by the parent or guardian, the parent or guardian assuming the responsibility, that law would not apply. I am quite certain that the majority of boys in my county between the ages of twelve and sixteen own and carry -22 rifles and shoot small game, gophers, rabbits and so on. This law is completely ignored at present.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: This section 125 deals only with the giving or selling to children under sixteen. There must be a law that prohibits a child of sixteen or under possessing or using such firearms.


Hugh Guthrie: There is not.


Arthur Edward Ross: Before setting any age, this question might well be considered with the Department of National Defence in connection with cadet shoots and imperial competitions. Any age we might set might interfere with the training of the cadets. I suggest that the question of age be considered with the Department of National Defence and the commissioner of the mounted police.

Criminal Code-Offensive Weapons


Hugh Guthrie: We can always protect ourselves in that regard by permits. I will move by way of suggestion that the age be fourteen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Say twelve.


John Campbell Elliott: I happen to know a young man, I am almost certain was under fourteen, who won a medal as a cadet.


Hugh Guthrie: We are not interfering with them; they will all be provided for.


John Campbell Elliott: No one could give him a gun.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. We have military regulations too.
Mr. l7OUNG: If I understand the situation aright, and the explanation the minister gave, as the law reads now and will read as amended, a man who gives or lends a rifle to his boy or permits his boy to take one out and use it commits an offence, while if he leaves the rifle around and the boy takes it and shoots, nothing can be done.


Hugh Guthrie: That is right. That has been our law for ten years. As to the question of the age, I am willing to agree to any age that suits the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: My objection is not so much to the age limit. Section 122 imposes the very drastic penalty of two years on anyone who under certain circumstances permits a child under sixteen years of age to shoot. I think the amendment should be to section 122.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a different section altogether. It deals with a man who has been convicted of an offence.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 125 creates a criminal offence, punishable by a fine. But if the firearm was on the person under the circumstances laid down in section 122 the magistrate has no discretion but must sentence him to two years. So in a large number of cases where this offence under 125 is committed the offender would be sentenced to two years. I think that is going too far.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my hon. friend consider that the imposition of a fine indicates a criminal offence?


Charles Gavan Power: I think so.


Hugh Guthrie: I doubt it.


Charles Gavan Power: "Every one is guilty of an offence." This is the criminal law.


Hugh Guthrie: But a criminal offence and an offence for which a fine can be imposed are very different things.
[Mr. Ross.l


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think my hon. friend is mistaken. Section 122 says that:
Every one who has upon his person a pistol or revolver while committing any criminal offence

The case my hon. friend refers to is where a father gives or sells a shotgun-


Charles Gavan Power: Or ammunition.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: -or any firearm to a boy under sixteen. The offence there has already been committed. If he was caught out shooting with his son with the firearm he would not be arrested while committing the offence. The offence mentioned in section 122 is a prior act. If the father were arrested afterwards for giving or selling the firearm to the boy that would not be the offence dealt with in section 122.


Arthur Edward Ross: For the sake of information
I should like to ask what military regulations permit a minor to be in possession of a rifle. I know of none.


Hugh Guthrie: This law has been on the statute book for at least ten years.


Arthur Edward Ross: I may be wrong, but I do
not know of any military regulation that permits a minor to be in charge of a rifle if the law says he shall not have one, unless it is on a campus with his cadet corps. I suppose these cadets in the schools might be out shooting somewhere with their instructor, and a policeman might come along and demand to see their permit, but I do not know of any military regulation that permits a minor to have a rifle.


Hugh Guthrie: The military regulations
do provide for equipment, and I assume that ammunition and rifles form part of the equipment of a soldier. Military laws are recognized in the criminal code; they include the king's orders and regulations for the army, and so on, and any act of the United Kingdom applying to His Majesty's troops in Canada, and all other orders, rules, regulations of whatever nature or kind applying to His Majesty's troops in Canada.


Arthur Edward Ross: Do the cadet companies come under the military regulations?


Hugh Guthrie: I have always so understood.


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest that we have
spent enough time on this section. Though I favour the age limit being placed at fourteen it seems to be the opinion of the majority of the committee that it should be twelve, so let us make it twelve and pass the section.

Railways and Canals Committee


Mr. GERSHAW:: The first day of the
hunting season is always a busy one for doctors because of the accidents which occur, and I would leave the section as it is.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is moved by Mr. Manion that section 125 be amended by inserting the word "twelve" instead of the word "sixteen" in lines 32 and 36.
Amendment agreed to on division.
On section 127-Refusing to deliver offensive weapon.


Hugh Guthrie: It has been pointed out that the words " of the peace" should be added in lines 3 and 5, after the .word "justice" to make it read "justice of the peace."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I move that subsection 2 of this section be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 129-Immigration officers added to those who may carry weapons.
Eugène Fiset: I hope this applies
to military reserves.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the old section;
there is no change.


Wilfred Hanbury: This section provides
that certain officers can purchase weapons which need not be registered. I think they should be registered.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see anything
here about the purchase of weapons. There is no change in this or in the next two sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Permits cancelled.
John Campbell Elliott: By whom are these permits issued?


Hugh Guthrie: By the commissioner of
the mounted police or such persons as he may designate, and by the attorneys general of the provinces and such officers as they may designate.


Eugène Fiset: Will there be any
charge for these permits?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I should like to return
to section 123. My hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa has pointed out that we should add the words "of the peace" after the word "justices" in line 17, to make it read "justices of the peace."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: The same amendment
will apply to section 124. You have the same thing there.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. As my hon. friend
observes, also in line 24, section 124, it should be "two justices of the peace."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: The minister, speaking
about section 1 IS, thought that possibly an amendment might be suggested with regard to firearms in motor vehicles.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would remind the
committee that subsection (d) of section 119 has not passed.


Hugh Guthrie: I would ask that that be allowed to stand.
Subsection stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 5.55 pm.
Thursday, March 30, 1933