1944-06-28

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Houge of Commons ©etmtes
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 28, 1944


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the house will please rise, I have a communication from His Majesty the King:
Buckingham Palace
21st June, 1944.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
The King has received from the Governor General the address adopted by the House of Commons of Canada on June 8.
His Majesty greatly appreciates this expression of the loyal good wishes of the members of the house on the occasion of the official celebration of his birthday in Canada and commands me to ask you to convey to them his sincere thanks for their kindly sentiments towards himself.
Yours sincerely,
A. Lascelles.
The Speaker,
House of Commons of Canada.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of
Justice) moved the second reading of bill No. 139, to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this bill, which has to do with a number of amendments to the criminal code, an opportunity is given to make some reference to amendments to the criminal code and the necessity for such amendments being made at this time. Each session there is an annual piecemeal introduction of amendments to the criminal code, and the accumulation of these suggestions for amendments show the necessity for a complete revision of the Criminal Code of Canada at the earliest possible time, such revision to be based on the changing and changed conditions 100-271
through which we have passed and on the changes which have taken place in public opinion since the last revision of the code, also by reason of the scientific advancements that have taken place since the time of Sir John Thompson, who in a revision some fifty years ago codified our criminal law.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for consideration by this house and by the Minister of Justice in particular of a revision of the criminal code in its entirety in order to bring it up to date and in order to remove the results of conflicting judicial interpretations which have been given on the various sections as well as anomalies that appear in many sections of the code.
All admit that the criminal code should be revised, and I .rise for the .purpose among other things of placing before the Minister of Justice the suggestion that there should be set up by parliament a committee composed of outstanding representatives of the law, and others, particularly of members of the bar, so that they may hear evidence from jurists, scientists, penal workers and psychiatrists to the end that there shall be a body of evidence available to enable the criminal code to be brought up to date.
Having regard to the fact that these amendments before us have to do with the revision of penalties I should like to suggest that something be done with regard to amending the criminal code in order to remove the situation that prevails to-day in that there is a mandatory penalty of death for all convicted of murder. That penalty has been changed in other parts of the empire. As a matter of fact -I am not at the moment entering into any discussion of the merits or demerits of capital punishment-in 1941 capital punishment was done away with in New Zealand, as was flogging and whipping as punishments for certain crimes. The trend recently has been to ameliorate the harshness of the criminal code, and I believe that provision should be made for the removal of the penalty of death so far as youths of eighteen years of age are concerned. In Great Britain that has been the law since the Children and Young Persons

Criminal Code

Act was amended in 1932 providing that the sentence of death shall not be pronounced or recorded against any person under the age of eighteen years. Only recently there was an example of the horror felt by the people as a whole when in the city of Montreal an outstanding jurist, following conviction by a jury, had to impose mandatory sentence of death upon a fifteen-year old boy. True enough, everybody realized that the sentence would not be carried out, and as a matter of fact, shortly after the trial of a confederate, the sentence was commuted, as has been the case for many years, because po person under the age of eighteen has been executed for murder, the sentence in every case having been commuted.
There is reason why these severe sentences should be removed from the code. As the Minister of Justice has stated, experience has shown that when mandatory sentences are out of line with what public opinion ragards as proper in the particular case, justice is defeated; for juries, realizing that there is no other way, in many cases, to avoid the rigours of the law, bring in a verdict of "not guilty" or a verdict for a lesser offence. No matter what may be said in regard to the jury system, one salient fact stands ou,t, namely, that throughout the years juries have been the protectors of the people against unfairness, harshness and the rigidity against change which have too often characterized law makers who are behind advancing public opinion.
I suggest too that provision should be made whereby the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada should be made available in criminal cases from the appeal court in the various provinces. One of these sections has to do with the matter of appeal, but it does not face the problem of the right of appeal on the part of the individual. Too often, as the law stands to-day, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, by a person in search of justice, is circumscribed within such narrow limits that many who would otherwise appeal are denied the opportunity to do so.
One of the important things in connection with the administration of the criminal law is that not only should a man receive justice out that he should believe that in fact he is receiving justice, and I believe that in that regard all possible injustice would be removed if the minister would consider the enlargement of these provisions.
I believe that in the administration of the criminal law we should seek not only to punish but to reform. As the law is to-day, any youth of sixteen or over who commits a 
serious offence is sentenced to a penal institution. We have no institutions similar to those in the United Kingdom. In that regard we are far behind in the administration of our penal system. Many of the outstanding recommendations, most, if not all of what the royal commission on penitentiaries recommended in 1937, remain recommendations that have not been carried into effect.


Mr. POULIOT:: And rightly so. They have not been carried into effect and it was right not to carry them out.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a matter of opinion. I believe that the recommendations that had to do with the improvement of the administration of justice ought to have been carried into effect, and so far as youth is concerned, so far as first offenders are concerned, provision should be made whereby it would not be obligatory as it is to-day to put them among old offenders. A system similar to that in the United Kingdom under the Borstal method should be brought into being in this country.
There is one other suggestion I would bring to the attention of the minister. Only recently in Toronto a prisoner sentenced to the penitentiary was taken to the common gaol, and while there a homicide was committed, allegedly by him. I feel a change should be made in the law whereby, when a man is sentenced to penitentiary, he should be forthwith taken there, where measures of security are much greater than in many gaols. As the law is to-day, unless a prisoner signs a waiver of his right of appeal, he remains in the common gaol for a period of thirty days. That, I submit, should be done away with, and provision should be made whereby those in authority may send prisoners sentenced to penal institutions to the penitentiary pending the period during which the appeal should take place.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Will the hon. member permit a question? That which is being suggested to the house would make it somewhat more difficult for the prisoner in case he desired to prosecute an appeal, would it not? I take it it is not the hon. member's intention to make appeals more difficult, but is it not a fact that sending the man to penitentiary would make the institution of appeal more difficult for him? How would the hon. member get around that?


John George Diefenbaker: The question is a perfectly proper one. I realize the difficulties of counsel communicating with his client in the penitentiary. One has to communicate

Criminal Code
with the Department of Jnstice in order to secure permission to do so. Apart from that, however, I see no difficulty in the way.


Ralph Maybank: Distance, as a rule.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. But arrangements could be made for appeal directly after the sentence, and in any event, so far as the matter of appeal is concerned, it could all be done through the medium of correspondence as grounds of appeal have to do with legal arguments respecting the charge in general and very seldom with regard to the quantum of evidence.


Thomas Vien: I cannot see the relevancy of the hon. member's remarks with regard to the question of appeal. His remarks are general with reference to the provisions of the criminal code and amendments that may be made thereto, but the house is considering specific amendments, and so far as I have followed the hon. gentleman to the present moment, he has not specifically referred to the matter before the house. Rather, he has suggested that there should be a general revision of the code. That may be in order somewhere else, but not at this moment. If the hon. member wishes to discuss the question of ' the relevancy of his remarks at this time I shall be glad to hear him.


John George Diefenbaker: What I had in mind was this. This bill amends the criminal code. Sections 364 and 365 mean that there is going to be an amelioration in the rigour of mandatory sentences. I bring to the attention of the house other sections that should be dealt with with regard to amelioration of sentence to the end that the administration of justice may be as perfect as possible.
The question of an appeal is dealt with by an amendment to paragraph (b) of section 749. This paragraph provides that in the case of summary convictions in Quebec, appeals shall be made to the superior court. The principles laid down with regard to amelioration of the mandatory sentence and the matter of appeals should be applied to the general administration of justice, and provision should be made that in respect of youths under eighteen years of age the death sentence shall not be mandatory. I contend that the amendments contained in the bill cover only a small segment of the problem, and that appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is necessary in criminal cases to assure of a proper administration of justice.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's argument is that the bill before the house deals with matters that are the subject of comment
to the Minister of Justice, and that further reference should be made to them because they are now raised by this amendment,


John George Diefenbaker: I was dealing with the matter of appeals, and the question whether provision should be made to give the right of appeal even while a prisoner is in the penitentiary, and that he should not be kept in the common gaol pending the exercise of his right to appeal. In general these are the submissions I wish to place before the house. One of the amendments contained in this bill is designed to increase the penalty and another to reduce the penalty. Then a further amendment makes provision for the right of appeal in one province. The suggested amendments merely touch the fringe of the subject. Those amendments do not meet the great body of opinion all over this country that is to-day asking for amendments to the criminal code to the end that the attainment of justice will be made easier. Those expressions of opinion come from within the legal profession and outside of it.
In recent years we have gone a long way towards the denial of the elementary principles of the administration of criminal law in a large portion of the legislation that, has become law since the beginning of the war. The accused is denied the benefit of reasonable doubt. Presumptions of guilt take its place when a. person is charged under various war regulations. The accused is deemed to be guilty unless he proves to the contrary. These things are contrary to the direction which we have a right to ask for in the administration of the criminal law of the country.
In speaking to these suggested amendments I have referred to certain other matters which are much more important, as I see them, than those dealt with. Many others will occur to other hon. members on all sides of the house. If a committee of this parliament were set up to study this matter, in my opinion, it would go a long way towards the advancement of justice in this country and the improvement of our penal law.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, this is the eighty-seventh day of the session. I contend that these amendments to the criminal code should have been brought down earlier in the session. As I said when this bill was being read the first time, and asked the minister a couple of questions which he did not answer, sections 1 and 2 of this bill affect the subject matter of what on the postmaster general's estimates I have had before this house for the last twenty years,
Criminal Code

namely, what shall be done with regard to the word "theft" in the criminal code and those employed by the Post Office-that great public utility that is operating in a most splendid manner for the people of Canada-and are charged with theft of letters. During the debate on the postmaster general's estimates last year I raised the same question, and he was kind enough to say he would deal with this question, when I raised it for the twentieth time. After conferring with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) he brought in an amendment which I think will commend itself to all fair-minded people in this country. I appreciate what these great workers of all classes in the Post Office have been doing under an intolerable condition in winter and summer at low wages. Less than one-eighth of one per cent have failed thus in their duty, and juries failed often to convict when they knew the minimum penalty was three years. That minimum of three years is now eliminated.
When I was chairman of the board of police commissioners of Toronto I had complaints from magistrates, county court judges, high court judges and others regarding appeals in connection with those two sections. I believe in giving a magistrate, a judicial officer, the power to deal with them each as a special case, and allowing a minimum. It is a great improvement to do away altogether with the minimum three years.
Section 3 of this bill amends section 365 and increases the penalty from two to seven years. No doubt that is a wise proviso, but I think there should be some further investigation with regard to section 4 of the bill. This section deals with appeals from summary convictions in Quebec. A question arises as to whether or not there are too many judges in the province of Quebec and whether there are judges styled high court judges who are doing county court judges' work and getting the larger salaries and disbursements, and differently styled from judges in other provinces.
I have brought this matter up before. The organization of our courts is provincial. 1 contend that the amendment contained in section 4 of the bill may conflict with sections of the Judges Act. In amending the criminal code thus the house must read with it the Judges Act. The contention has been raised that there are certain judges in the two courts mentioned here, the Court of King's Bench crown side, and the superior court, who are doing work that in the other provinces is done by the county court judge.
My last objection to the bill is based on the fact that the principle of criminal code general amendments is also involved. . It is bound
(Mr. Church.]
up with the whole criminal code. It is very difficult to raise these matters in the house. You cannot deal with it when the minister's estimates are up. For many years I have had a bill on the order paper to amend the Judges Act. It deals with judges serving on commissions, and following privy council decisions. It should be considered in the proposed code amendments. I have had this bill up for some years but have not been able to get any consideration in war time. I point out that the various bar associations have also been making a number of recommendations to the present minister. I understand that this is his third year in office. He is a man who has a great reputation at the bar and is very much respected by the bar association of the country. I hope he will take up those other recommendations of the bar and include them in this measure. There are also many recommendations from the chief constables' association of Canada. That is a very important body. In war time every department of this government has increased its police duties, and they get nothing for it. This work has been forced on the municipalities and on the police systems of the country. For a number of years the chief constables' association has been making recommendations in connection with the administration of federal laws and the criminal code.
For some time I have been asking when an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the great number of people who are killed by motor cars. The sections of the code dealing with these matters should be brought up to date and a check made of this road slaughter. More lives are being lost and injuries caused through motor cars than the casualties in the last great war. The minister wrote me a letter saying the matter could be discussed on item. No. 88 in his estimates, and that is what I propose to do, but little chance is afforded. As I said yesterday in connection with another bill, the minister should have added another section to the bill now under discussion which would) permit charges of criminal negligence to be brought in such cases as the motor boat fatality at Port Stanley, in which seventeen people were drowned, and the recent fire in a Hamilton theatre, in which several lives were lost. I do hope the attorney general will consider that those guilty of offences in this regard be charged with criminal negligence by new clauses in the act. Further, I believe he should appoint a committee to bring the code up to date; a consolidation has long been overdue. As I have been saying for many years, the criminal code should be consolidated and revised. Many sections are

Criminal Code
obsolete and) not now applicable. It cannot be done too soon, for if we wait until the war is over it will be too late.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, I really
should rise to a point of order. I want to suggest that the doubt which Your Honour expressed a few moments ago was fully justified. The discussion which may take place on the second reading of a bill is clearly defined by our rules, which say that on second reading only the general principle of the bill shall be discussed. If I remember aright, there are more than eleven hundred sections in the criminal code. The rules do not say that on a bill like this we can discuss the general principle of the criminal code; we can discuss only the principle of the bill itself, which contains only four sections. It says nothing whatever about the other matters that have been alluded1 to this afternoon. If we are to be at liberty, on a trivial bill of this nature, to discuss at any length any or all of the eleven hundred sections of the criminal code, it is no wonder the Prime Minister spoke of the possibility of our being here until Christmas. It has been the custom since I have been in this house to discuss nothing but the general principle of the bill before the house on the motion, for second reading, not the general principle of some other bill. I have known of a man who wanted to introduce an amendment to an act which had been thrown open, as they say; so he stuck around until they came to section 600, let us say, in order to move his amendment to that section. I have never heard, however, that it would be in order to have an open debate upon every section of the bill. We could not have a better illustration than the bill now before us; the act being amended contains so many sections, with very great implications. We shall be here for much more than a week or two if each of us airs his views and perhaps justifiable grievances in regard to every remote section of the code. I suggest that we adhere to the rules and discuss only the general principle of the bill under consideration.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I desire to make a few brief observations in respect of this bill, and I hope I will not displease the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) if I discuss the principles of the jriminal code incidentally, in a most general way, while generally speaking confining myself to the principles of the bill.
There is a great deal in what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said with respect to the criminal code and its administration generally. I am not going into any of the particular topics to which he
adverted, except to say that I support his contentions in every regard, with one exception. I think the criminal code should be overhauled. If my memory serves me aright it was in 1892 that the criminal law of Canada was codified. I had the honour to sit as a student under a very able man who did a great deal of work on the codification of the criminal law of Canada, the late Doctor Weldon, who lectured to us on crimes in the law school. His experience was of great benefit' to us as students at law. The only point upon which I differ with the hon. member for Lake Centre is with respect to his suggestion that these unfortunate convicted men or women should be transferred immediately to the penitentiary.


Alan Webster Neill: I repeat my point of order, which has not yet been decided. If it is to be generally understood that we can discuss every section of the criminal code under this bill, let us go to it. It will take a long time, and will be a precedent in the discussion of other bills. I just want the matter cleared up. If that is the ruling of the Chair and the judgment of this house, go to it; but don't kick later on when we come within sight of Christmas.


Thomas Vien: I did not understand that the hon. gentleman was raising a point of order. When the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking I asked him to state in what way his remarks were relevant to this bill, and the hon. member said he was dealing with the sections of the bill and giving some instances in support of his argument. It may be that in giving those illustrations he was somewhat irrelevant as far as this bill is concerned, yet generally speaking he was confining himself to the sections of the code now being amended. I would ask all other hon. members to confine themselves to these amendments and their implications, supporting their remarks by whatever arguments they consider proper but keeping always within the amendments themselves. I rather think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) was proposing to deal with the matter in the same manner; at least I hope that was so, and that I will not have to call him to order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope there will be no occasion for Your Honour to call me to order. The weather to-day is too hot for me at least to engage in any great controversy. I just want to finish the statement I was making, and then I shall deal entirely with the principle of this bill. That is to say, I do not find myself in accord with the suggestion of the hon. member for Lake
Criminal Code

Centre in respect to the thirty day interim period now provided by law. I imagine his suggestion was prompted by the fact that in some of the county gaols there has not been proper custody of these men, and an agitation has grown up to have them shipped off to the penitentiaiy at once. That argument, I think, does not carry very much weight, because I believe it would be a great inconvenience for counsel pending appeal if they did not have the opportunity of frequent consultation with their clients. Having said that, I am content.
I am interested in the proposal to amend sections 364 and 365 of the code, and I will tell the house why. It is a long time since I have had anything to do with the administration of criminal law, but twenty years ago I defended a young man who was charged with the theft of money from a post office. I found myself confronted with a problem, as to whether I should advise him to plead guilty or fight the case out. If I fought it out and he was found not guilty, of course he would be cleared; if he was proved guilty, however, he had to go to the penitentiary for three years, willy-nilly; nothing less, because there was no discretion.


Mr. MARTIN:: Or a suspended sentence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a judgment to that effect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not believe there is the right to suspend sentence; the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) will correct me if I am wrong. I remember discussing that case with the Postmaster General of the day, the late Hon. Charles Murphy, who was a good postmaster general, I should like to say in passing; who was himself an eminent lawyer, and who had a large experience in the practice of the criminal law of this country. I was unsuccessful in my defence of the case, with the result that the young lad, who had come from a good family, was sent to the penitentiary. Nothing could save him. After a time a remission was granted. I had something to do with getting the consent of the postmaster general of that day, as well as that of the then minister of justice, for the leniency shown by the crown in that connection.
At that time I discussed with Mr. Murphy the reasons for the apparent severity of the provisions of the criminal code against employees of the Post Office Department for stealing. In that instance it was a case of stealing money from a non-registered letter, then in the custody of the Post Office Department. While he paid great tribute to the

honour and integrity of the postal service- and I join in paying the same tribute to that service, which handles millions of letters every year containing money, valuable securities, cash and/ specie-he pointed out that if there was the millionth case in which theft had been committed the penalty would be justified. He told me at that time that an expert sorting clerk could tell in a minute, simply from the feel of an envelope, whether it contained bank notes, and pointed out that the experience of the department had shown that opportunities for theft there presented themselves, as they did not present themselves to most people. Those clerks operate in a fiduciary capacity, and their records and conduct must be above suspicion. If undue leniency were shown, or if suspended sentences were permitted, they might place a premium on delinquency. I had to ibe content with that, although the minister at that time was very helpful in dealing with this first offender. I am glad to say that he was released from custody, and is now an honoured minister of the gospel in the United States. He did not become a confirmed criminal.


Mr. GRAYDON:: He had a good lawyer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am afraid I did not teach him that. So that the question I put to the Minister of Justice to-day is this. Having regard to what I learned first-hand from a postmaster general of twenty years ago, what change of policy has come over that department-because I assume this amendment emanates from the Post Office Department, and not from the Department of Justice- whereby they are recommending this leniency?
May I say in passing that the operation of this amendment will depend entirely upon the judicial officers who are administering the law. It will depend, for instance, on the type of police magistrate before whom many of these offenders will come. Or if the offence is under indictment, it will depend upon the type of judge who will have charge of the case.
In his introductory remarks the Minister of Justice confined' himself entirely to the subject matter of the amendments, without giving us the reasons therefor. I should like to learn from him if there has been any change in the policy of the Post Office Department, and if it is now considered that the minimum sentence which must be exacted under the provisions of the statute as they now exist is too harsh. Generally speaking, would he tell the house what has occurred in the last twenty years which would direct the attitude of the Post Office Department toward the degree of leniency indicated in this bill? I am bound to

Criminal Code
say that the postmaster general of that day convinced me that postal employees were the guardians of public moneys passing through the mails, and that there must not be any easy way of escape from the consequences of violation of the statute. He pointed out, further, that the penalty given must Ibe sufficient to act as a deterrent. I believe that was the principle underlying his philosophy. It was a deterrent to everybody else, showing that they could not do this sort of thing and escape with only a suspended sentence, or a light term of imprisonment. I did not, of course, agree with him entirely at that time, because I had in my mind an offender who, I thought, had been dealt with harshly under the provisions of the statute. I therefore invite the Minister of Justice, when he closes the debate, to give us the underlying reasons which have caused the Post Office Department to change their views in connection with this important matter.
I have nothing of importance to say respecting section 4 of the bill. I think the minister pointed out a cogent reason why there should be a change, and certainly he is much more familiar with the administration of justice in his own province than any of us who are not from that province could possibly be. Sometimes I think there are too many judges in this country, especially since in this time of war they do not seem to have much to do. In my, province, at all events, we could get along with a lot less. However that is a matter of

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Within a matter of hours I have had representations to the contrary from the law society of the hon. member's province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They did not ask my advice, that is all I can say; they lost a good opinion.	.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall be glad to have the hon. member's opinion to use in my reply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I think they have in mind down there is that the government of to-day should fill vacancies when they arise, and not hold them back in the hope of holding them over for perhaps some incompetents to fill before or after an election. That is what they are objecting to in New Brunswick. If we are going to have a panel of three appeal court judges in New Brunswick, then let us have them. If we are going to have four King's bench judges in New Brunswick, then let us not get along with only two, and one ill, and one vacancy. That is what we object to in New Brunswick-the holding of vacancies. If they tell the Minister of Justice the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, he will find out that that is the reason. I happen to be just about as close to the active practising barristers down there as anyone could be, and I believe that is the view. However, I apologize for interjecting those remarks.
Then there is another thing. We are going to have an election down there pretty soon, and there are two or three would-be applicants who are being forced to run over the course before they get their reward. I know it is very difficult-


Thomas Vien: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course I know it is difficult to satisfy five applicants with just one plum.


Mr. SLAGHT:: How does the hon. member know that? Is it through his own experience with a former government?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would say I would take a good deal of pride in the judicial appointments and recommendations I made in 1935.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member is reflecting on the whole bench.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
respectfully dissent from that. I have a very high regard for the bench as a whole.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: One would not think so, after the hon. member's last remarks.


Thomas Vien: I would ask hon. members to address the Chair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not have said what I did if the hon. member for Parry Sound had not interjected; and I am not going to say any more on the subject. I am inviting the Minister of Justice to illuminate this discussion by telling us just what has changed the policy Of the Post Office Department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think these amendments are certainly long overdue, particularly that one having to do with the inclusion of the words in the present section which provide that it is mandatory for a judge or magistrate to impose a sentence within the ambit of the phrase "or for any term not less than three years." This provision has called for amendment long before this. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken mentioned a case in the province of Ontario. Chief Justice Rose has given an obiter dictum to the effect that the magistrate has power to impose a suspended sentence, and
Criminal Code

in one case in which I appeared two years ago a suspended sentence was granted in spite of the mandatory direction of the present section.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the
nature of the offence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same kind, of case. It was Rex v. Mallott. It is reported I think in the Ontario Weekly Notes, but I have not at hand the citation. The point I had particularly in mind was in reference to that part of section 364 to which no amendment is suggested. This reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who steals,
(a) a post letter bag, etc.
As one who has had some experience at the bar I feel it my duty to register strong objection to this kind of provision, even though it may be an omnibus provision. I find it difficult to conceive of any kind of crime under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d) which would justify, a life sentence. It might be impossible to find a magistrate who would impose such a sentence, but any one who has practised at the bar knows that there are magistrates and magistrates. One does not know what might happen. There might be the restraining influence of the court of appeal, but I suggest that we should not permit the. inclusion in any of these sections of a punishment which is out of keeping with the tempo of modem criminal jurisprudence. There was a time in the history of our law when we punished an individual with death for theft, but in this day and age I do not think we are going to correct crimes of this sort by leaving in the hands of an irresponsible magistrate the power to impose, if not a life sentence, anything like it for such offences. I think we should unhesitatingly remove the discretionary power which this present section provides so far as the maximum sentence is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Martin), who has just spoken, has brought to the attention of the house a matter which deserves consideration and, if I may say so, the unanimous support of the house. I am not always able to support him as strongly as I can on this occasion, but I do not think we should pass this statute in the manner in which it now is and let an accused person who is convicted be liable for imprisonment for committing these crimes. Perhaps I had better read one of them to the house in order to im-

press upon hon. members the seriousness of the term which is imposed. The first crime is the theft of a post letter bag.
A post letter bag may not contain anything; it might be only an empty bag, because it does not state that it must contain something. If an employee of the Post Office Department were to pick up a bag and take it home, surely a magistrate should not have such extended jurisdiction as to permit him to impose life imprisonment. It might of course be properly said that a magistrate would not do that, but we have no right to grant that discretion.
This section indicates clearly the ridiculousness of some of these sections in this enlightened period of our national existence, and I support the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour in his plea. It looks to me as though we are back in the old days when they used to hang men for putting their initials on London bridge. Those were supposed to be much darker days than what we are living in right now.
The postal employees generally are not an overpaid group of people, and I think it is bad to impose such a heavy penalty and make them liable to life imprisonment for what at best could be only a relatively small misdemeanour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is the section as it
has stood for some time.


Thomas Vien: May I point out that this discussion really belongs to the committee stage of the bill. We are now dealing with the principle of the bill. If you accept the principle, that does not mean that the bill cannot be altered by amendment in committee. If the principle is adopted, then the discussion now taking place could continue in committee.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, it is not by extending the term of imprisonment to which delinquents are sentenced that we shall necessarily prevent crime. I have more faith in preventive than in punitive justice. Of what avail is it to the authorities to imprison for life an individual who is guilty of an offence if no appropriate action is taken in penitentiary institutions for the rehabilitation of prisoners? The latter are not always hardened criminals, far from it. If a post office employee steals a letter, a parcel or even a post letter bag, why should he, except in the case of a confirmed criminal, be liable to life imprisonment? I consider the amendments to the criminal code which are proposed in this bill

Criminal Code
as extremely severe; that is not preventive but punitive justice. The purpose of every piece of legislation, even in criminal matters, is both to improve the condition of individuals and to protect society. I believe that the proposed amendments go too far, at least as regards sections 1 and 2 of the bill, and I would rather see the criminal code remain as it is now.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with passing the principle of this bill as it stands is that by implication we are approving the sections as they stand as amended. It is true that formally all we are doing is to approve the amendment, but when we approve the amendment we are approving by implication the code as it stands as amended. We should not pass this bill, without some indication from the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that when it arrives in committee it will be amended to common sense. I have defended in court where there was a life sentence in prospect, and I wanted to tell the jury of that fact. There was a time in the courts of Ontario when judges ruled that you could not tell the jury what the limit of the penalty might be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Can you now?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes, you can. A number of us brought that about because we refused to submit to an arbitrary ruling of that kind. We held that the jury had a right to know the limit of the penalty that might be imposed by his lordship. We achieved that right in the courts of Ontario, the right to tell the jury that if you convict the accused of this offence the criminal code allows the imposition of a life sentence. Can you imagine twelve good, decent and humane men listening to a charge under one or another of these clauses against some poor individual who may have stolen some inconsequential amount, a man with a wife and family and so on, and facing the possibility of putting the man in gaol for life? The thing is ridiculous. It is so extreme, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has pointed out, as to be pernicious, and it should be changed. I congratulate the hon.>
member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) upon having brought this matter to our attention.
The penalties provided in the code should be reasonable, penalties suitable to the offence in the circumstances. I practised in the courts of Toronto many years ago and I actually saw the criminal law reformed by the juries of the county of York. We had a judge who was unduly severe, who handed out five and seven year sentences with a generosity that was
appalling. In due season the juries refused to risk what he might do to the poor fellow in the dock. I saw juries bring in verdicts of not guilty when the prisoner was obviously guilty. Extenuating circumstances made incongruous the abuse which the judge was likely to inflict on him.
And so, too, with the code. You are going to have guilty men let off because of fear by juries of extreme, ridiculous and inhuman sentences. I commend the Minister of Justice for this amendment. I have had the experience of having some offender sent to prison for three years for an offence for which he should have been given three months, much to the regret of the magistrate, without the concurrence of the crown official, and certainly to the consternation of the man's friends and relatives and perhaps his wife and children. It is time that we gave magistrates the right to be reasonable. This we have denied them under the code as it now stands. Let us give them the right to be reasonable. Sometimes they may fail because of human limitations, but at least they should have the opportunity. This is good legislation.
I think some good purpose would be served by carrying out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) in having a more general review of the code, particularly of the sentences. The code sentences were adopted many, many years ago, long before we had reached the small degree of enlightenment which we now possess. What enlightenment we now have should be reflected in the criminal code. The Minister of Justice would be doing a public service if he could get a committee of many minds working on this subject in order that he might bring in at the next session a very much more extended series of amendments.


Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Mr. Speaker, if a layman may be permitted to be so audacious as to take part in this debate between lawyers in a field where I think angels would naturally fear to tread, I should like to support the suggestions made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Roebuck), and also the suggestion made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I approve the withdrawal from the code of the minimum sentence formerly imposed. I agree with those who have spoken, that the amendment is in line with modern thought and practice.
I wish to register my opposition to the continued inclusion in the bill of the words "liable to imprisonment for life," which still gives the court the privilege of imposing a life

Criminal Code

sentence as a possible sentence for the offences set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 364 of the code.
While I am on my feet may I say that the whole nature of this bill serves to emphasize the responsibility which society places upon the employees of the Post Office Department, and the necessity that these employees should be people of character and integrity. I want to compliment the Post Office Department and its employees upon the degree of responsibility and integrity which has been manifested in that department in the past. I just wish to say that that degree of character and integrity required of the employees of the Post Office Department is in strong contrast with the reward which society, through that department and the government, has been willing to pay to these employees; and I would suggest that this bill, which in one instance at least imposes a severer penalty than the former one upon the employees for a certain type of offence be accompanied later, when the minister's estimates come up for consideration, with the announcement that these employees are to be duly rewarded in keeping with the responsibility which we place upon them.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I
agree with the last speaker (Mr. Noseworthy) it is important that we should maintain in the public mind the necessity for the strictest probity in those who serve us in dealing with His Majesty's mail. There is an old tradition that His Majesty's mail must go through, and accompanying that is the tradition that that great arm of the public service, both the officers and the mail carriers, must comprise men of high integrity. In my view, in Canada these men are men of integrity. In my view, in the main, particularly as regards the carriers, they are underpaid. That is one of the problems not for to-day but for the future. If that be so, the frailty of human nature inclines men to err when tempted possibly in the matter of 82 or 85 which might be needed and which might cause them to break the country's laws.
Having said that, I desire to concur in the observations so well put by my hon. friend the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and I think the minister will find that they meet with the general approval of the house. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to adhere to your ruling to discuss the principle of the bill and not to speak as though we were in committee.
The principle of the bill is not such as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) suggested in error. He suggests that we are making a new start. We are not making a new 
start, because the section we are amending provides for imprisonment for life, but places a minimum of three years. So far as the principle of the bill removes that minimum of three years I think it is sound. In so far as it seeks to perpetuate the right to punish with life imprisonment, I do not think the principle is sound.
The administration of our criminal law is the very foundation of our national existence, without which we cannot hope to succeed, and that administration depends upon the observance of a principle which a great English judge once enunciated: Not only shall justice be done, but the people shall feel that justice is being done. Having regard to that principle, I am bold enough to make a suggestion to the minister who takes the keenest interest in these matters. By his equipment before accepting this responsible post, as well as by reason of his record, he is well fitted to stand in this great and responsible position as Minister of Justice, and I wish to pay tribute to his record in that regard, as well as to his record since he has occupied the position. I venture, however, to suggest to him tha't when he comes to the committee he might feel inclined to suggest an amendment to the section which deals with section 364 and to reduce the term of imprisonment there by striking out the words "for life" and substituting words such as "for not more than", let us say, "eight years", or "seven years" or "five years"-some punishment that fits the crime. I suggest that he amend section 2, which deals with section 365, by reducing the term from seven to perhaps five years. My suggestion would be- and I offer it with diffidence, because this is a very open matter-that he amend section 364 by reducing the penalty to not more than seven years, and that he reduce the penalty under section 365, which defines lesser offences, to one of imprisonment for not more than five years.


Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: As the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) has suggested, it is difficult to identify in brief form the principle of this bill. Many hon. members who have spoken seem to have regarded the principle as relating only to changes in the penalties to be provided for offences on the part of postal employees. I would point out that there is also section 3, which would change the penalties provided in section 436 of the criminal code, which section has to do with defrauding the government by delivering to the armed services goods which do not measure up to the specifications laid down. In other words, the broad principle of the bill is that certain

Criminal Code
changes be made with reference to the severity of sentences to be imposed, specifically in sections 364, 365 and 436 of the code.
The reason why I rise to say a few words is that, in my opinion, there is an inconsistency between the severity of the penalties allowable under sections 1 and 2 of the bill and the severity of the penalties allowable under section 3. A number of hon. members have pointed out that it would be possible, if this bill were passed in its present form, for a postal employee to be given a life sentence for the stealing of an empty postal bag. On the other hand, if a firm deliberately defrauds the government and the people of Canada, in the terms set out in section 3 of the bill, section 436 of the criminal code as amended would provide a maximum sentence of only seven years or a fine of 850,000 or both.
My interest in section 3 is related to certain remarks I have had occasion to make previous^ during this session with regard to the alleged defrauding of the government by certain bedding manufacturers. I have asked questions of ministers of certain departments and their parliamentary assistants, and there has been placed on Hansard information which would seem to indicate that such practices are in some cases being carried out. I refer to the failure of certain bedding companies, who are providing mattresses and other bedding products for the armed forces, to make those products in accordance with the specifications laid down by the government. Offences of that kind are covered by section 436, and the answer given me in one instance by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Munitions and Supply made it quite clear that at least one case is being proceeded with against a firm under this section. I have had strong representations made to me by parents and other relatives of members of the armed forces who learned that this kind of thing was being done. Not only is the government being defrauded but the health of persons in the services is being endangered in this way. I have taken this moment or two to refer in detail to this matter as one example of cases that come under section 436 of the criminal code. To my mind the offence I have mentioned is far more serious than the offences possible under paragraphs (a), (b),
(c)	and (d) of section 1 of this bill. Like some of the hon. members who have preceded me I feel that we have no option but to raise these questions on second reading because the principle that we are being asked
to approve is the amending of the criminal code along the lines set out in the various sections. I wholly support the contention already made to the effect that a possible life sentence for the theft of an empty post letter bag should be reduced. I couple with that the suggestion-


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: But if the bag had a $100,000 in it, what then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that case the judge
would have the discretionary power to pass the appropriate sentence. The bill before us gives the judge the right to impose that very severe sentence even for a very light offence, and yet on the other hand, no matter how deliberate the action of a company in defrauding the government under section 436 of the criminal code may be, no matter how injurious it may be to the health of the people in the armed forces or to the health of our civilian population, the offence under the section even as amended by this bill cannot receive a greater punishment than imprisonment for seven years and a 850,000 fine. My contention is that the element of fraud in section 436 and the injurious effects upon health are so much worse than some of the offences under section 364 of the criminal code that there should be an alteration in the provisions of this bill. Like others who have spoken, I feel that there should be a lessening of the severity so far as sections l1 and 2 are concerned, but I contend also that there should be an increase in the severity so far as section 3 is concerned.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	I think I should deal very briefly
with some of the general observations that have been made with respect to this bill to amend the criminal code to provide for better administration of criminal justice.
The suggestion is made that there should be a provision dealing with mandatory sentences, removing the obligation to impose capital punishment in all cases of verdicts of murder. There may be very good reasons to urge for the limited extent of the removal which lias been enacted in the parliament of the United Kingdom for that kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: That is as far as
I went.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I gathered that that was as far as the hon. member for Lake Centre was recommending that we should go. Beyond that I think it is preferable, so long as capital
4320
Criminal Code

punishment is to remain one of the punishments provided by our law, to have it mandatory, and not leave it the responsibility of the presiding justice in certain cases to feel bound to impose capital punishment and in other cases to have the privilege of not doing so. I think that for the cases in which parliament decides that capital punishment is the right penalty the provision of the code should be mandatory as it is at the present time. With respect to the limited removal recommended by the hon. member for Lake Centre I think that is a matter which would receive serious consideration from the kind of committee that the hon. member recommended be set up to consider the whole matter of the criminal code and to take the evidence of jurists, scientists and penologists on such improvements as it may be proper to bring about. Were the times not such as they are-I am not at all sure that I would be here then, but if I were I would be very much inclined to recommend, as the hon. member has done, the setting up of a committee and its operation in an active way. On the whole I think it is preferable to leave that over until the times are more propitious than they are just now, and in view of the news we have been receiving from the theatres of war let us hope that such times will not be too far distant.
The second recommendation of the hon. member would have to do with the enlarging of the possibilities of appeal in criminal cases to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think that would also be a matter upon which it would be of value to parliament to have the recommendations of the kind of committee suggested by the hon. member. As hon. members know, there is now the possibility of appealing to the supreme court whenever there is a conflict of decisions between the appeal courts of two or more of the Canadian provinces. That has served a very useful purpose in bringing into harmony the application of the code throughout the whole of Canada. It is possible that in perhaps not all criminal cases, but in a certain range there should be, without the necessity of obtaining leave and showing special circumstances, the right to take the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. Where the line would properly be drawn is a matter that has to be carefully considered. At the present time the line is drawn between decisions which conflict with those of the appeal court of another province and those that do not. If the line is to be moved I think it should be carefully considered as to where it would be set up again. It would be useful for parliament to have report of a [Mr. St. Laurent.}
committee that would have taken the evidence of jurists and others qualified to offer opinions of value upon such matters.
The next suggestion has to do with something about which I am sure every hon. member of this house and most of the Canadian people, though they are not in this house, are in agreement; that is, the desire to see our penal system developed in such a way as will make not merely for punishment but for reform. It has been stated on more than one occasion since the beginning of the war that the recommendations of the Archambault commission could not be fully implemented without the provision of large capital expenditures for the establishment of new institutions. However, I believe we can join the hon. member in saying that in the recommendations of that commission there is much, even though it requires considerable capital expenditure, which should 'be undertaken as soon as circumstances permit.
Another suggestion had to do with the controversial" question of whether or not a man convicted and sentenced to a term which would have to be served in a penitentiary should be removed to that institution before the expiration of the time during which an appeal could be entered. The matter was brought to a head by incidents which occurred in the Toronto gaol within recent weeks. Only this week the officers of the Department of Justice had conferences with the mayor of Toronto in reference to the situation which exists in that city. That suggestion would entail serious inconveniences. Just as an indication of these, supposing a man convicted in Kenora and brought to Kingston desired to appeal. His counsel in Kenora would find himself seriously handicapped by the fact that his client had been moved to Kingston.
There is also this further point. Up to the present time the penitentiaries have been organized for the purpose of carrying out sentences which involve hard labour. I submit with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is not proper to impose any punishment upon a person until he definitely has been found guilty and subject to such punishment. During the time his case is before the courts for consideration it is proper, for the protection of society, that he be confined; but I think it would be improper to impose any other part of the punishment until the case is finally disposed of. If the suggestion were adopted we would require to have two departments in our penitentiaries, one in which there would be merely confinement, and the other, which exists at the

Criminal Code
present time, for the serving of time at hard labour. That is- an objection which was suggested to the mayor of Toronto. There are other inconvenient features, but the matter is now actively under consideration. In the meantime another suggestion within the powers of other authorities was made for the purpose of remedying the deficiencies which are so apparent in the Don gaol.
On more than one occasion the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has indicated his great concern over the number of serious or fatal highway accidents owing to motor traffic throughout Canada. I have obtained for him some statistical information, but I did not expect to have the matter discussed here to-day, and I note that the hon. member said he would refer to the matter and ask for the information when the estimates of the Department of Justice were being considered. In respect of the appeal to the superior courts of Quebec from summary convictions the hon. member suggested that we may have too many high court judges in Quebec. On that point I shall be able to show the hon. member the per capita cost for the indemnification of judges in each province; and he will find that, since there are no county courts in Quebec to which federal judges are appointed, the per capita cost for the indemnification of judges there is rather lower than elsewhere. I can also assure the hon. gentleman that the recommendations made by the chief constables' association with respect to the administration of the criminal code are always received very gratefully and considered very carefully, because it is realized that they, with the officers of my department, have a common concern in maintaining peace, order and good government in the country.
There remains the question submitted by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) as to the reasons for the change in attitude on the part of the Post Office Department with respect to the severity of sentences provided by the criminal code. Of course the hon. member is quite right in thinking that the Department of Justice would not have suggested this change if it had1 not originated with the Post Office Department or at least been concurred in by the officers of that department. Since the beginning of the war the situation that has arisen in the operation of the post office is rather different from that which existed prior to the war. Before the war the work of the Post Office Department was generally done by permanent employees. Since the war started it has not been possible to select and enrol a sufficient number of permanent employees to do all the work that had
to be done, and temporary employees have been taken on; married women, minors and others who did not have the training or experience of the normal permanent staff of the Post Office Department. That created a new situation. You went before the court with some incident attributable to one of these temporary employees and charged that person with an offence which carried a minimum penitentiary sentence of three years and a maximum sentence of life. When you asked the jury to convict, the jury would1 say, " That person has not done anything deserving of a sentence of three years in the penitentiary as a minimum or life as a maximum. He may have gone through the motions, but parliament did not intend the sort of thing he has done to be the crime for which a minimum of three years or a maximum of life is provided." The result was that it became very difficult to obtain convictions.
The question has arisen as to whether there could be a suspended sentence. I think both the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for York-Sunbury are entirely correct. Legally there could be a suspended sentence, as section 1081 provides, if counsel representing the crown consented; but most frequently counsel representing the crown took the attitude that, parliament having provided a minimum of three years, it was not within his right to consent to anything less than three years' imprisonment. In most cases counsel representing the crown would say, "I have no right to give my consent," and without that consent the court could not suspend sentence. It may have happened in certain1 cases that counsel for the crown took a different view, and would say, "Well, here I have the choice between not getting a conviction and getting a conviction on the understanding that I will agree that this man will not go to a penitentiary for three years."


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was the occurrence in the case about which I spoke.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That may have happened, in exceptional cases; but the general attitude of crown counsel was that, parliament having said that the minimum punishment would be three years, they had no power to agree to suspended sentence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the magistrate took that view himself, in the case to which I refer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I suppose the magistrate would probably say to counsel, " It does not seem proper that you should give consent, when parliament has stated that the minimum

Criminal Code
penalty will be three years' imprisonment." But parliament had provided that a magistrate could suspend sentence if counsel for the crown agreed to its being suspended. Those are the terms of section 1081. It is stated that if a maximum punishment is less than two years, the magistrate may suspend sentence without consent. If the offence is one which involves a possible punishment of more than two years' imprisonment, the magistrate could suspend sentence only with the consent of counsel representing the crown.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
correct.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the reasons I have given will probably satisfy the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not .controverting it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is not a general reversal of the policy that the mails ought to be regarded as sacred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That still stands.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. That still stands; and we know that great precautions are taken to ensure the delivery of the mails. The necessity of taking on so many temporary employees, frequently minors, and the possibility of their committing small offences in respect of the mails, made it desirable to have machinery whereby some punishment could be imposed. That is so, because in most cases one would not get any punishment at all, with the statute as it stood. A jury would almost invariably say, "This person has not done the thing for which parliament provided a minimum punishment of three years. What he has done is not something of that kind. Therefore we will not find him guilty, when he is being accused of something for which parliament has provided such a severe penalty."
Then, in the administration of the department, there was very great reluctance to institute proceedings when a matter did not appear to be of a degree of importance sufficient to imprison a man for three years in a penitentiary. And, having a class of persons quite different from the class of permanent civil employees who usually handle the mails, it was necessary to have a more flexible type of machinery to deal with this new class.
If the house accepts the amendment, the new procedure will be in operation, and experience will show whether this step has been wise or otherwise. When the service gets back to the place where it will no longer have any-
[Mr, St. Laurent.)
thing but its regular permanent staff, there may be reason for establishing some rule other than the one now suggested.
As to the details of the bill, and without giving any undertaking to accept amendments, I think it would be preferable if the discussion of such amendments were had in the committee stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is agreeable to us.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Punishment of theft.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we ought to have an explanation of the point raised by the hon. member for Essex East. It was one which I intended to raise, but about which I had forgotten for the moment.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would point out that, as has been suggested, this is merely the maximum penalty which can be imposed, and that section 1054 provides:
Every one who is liable to imprisonment for life or for any term of years, or other term, may be sentenced to imprisonment for any shorter term.
So that even under this, the punishment imposed by a magistrate might be one day or thirty days or thirty years or life. The discretion is entirely in the hands of the magistrate. The suggestion has been made that it is quite improper to have in this kind of section the suggestion that there might be something sufficiently grave falling under the section to warrant life imprisonment. I submit that that is not so, in fact. Those of'us in the house who are older than most members will recall the sensations mail robberies .used to create. I remember not so many years ago an armed mail robbery of a mail car on the Ocean Limited, perpetrated some miles below Quebec city. That offence resulted in charges of murder, because homicide did occur in carrying out the project of stealing from the mails. I am not suggesting that there could not be framed an indictment under some other section of the code that would apply. But here-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably would apply.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Robbery might be made to apply. But one can conceive of thefts of mail bags and mailed matter under conditions of gravity sufficient to call for the most severe kind of penalty, short of the death sentence. This comes down from the very first drafting of the code, about fifty-odd years

Criminal Code
ago. At that time mail robberies were grave incidents which were still lingering in the minds of people on the north American continent. The offence of thieving from the mails could be anything from what is done-even done at the present time-by way of abstracting a few stamps, a dollar bill or some other small item from a letter, to the old-time mail robbery. The provision here may appear to be out of line, but as hon. members know, the maximum penalty for robbery is life, and that sentence may be accompanied by lashes. This is only a possible life sentence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a relic of the old days.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think our whole criminal code is a relic of the ten commandments, expanded to different degrees. I think the removal of any minimum will permit satisfactory administration of justice for the time being. There is no doubt that there are sections of the code where there is not a proper balance between the penalties provided. When the parliamentary committee, to which both the hon. member for Lake Centre and myself are looking forward, is established it can go over the whole situation. There is no doubt that a serious effort will be made to have a more uniform scale of penalties throughout the code, but it was felt in the department that for the time being we should merely suggest such amendments as are required for immediate application.
The removal of this minimum is something required for immediate application and the increasing of the severity of the penalty in the other section is of immediate application. We were dealing with things which it was felt in the department should go into force at once. We were not looking forward to bringing about piecemeal a more perfect general instrument to deal with those unfortunates who fall by the wayside and stray from the straight and narrow path.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems
to me that what the minister has just said in his closing sentences is that the Department of Justice is recommending an expedient to parliament to serve a situation which has arisen at the moment and which requires attention. I am not going to quarrel with that, but I do say that the ameliorating of the minimum sentence is entirely out of balance with the retention of the life imprisonment in the early part of section 364 of the criminal code. Having regard to the lack of balance between what he is doing, on the one hand, and what is being suggested by the hon. member for Essex East, on the other, the
minister ought to give consideration to this matter. It seems to me that the two things are incompatible; they are out of balance.


Mr. KINLEY:: You are taking away from the one side.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As the
hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg says, you are taking away on the one side and you are retaining an inflexible provision or scale of punishment on the other.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not inflexible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not
exactly inflexible, but the minister is maintaining a tremendously high penalty for what after all, as he himself suggests, may be a minor offence. I am not going to labour the point. This has been recommended by other hon. members and I do think the minister might well withdraw the bill and give the matter some consideration for another day. I do not want to hold up the bill. The minister should give us some explanation as to why the penalty is being raised in the next section.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will do that when we reach the section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I make
that suggestion in the utmost good faith. I have been impressed by the argument made by the hon. member for Essex East. I should have made it myself, and I really had it marked down. The two things seem to be out of line. We are relieving on the one hand, but we are not relieving the maximum on the other.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The unbalanced
position might be looked upon as important in this section, but if the hon. member will turn to section 358 he will find provision for a penalty of fourteen years for simple theft. If we are to have a balanced scale we shall have to go through the whole code. That is something that should be done at a relatively early day, and I am hopeful that whoever sits in this seat when the war is over will consider the suggestion which has been advanced this afternoon as to the manner of doing it as the right way to go about it. I I hope that both my hon. friend and myself will have occasion to practise before the courts when a code so improved is being applied. The fact that the maximum remains will not create any immediate difficulty in the administration of justice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is
theoretical.
Criminal Code


Joseph William Noseworthy: What effect would
the omission of the words "for life" have upon administration?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If a maximum is not provided, the magistrate could not impose any imprisonment. If we eliminated the words "for life" the imprisonment that could be imposed could not go beyond one second. It would just be a technical imprisonment and the sentence would be served just as soon as it had begun.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would
be void for uncertainty.


John James Kinley: The hon. member for York-Sunbury referred to me. As a lay member of the house I have been listening to the interesting discussion and it occurs to me that by the removal of the minimum penalty you are making the statute more drastic in effect. You have within the bracket a high penalty and a low penalty. In this case the supreme penalty is life and the minimum penalty is three years. If you take away the minimum penalty of three years, what will the impression be upon the courts when they see the new statute which contains no reference to a minimum penalty? If a sentence of only two years or one year is imposed, the public may say, "What kind of judge is that? He gives only one or two years when the statute says that a life penalty may be imposed."


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not correct. The statute does not say what penalty the judge shall give; it simply states that the maximum penalty is life.


John James Kinley: The statute says that it may be life. That indicates what this parliament thinks of the offence, and it would appear in the statute without any qualification. At the present time there is a qualification, and it seems to me that when you leave only the high bracket you create a condition which makes the law more drastic.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Penalty.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I promised the hon. member that I would give the reason for increasing the penalty in this section. This is done because it has been found that the importance of contracts is frequently such that the former penalty was entirely out of proportion with the amount involved in the transaction. Some of these transactions run into large sums of money and it was felt that the penalty was not in proportion with what might be involved in cases such as the one mentioned by the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). That case is before the courts and the contract involved there is for amounts for which the former penalties were entirely out of proportion. The situation with respect to such frauds is not that the penalty provided by the criminal code is the only redress because there is redress in collecting from the accused person or firm moneys improperly received.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Restitution.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. This is in addition to whatever civil debt may arise out of the fraud that has been perpetrated. The amount was suggested and it impresses me as being quite substantial as a penalty. The penalty is seven years in the penitentiary or a $50,000 fine or both. That gives the court some latitude to show its appreciation of the gravity of the offence. We have had cases under the wartime prices and trade board regulations where fines of $25 and fines of $25,000 have been imposed by courts of the. same jurisdiction, thereby indicating their appreciation of the scale of gravity of the offence committed. In these matters which involve financial gains the monetary penalties sometimes have to be considerable to have any deterrent effect.
Mr: HANSON (York-Sunbury): That I think is true with respect to criminal acts. May I point out that offences under the wartime prices and trade board are mala -prohibita and are not in the same category as mala in se. There is a great difference between the two kinds of acts. But we are here dealing with an offence in itself. The other is merely an offence against what is an arbitrary restriction on the rights of citizens. You cannot make a comparison between the two.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are cases which can be compared, as I think the hon. member will recognize; for instance, the dodges that are resorted to in black marketing gasoline; the printing of false ration coupons, and other rackets that are resorted to for obtaining sugar, for instance, or some other commodity in excess of the quota to which one is entitled; getting out of a coupon bank coupons which have been used but not destroyed, and selling them. There are things of that kind which impress the courts before which the facts are proved as being rackets that have to be severely stamped upon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The case to which I was referring and to which the minister has alluded may turn out to have some connection with the wartime prices and trade board or the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation,

Criminal Code
but I would point out that it is the Department of Munitions and Supply which has laid the charge. The charge is that this firm knowingly sold to the government material which did not measure up to the specifications laid down. I would emphasize the gravity of that kind of offence. I pointed out previously that charges have been laid in connection with the manufacture of bedding which was supposed to have been made from new material or material guaranteed to be safe so far as health is concerned, but the charge is that the material was second-hand and not clean. This is an offence endangering the health of the members of the armed forces as well as defrauding the government and endeavouring to make unusual profits, if the charges are substantiated, out of the war situation. I agree wholly with the Minister of Justice that the penalty in such a case should be severe.


Gordon Graydon: Is that case before the courts?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it is; at least that is the information we have been given in the house. I agree with the minister that the penalties provided by way of the amendment are substantial as compared with the former penalties. But the contention that I was making on second reading was that even the new penalties are not substantial as compared with a possible life sentence for certain postal offences. I accept the explanation, in part at least, which the minister has given in connection with section 1, but it seems to me that he still has to explain why there cannot be at least an equally severe penalty under section 3. My contention is-following the minister's argument in connection with section 1-that there may be cases of defrauding the government, such as the one to which I have referred, which are flagrant enough to call for a life sentence, but under the amendment a sentence greater than seven years and a fine of $50,000 would not be permitted. The point I am trying to make' is that the penalty under section 3 is light in comparison with the penalty under section 1.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member will agree that if he and I were redrafting the provisions that apply to simple theft, or to theft with. various aggravating circumstances, we should find that the penalties which the code provides rather severe and we would probably be recommending a scale quite different from the one that is at present in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly, and a better balanced scale.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-'Fraud, etc., in connection with sale, etc., of military stores.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This clause relates to section 436 of the criminal code. Suppose it be found that a firm has applied for and received subsidies from the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation and that the application for these subsidies was of a fraudulent nature, could a charge be laid against that firm under this section, or would that come somewhere else?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would imagine, on the hypothesis stated by the hon. gentleman, that a crown prosecutor would be apt to bring an indictment for obtaining under false
pretences.


Gordon Graydon: Have there been any such cases?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know of any case of subsidies having been obtained under false representation. There has been no request to the Department of Justice to select agents to prosecute any such claim.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to have the record clear, and in reply to the leader of the opposition, may I say that I have been asking questions both on the war appropriation resolution and on the order paper relating to matters of this kind. The final answers have not been given, but it appears that the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation is having some difficulty with some firms over this very kind of thing. I have stated before that I feel it is the kind of thing which should be run down, despite the dislike of my hon. friend for its set-up, by the war expenditures committee-


Gordon Graydon: What good would it do to bring the case before the war expenditures committee?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some good could be done if members of the official opposition would join in the work of the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There may very well have been cases instituted that would not be brought directly to our attention, because there are instances in which these boards have obtained the appointment of counsel to handle all their cases, and they do not have to come to us for special counsel. We would not be advised'of the individual cases where they had their own counsel appointed. But there has been no application for the appointment of an agent to prosecute for the return of subsidies improperly paid out.


Mr. REID:: Following the conclusion of the war, what will be the effect of this clause on the War Assets Corporation? There will be
Criminal Code

machinery and equipment which may be known to be defective and which will be sold both perhaps to servants of the crown and. following that, to the public. It occurs to me that there will be a good deal of machinery that may be perfect and a good deal that will be imperfect, and there will be many transactions on the part of firms, the crown and tlie public. It may be known by both parties to a transaction that the machinery is defective. Has that been considered, or will this clause have any effect in that regard?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This clause relates merely to the delivery of stores to the crown and would not have any application at all to the delivery of stores by the crown to purchasers in the provinces.


Mr. HAZEN:: My criticism of this section is that the penalty provided is not nearly severe enough. I can readily conceive of a case where a- contractor would supply to the navy or the army stores, munitions and so on which were most defective, resulting in the loss of life of members of the armed forces. In such a case, to provide a penalty of seven years for such a defect is to impose a penalty that in my opinion is not adequate. If I were redrafting the section I would make the penalty much severer.


Gordon Graydon: There is certainly a considerable difference between certain cases that have been mentioned and delivering and disposing of defective goods to His Majesty whether in the right of one department to another, where perhaps the life of members of the forces might be lost by reason of defect. The sentence of seven years which is mentioned in this particular section is considerably out of line with life imprisonment for stealing an empty mail bag.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4.
Mr. DORION:: I would point out that in amending this section we should also amend two other sections. If they are left as they are they will create confusion. The first is 580, subsection 2 of which deals with appeals and the adjournment of appeals when there is no sitting of the court; and the second is section 750, which deals with sittings of the court. In Quebec and Montreal, I understand that the superior court sits every day. I should like to know how this will work with the new amendments to section 749. I believe that in Quebec and Montreal there are no proper sittings of the court because the court sits every day. How will this work with the new amendment?

Mr. 8T. LAURENT: Which is the last section referred to?


Frédéric Dorion: It is section 750.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think there should be any difficulty under our section 750. The court sits every day from September 10 or 12 until December 20, and again from January / or 8 until June 20, and these appeals could be set down for hearing on any of the days upon which the court sits. If there is any concordant amendment required to correct the anomaly of leaving the words "court of king's bench" in section 540, that will be looked into. I thank the hon. member for bringing the point to my attention.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
69.	Departmental administration, $151,660. Item agreed to.
70.	Fisheries inspection, including fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and protection services, $908,700.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What is the reason for the increase of $63,300?


Ernest Bertrand: The increase is due for the most part to a larger number of employees. We are establishing inspection laboratories in the maritime provinces; and that is the main reason why there is an increase of $63,000, and we have employed a few more men this year.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How far does the jurisdiction of the federal fisheries department extend? Does it take in the great lakes as well as the oceans?


Ernest Bertrand: This question has been discussed before the privy council at least three times. The final decision placed fisheries under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government has arrived at a decision with Ontario and Quebec to administer the regulations and laws passed by the government at Ottawa. So far as the other provinces are concerned the federal government administers all fisheries except sport fishing, but the regulations are still passed by the federal government.


Douglas King Hazen: There are two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. The first is, by bill No. 91 we are

Supply-Fisheries
amending the Bank Act. Section 88 as amended contains a provision in paragraph (i) of subsection 1 to provide for loans to fishermen. This subsection is for the purpose of making credit more available to fishermen by empowering the banks to take security on fish, fishing equipment and1 supplies, and fishing vessels. The proposed new paragraph is necessary to enable the banks to assist in a general programme for the development of the fishing industry. There is a similar provision to this to assist the farmers; but in order to assist the farmers and as a supplement a bill called the Farm Improvement Loan Act has been introduced in this house. No similar bill has been introduced in this house to assist the fishermen, and to supplement the amendment to the Bank Act in order that the fishermen may be enabled to get loans at a much lower rate of interest than they formerly had to pay. I know the minister is interested in the welfare of the fishermen. We have about thirty thousand men engaged in the fishing industry in the maritime provinces. They with their families make up about one-sixth of the population of those provinces. Would the minister keep that matter in mind and use his influence to have a bill similar to the Farm Improvement Loan Act introduced by the government to assist the fishermen of not only the maritime provinces but all other parts of Canada?
I also call his attention to the fact that we have been informed that legislation is to be introduced to put a floor under prices of staple farm products. If the government is to introduce legislation of that kind it seems to me that it will only be right and proper for the fishermen throughout Canada to have similar legislation passed to enable them to have a floor under their products. I call that to the minister's attention and ask him if he will be so kind as to keep it in mind and endeavour to have legislation of that kind passed to assist the fishermen of Canada?


Ernest Bertrand: Both of these problems are being studied very carefully in the department at the present time. With regard to the loan act, we have an economist in the field who is studying the situation and conditions, and we may arrive at the_ conclusion that we should have a similar measure for the fishermen. As the hon. member knows we have been asked to act in conjunction with the government of Nova Scotia. We have passed an order in council providing for a subsidy for dragger boats and long-liner boats. I cannot give all the particulars of the correspondence at the moment since we
are not through yet. We have not arrived at a final decision, but we are studying the problem.
As to the stable price it might be a more difficult question than that with regard to agricultural products, because quality counts much more in fish products than it does in agricultural products. The price of good fresh fish which is landed and brought on the market fresh is not such a problem, because the fish sells very easily. One of the great difficulties in the industry is to bring the product on the market in the best possible condition. This market may be in Montreal or at some other place. Then we export a great deal of our product and we have to be very careful in setting a stable price. But we are studying the question to-day and giving a great deal of attention to it.


Douglas King Hazen: It may be very difficult to arrive at the proper form of legislation, but it is of much importance, perhaps of greater importance to the fishermen to have a floor price set on their products than it is to the farmers to have one set on theirs. I know that in New Brunswick the fishermen had a difficult time prior to the war. They found it very hard to make a living, and so far as they are concerned it is much more important that there be legislation of this kind enacted for their benefit than for the farmers. That is only natural.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
71.	Building fishways and clearing rivers, $7,000.
Gordon Graydon: I have a matter I should like to bring up, but I do not know whether or not this is the proper item. I am afraid this is not the item. I wish to ask a question about the position and development and relationship between the provincial government and the dominion government with respect to the Gorton Pew processing plant at Caraquet, New Brunswick. Perhaps I should bring it up under another item.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: What fishways are being constructed at the present time? On what fishways will this money be spent in 1944?


Ernest Bertrand: We are not
building any fishways at the present time. This amount of $7,000 is only to keep in good condition the fishways we have, and to pay the employees we have there. We are preparing a programme for the post-war period; as a matter of fact an order in council has been passed under which we are asking for
Supply-Fisheries

$1,000,000 for just one fishway at Hell's Gate on the Fraser river, and I intend to give a detailed explanation later on, when we come to that item.


John Horne Blackmore: What rivers are being cleared, or on what rivers is this money to be spent in maintaining the personnel for clearing?


Ernest Bertrand: This amount of $7,000 is only for maintenance. If a freshet occurs and logs come down and block a river, we must spend a certain amount of money in order to clear the river immediately so that the fish may go up and spawn. This is the amount required for that work.


John Horne Blackmore: I am interested in
learning just what fishways are involved here, and what rivers; there must be two or three or four. What are they, and where?


Ernest Bertrand: This money
is spent mainly in British Columbia; on the tributaries to the Skeena river, for example, wherever the current is very strong and there is danger of logs accumulating at certain places. The tributaries of the Skeena and some of the tributaries of the Fraser are the rivers where we spend this money.


John Horne Blackmore: It strikes me that the sum of money is inadequate to maintain anything like an effective force operating over any considerable . area. I should think more than $7,000 would be required for the whole dominion.


Ernest Bertrand: This amount is not for the building of fishways or anything like that; it is just for the maintenance of rivers where accumulations of logs may block the run of fish.


John Horne Blackmore: My point is that
$7,000 is hardly sufficient to maintain more than four or five men.


Ernest Bertrand: They do not work all the time. We pay them what we should, but we do not pay more than we should, and it comes to about that amount.


John Horne Blackmore: What official of the
department is in charge of this work? Who determines when to hire men, and whorh does he hire? Where does he get them, and how much does he have to pay them?


Ernest Bertrand: This work is done under the departmental engineer here in Ottawa. If the hon. member wants the details in connection with this amount I can get them for him to-morrow, but at the moment I cannot remember all these small amounts.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not wish to delay the item, but it strikes me that $7,000 is a very small sum if any considerable number of fishways are involved.


Ernest Bertrand: It is a small sum, I admit, but at present we do not need any more than that for this purpose.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I should like
the details, in order to satisfy my mind on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A moment ago the minister indicated that there was another item somewhere. Would he indicate where it is? As a matter of fact this amount of $7,000 is broken down on page 82 of the estimates, and it would appear to cover only wages, cost of living bonuses, travelling expenses and sundries.


Ernest Bertrand: The other
item is 83, on the next page.


Alan Webster Neill: I was glad to hear the minister say that this item was not bigger, because this gives him all the money needed for this purpose. I shall recall those words to the minister perhaps later on, after the house adjourns and the department gets down to doing some of this work.
This is a rather complicated matter. One hon. member spoke about another item, and there are other items. There is one dealing with the Fraser river on a big scale. The matters dealt with under this item are not very large in themselves; they consist merely of taking out a log jam which has prevented the salmon from getting up a creek. However, there is a sort of by-product of this sort of work which causes a great deal of trouble. The primary purpose of the work, of course, is to enable the fish to get up the river, but I think the officials of the fisheries department in British Columbia are a little too prone to stick to the strict letter of the law and say that as long as they let the fish go up they do do not care at all what occurs in consequence of their actions. That is not the view taken by the people who suffer. I can think of several instances where, in all good faith, the fisheries department has spent a sum of money in clearing out a river or in taking out a log jam. The fish got up; there is no question about that, and then the department just washed their hands of it. The result was not so good for the people whose land adjoined the stream, for the removal of a log jam might set the current in a different direction, which might cause erosion and take away part of a man's farm. The fisheries department

Supply-Fisheries
would say, " Our sole responsibility is in letting the fish get up. If the fish get up we do not care what happens to you or what hardship you must suffer." The more equitable-minded members of the department sometimes do admit that they have at least a moral obligation; that if in their endeavour to make a runway for the fish they do some harm, they also have some responsibility. The minister's deputy will recall that some years ago there was an awful fuss up on the Salmon river arising from something like that. The department stuck by the letter of the law and said that they did not care what damage they occasioned, that the people concerned could go to the province for redress. I do not think that was fair.
I have in mind a matter that I should like the minister to say he will look after under this item of $7,000. It is in connection with Rosewell creek. As far back as I can remember being in politics there has been a fuss about that. The fisheries department did some work; they cleaned out a log jam. That set the current in a different direction and ruined a man's farm; at least it is rapidly going down the river. Naturally he objects, and I think there is at least a moral obligation upon the department to do something in that case. Attempts were made in a rather petty way to repair the damage, but no genuine effort was made to deal with the situation, which will have to be faced sooner or later if we are to be fair to those people. It is of no use going to the province; they simply say, "We did not do the work and we do not care what happens, as long as a bridge or a public highway is not interfered with." This Rosewell creek matter has been dragging on for years. On one occasion the operation resulted in the formation of a large gravel bar. The water, ashamed of itself, went underground for a quarter of a mile or something like that. That did not. make it very comfortable for the fish or very good for the farmer whose land helped make up the gravel bar. Now the minister says that he has plenty of money under this item and does not need any more, so that I should like an assurance from him that the situation at Rosewell creek will be dealt with adequately out of this vote. I can assure the minister that there is only one way to do it- and it is a simple way-and that is to straighten things up. Until this is done he and his successors will be beset with this thing. It has really been a very bad deal for the man who bought land in good faith, and encouraged the developing of his country. Now he finds that the best of his land-delta land-because it is always the best of it-goes down the river.
I hope the minister will be good enough to give some assurance that he will do something more than theorize in respect of this situation. This is really a sore point, and I should like to hear from him in that regard.


Ernest Bertrand: There are
two ways of looking at these things. As Minister of Fisheries, and as a man who has followed the legal profession, if there is a jam on a river caused by logs brought down by a freshet, then we might be responsible if, in removing this jam, we caused damage. If damage is caused by the flow of water, or even by a jam that we are trying to destroy, we cannot be held responsible. That is a question of common law.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister allow me to make an observation? He says he is not responsible. If his officials had left the jam there, there would not be any harm.


Ernest Bertrand: That is what I say. I am not speaking of Rosewell creek in particular; rather I am speaking generally. Damage might be caused by the flow of water. Erosion might be caused by the natural flow of water, or by logs coming down from the mountains. Or damage might be caused by depositing gravel on a good agricultural piece of land.
If we were undertaking to pay damages in all these cases we would be going very far. If that were so, any farmers around the St. Lawrence river could come each spring and ask us to pay damages because the water had gone too high, and had caused erosion here and there.
However, I may assure my hon. friend that if any damage is caused by our work we will look for the cause, and recommend that proper damages be paid. But I do not think it will be paid through my department. It will have, first of all, to pass the Minister of Justice. My officials cannot decide whether or not the government is responsible. I can make recommendations according to what my officials say.
So far as Rosewell creek is concerned, I would ask my officials to make another inquiry -although I understand inquiries were made previously before I came to the department.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the minister for his
viewpoint. But he is entirely mistaken if he thinks that I, or anyone else, would 'be so foolish as to ask his department to pay out something, or to pay damages, unless his department were responsible. We all know what the law is in regard to these matters. We would not present our cases, if we did not knowT where the responsibility was. But this
Supply-Fisheries

is a case-and there are others-where damage was clearly done because of the action of the Department of Fisheries. Had the department left things alone, no harm would have been done. But they went in, in order to make a way for the salmon, and caused certain changes, which resulted in letting the salmon get by. It does not matter what those changes were. It was in consequence of the work that these men are suffering.
The minister says that he will have to consult the Department of Justice. I accept that statement, with regret, because there is such a thing as legal justice, and there is such a thing as model or fair justice. Anyone knows that the legal department-and I am sorry the minister is not here, because he would support me in what I say-is too often concerned with the strict law in a matter. If the law says so-and-so, then it is just too 'bad for some poor fellow who is seeking relief. But there is such a thing as fair law-I forget the Latin expression-but a law which means fairness between man and man. It is that kind of justice I should like to invoke.
I would hope that the minister, with that fairness he has exhibited in other matters, would give full consideration to this one. I would also ask him to remember this, that there is such a thing as human nature, and also such a thing as an official out in British Columbia having made a mistake, and being unwilling to admit it. Rather than admit it he will try to jam it through, and say that no damage was done-first of all, that there was nothing done, and, second, that there was no damage.
The facts are, however, that the work was done, and damage resulted. If the minister says that he has an engineer out there, sent from Ottawa, I shall be hopeful. I can understand that he would take a practical view of the matter.


Ernest Bertrand: I would be sorry if my hon. friend would suggest that I am reflecting on his knowledge of the law. Although I understand he is not a lawyer, he has shown in many instances that he has great knowledge of the law.
With regard to the question of justice between man and man, and legal justice, I believe there are quite a number of authors who have defined justice between man and man. One has said that, after all, it is a matter of following the law of the country.
However, with respect to Rosewell creek, the hon. member will understand that an engineer from this department is looking into

the matter. I want to give satisfaction-not against, but with the law, if it is possible.


Alan Webster Neill: Thank you.


Douglas King Hazen: A few years ago a fishway was erected at St. George, New Brunswick, to enable salmon to enter the Magaguadavic river. Have satisfactory results been obtained from that fishway?


Ernest Bertrand: My officials instruct me that we have had good results from the fishway, and that it is working properly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
72.	Development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $30,000.
Mr. POTTIER:: I notice there is a decrease of S10.000 in this item, and I should like to know the reason for this decrease. I wish to know if sufficient inspectors are being appointed to take care of a serious situation in western Nova Scotia. After all, this is an item which affects sea fisheries, and it affects a situation which is developing there. In the past we have produced what is known as boneless fish, and that has gone to the United States-at least by far the largest portion of it. At the present time the quota law provides that sixty-five per cent of 1941-42 production will be permitted to go to the United States. This means that the fish which used to be made into boneless will have to be diverted, and go to one of the following markets: Canadian consumption, probably dried fish to the West Indies, and elsewhere, and then to the United Kingdom.
That means of exit to the United Kingdom is looked upon at present as the way out. I urge that every assistance and cooperation be given to the fishing industry to bring that about, particularly in areas in Nova Scotia. Certificates of quality must be provided. I am afraid there is a tendency to have a scarcity of inspectors. I urge upon the Department that that danger be avoided, and that there be no hesitancy about providing inspectors, wherever they are in centres where fishing is conducted, so that the quality will be such as is required for shipment to the United Kingdom.
There were just those two things I wished to comment on. I wanted to know, first, why there is a decrease and, second, if sufficient inspectors will be provided to ensure the quality of our fish, so that there will be no delays in shipments to the United Kingdom.
There were just those two things I wished to comment on. I wanted to know, first, why there is a decrease and, second, if sufficient

Supply-Fisheries
inspectors will be provided to ensure the quality of our fish,, so that there will be no delays in shipments to the United Kingdom.


Ernest Bertrand: This vote is decreased by $10,000 because the activities of certain officers have been transferred to vote 70, which is increased by $63,300. The chief supervisor is in the district at the present time looking over the situation. He will make a report and I imagine that more inspectors will be appointed.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: An emergency exists.


Ernest Bertrand: The supervisor is there looking over the situation.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What is being done to develop deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish? The hon. member for St. John-Albert raised the broader question of what the department was doing; what measures were being introduced to see that fishermen in the years immediately ahead will not be faced with the conditions they suffered in the year immediately before the war. I think the minister knows that there was not a single class of citizen in this country exploited to the same extent as the fishermen, and certainly there is not a class of citizen which has been forced to live under such deplorable living conditions. Go along the coast of Prince Edward Island, of New Brunswick, of Nova Scotia; go into the fishing villages of Quebec and Ontario- I am not familiar with the western provinces
and you will see fishermen living in hovels no human being should be required to live in. It seems to me that something should be done to improve the future lot of these fishermen. All I can see in the item is provision for two lecturers, a little printing and some travelling expenses. Is there some other vote under which the minister can make some plans for the future?


Ernest Bertrand: In order to answer my hon. friend I would have to discuss some other items. The situation is much better to-day than it was. and I have never known it to be as described by the hon. member. However, I was not Minister of l'isheries at that time. Our main purpose is to try to keep the level of income of the fisherman as it is to-day. I should not like to go into the details of our programme at this time, because I would have to repeat myself later on. We are helping the fisherman to get better boats which will permit him to land more fish in better condition. We are helping him to bring his fish to the consumer in the best possible form.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is the department considering the use of aeroplanes to bring fish from the fishing grounds direct to the markets?


Ernest Bertrand: Aviation has not advanced sufficiently to make it commercially possible to bring fish to market by aeroplane. They would have to go by air express and the rates are too high. I do not think we need that. If the fisherman takes good care of his fish; if he does not stay too long at sea; if he has enough ice for the time he is at sea and brings his fish in in good condition, then we intend to help him. I think with the ordinary facilities we have for bringing fish to the consumers' market we can deliver the fish in good condition. The problem is to help the fishermen catch more fish.


Joseph William Noseworthy: How are you doing
that?


Ernest Bertrand: We want to process the fish immediately it is landed on the wharf and to have a continuity of supply. One of the greatest handicaps facing the fisherman is the fact that fish are plentiful at certain times and scarce at others. At times we have too much fish and then, when the consumers want fish, we sometimes find we have none. We are trying to develop better fishing methods by means of the use of drag-gers and long liners and so on.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I understand that at a later stage the minister is going to give a general statement on the development of file fisheries. I had intended to make reference to a minimum price on fish, but time does not permit. I intend to bring that point up later.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: One thing we never could understand in Toronto was the tremendous spread between what the fisherman got and what the people had to pay for his fish in the stores. Before the war the fishermen used to get about half a cent a pound for haddock which would sell in the stores in Toronto for from twenty to twmnty-five cents a pound. That does not seem to make sense. If the minister wants to get at the bottom of this problem and increase the demand for fish he must see that the fish is offered for sale at a reasonable price.


Ernest Bertrand: The merchants might be responsible.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The merchants are not responsible because I have taken that matter up with them.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 29, 1944