1948-06-14

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 344, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, this bill consists of two sections only. The first section provides that the consent for prosecution may be given, not only by the attorney general but by the deputy attorney general. The second section provides for the repeal of Ontario's pre-confederation statute respecting the observance of the Lord's Day, thereby placing the matter in Ontario entirely under the Lord's Day Act.


Mr. CHURCH:: Is this a transfer to the provinces of the jurisdiction under the Lord's Day Act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is just the reverse so far as Ontario is concerned.


Thomas Langton Church: In the past, the enforcement of this act has always been a matter for the provinces.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BAKER:: 1.	What is being done by the Department of National Health and Welfare in combating occupational diseases such as silicosis among Canadian industrial workers?
2.	Is any educational work being done to raise the level of industrial health in Canada?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1. The industrial health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare is co-operating with the departments of health of the provinces of Nova Scotia and Alberta in specific studies of silicosis, lead poisoning and carbon monoxide poisoning as these diseases occur in the groups of establishments surveyed. The federal department has assigned specially trained personnel and has carried out field and laboratory estimations on the air contamination
responsible for the diseases under study. This co-ordination of federal and provincial facilities has already resulted in one province creating a permanent industrial health agency.
During the past year, the industrial health division provided information to various industries and provincial governments in regard to the following matters:	expansion of the
occupational disease schedule under workmen's compensation acts, effectiveness of ultraviolet fight and glycol sprays in the control of airborne infections, assessment and control of carbon tetrachloride hazard, the control of dermatitis in several industrial processes, and the status of ozone in the control of carbon monoxide poisoning.
In co-operation with the industrial hygiene division of Ontario, the division has just completed the preparation of a manual on the diagnosis of occupational diseases which will serve as a reference guide for general medical practitioners.
2. Yes. During the past year, the division distributed to industry over 150,000 posters and pamphlets dealing with various aspects of industrial health. The usefulness and practical nature of the division's educational material is demonstrated by the fact that industries across Canada have requested over
25,000	copies of the recently issued pamphlet "Skin Diseases in Industry". The division also issues a monthly industrial health bulletin to 25,000 English and 10,000 French industrial subscribers. The interest in this bulletin has been considerable, and increasing requests for copies are being received from Canadian firms as well as from many foreign countries.


PUGWASH, N.S., HARBOUR-DREDGING
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What has been the yearly and total expenditures for dredging the entrance to and the harbour of the port of Pugwash, Nova Scotia, since confederation, not including wharf construction ?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: No record of any expenditure for dredging entrance to and the harbour of the port of Pugwash, N.S., since confederation.


COST OF PRESENT SESSION OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. CARDIFF:: Not including members' salaries, what was the total cost of this session of parliament from December 5, 1947 to January 25, 1948, inclusive?
Questions


Mr. BELZILE:: House of Commons	 $102,030.54
Senate	 16,565.98

This amount includes cost of sessional staff, printing and travelling expenses for Christmas recess, but does not include salaries for permanent and continuous temporary staff employed the year round.


INDIANS-SASKATCHEWAN-MEDICAL SERVICES
Mr. MUTCH:: What steps have been taken to improve the medical services for Indians in northern Saskatchewan?


Mr. MAYBANK:: Prince Albert-A health unit has been established at Prince Albert which is supplying health services to approximately 3,000 Indians. It is staffed by a surgeon, a medical doctor and a public health nurse.
Lac la Ronge-A nursing station will be in operation at Lac la Ronge very shortly. A residence has been purchased by the directorate of Indian health services from the Anglican mission and renovated to accommodate six patients and necessary staff. It will supply emergency and nursing services and the usual dispensing and public health services to the area around Lac la Ronge, including Fort Stanley.
Arrangements have been made with the Saskatchewan department of health whereby, in certain remote areas where the non-Indian or half-breed population is substantial, nursing stations are being built by the province at which Indians will be cared for. A reciprocal arrangement is being put into effect at Lac la Ronge whereby the directorate of Indian health services will give to the extent possible necessary health services to the non-Indian population there. This eliminates duplication. A doctor from the Prince Albert health unit is making regular trips to Lac la Ronge, which is about two hundred miles north of Prince Albert.
North Battleford1-The former R.C.A.F. hospital at North Battleford and several other buildings have been acquired by the directorate of Indian health services. The renovation of the building is complete and it will be ready for the admission of patients this summer. Capacity-about 60 patients. A public health nurse will be included in the establishment of this hospital, who will be responsible for visiting reserves in the area.
Onion Lake area-The Indian affairs branch of the Department of Mines and Resources

has agreed to transfer to the directorate of Indian health services of the Department of National Health and Welfare the Indian agent's house in the Onion Lake area for use as a nursing station. The necessary alterations will be proceeded with within the next few months and an arrangement similar to that in effect at Lac la Ronge will be made. The nursing station will accommodate about four patients, a public health nurse and necessary staff.


EMBARGO ON CANADLAN CATTLE TO UNITED STATES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any action been taken as announced by the Minister of Agriculture last week in south Ontario that the cattle embargo is soon to be removed to allow Canadian cattle to enter the United States?
2.	If so, will such action increase the cost of meat to citizens for home consumption in Canada?
3.	Has any action been taken by order in council?


Mr. McCUBBIN:: 1. No action yet taken.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
railways and shipping committee


Mr. HAZEN:: When does the chairman of the standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government, intend to present the report of the committee to the house?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Perhaps I can reply to this orally. I have been in communication with the chairman of the standing committee on railways and shipping, and he assures me that the report is now in the course of *preparation and should be ready soon.


AMMONIUM NITRATE
Mr. HATFIELD:: 
Mr. McILRAITH:: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to get the information asked for in this question, because ammonium nitrate is not classified separately in external trade statistics.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Mr. LENNARD:: Stand.


An hon. MEMBER:: Answered.

Proposed Legislation


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BENIDIOKSON:: 1.	By years and municipalities, how many wartime houses have been constructed in Ontario and what has been the outlay of the federal government on each project?
2.	By municipalities, how many houses are under construction in Ontario by Wartime Housing Limited?


George James McIlraith: Return tabled.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. LOW:: For a copy of the evidence and proceedings of the McCann commission, appointed under the authority of P.C. 4980.


Mr. GREGG:: It is not possible to comply with this order, because the interviews held by the McCann commission with witnesses took the form of discussions rather than formal evidence and no written record was maintained. The witnesses were not sworn, and as a result they gave evidence over and above that which would have been required had they been informed that they were proceeding on a formal basis under oath. Some of the discussions at Vancouver were recorded on sound recording discs in order to assist the commissioner in writing his report on that phase of the hearing.
The report of the McCann commission was tabled in the House of Commons on March 9, 1948, and it set forth the number of commission sittings, inspections and observations, a list of the cases considered, a list of the persons interviewed and the commission's findings.
I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Solon Earl Low: There are a number of important cases which my colleagues, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and the horn, member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), have been attempting to place before the house. In order to do that as they wish to do it, they would have to have thie relevant parts of the evidence taken by the McCann commission. I would ask the minister to reconsider his decision and see if it would not be possible to give us a transcription of the relevant parts of the evidence taken by that commission. We feel that that should be before the house.


Mr. POULIOT:: If the present Minister of Veterans Affairs had been in charge of the department at the time, that commission would not have been necessary. It is because of
what was said by the minister, what was said
falsely by the previous minister of veterans affairs-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -that the commission was made necessary.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I wanted to give the explanation I have given to make it clear that the evidence was not written and preserved. I shall look into the matter further and comply with the request as far as it is possible.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you very much.


James Horace King: Motion as amended agreed to.


TRANSPORT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act, 194&, to authorize a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada to hold the office of chief commissioner of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada at a salary of fifteen thousand dollars per annum less any salary received by him as a judge of the exchequer court; and to provide further that the exchequer court shall consist of the president and four puisne judges (in lieu of three), the salary of the puisne judges being twelve thousand dollars per annum.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, to thereby establish a commission to effect such revision and to authorize remuneration to be paid the members of the commission, assistants, officers, clerks and employees.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it will be a commission of judges, and how long the revision is expected to take?
Inquiries of the Ministry


James Lorimer Ilsley: That question should be left for discussion on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the government to a serious accident which occurred in my constituency yesterday morning, Sunday the 13th, about 9.15 o'clock, when an eighty-two car westbound freight train pulled by two diesel engines collided with a twenty-four car freight train with steam locomotive, and two livestock cars were hurled into the back yard of Doctor Hastings, 791 Queen street east, tearing hydroelectric overhead structures, poles and wires. A brakeman was killed. Four cars contained animals, which roamed around, and a women was gored by a mad bull. Had this accident happened a few seconds before, these freight cars would have been hurled into the subway where crowded streetcars pass, and where church services were being held a hundred feet away at Woodgreen United Church.
My question is this. Under the Railway Act will the government request the board of transport commissioners, who are to meet in Toronto a week from tomorrow, on Tuesday the 22nd instant, to hold an inquiry (a) into this terrible disaster and the causes of it, and the need for increased safety precautions at this place; (b) into the reopening of the Riverdale station of the Canadian National Railways; and (c) into the whole railway signal system in this section of Toronto, together with an inspection of the viaduct at this site in ward 1, as to its structure and the desirability of slowing the speed of trains using the Toronto viaduct.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, it is the practice of the board of transport commissioners, when a serious accident of this kind takes place, to hold first of all a preliminary investigation, which I presume they are doing now. Upon the report of that investigation they decide whether or not there should be a formal inquiry, and I presume, from what I know and have read of the accident, that there will be a formal investigation. I shall ask the board of transport commissioners to give consideration to the request of my hon. friend. There is no doubt that the request in the first part of my hon. friend's question will be met. His

other two requests go somewhat beyond the scope of a board investigation, but I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the board.


COST OF LIVING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance? It is brief and to the point, and can be answered by yes or no. Does the government intend to take any action to curb the still rising cost of living?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: It is possible that the question could be answered by yes or no, Mr. Speaker, but it is not going to be answered in that way. My answer is that I have nothing to add to what I have said on previous occasions, particularly when the whole question of rising costs was discussed. The government is not going to establish an over-all price ceiling policy or an over-all control of wages. As I said in my budget speech, it has neither the constitutional power nor an electoral mandate to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the answer is no.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, it is not.


Mr. FLEMING:: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of an answer he gave a moment or two ago. Will the government welcome a report from the prices committee this session, and will it provide an opportunity for a discussion of such before the conclusion of the session?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a question that should be directed to me; it should be directed to the leader of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is he?


Mr. IRVINE:: I should like to ask another supplementary question. The minister, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), said that the government had no intention of going back to price control.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Over-all wage and price
control.


William Irvine: Will the minister kindly
state to what the government proposes to go forward?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is my hon. friend's question? In my answer I went on to say

Inquiries of the Ministry
that the dominion government had neither the constitutional power nor the parliamentary mandate to impose over-all wage and price control. That is perfectly clear. The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act has been extended to March 31. The government's position was made perfectly clear. It was made clear before the 1945 election. Whether or not the country sees fit to approve the constitutional amendment is another matter. They have turned it down in Australia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the wartime prices and trade board is still in existence and could restore price controls.


William Irvine: I think the minister misunderstood my question. I did not wish to inquire as to the constitutional attitude. What I wanted to know was this. Since there is a constitution, and since the government cannot go back, and has no intention of going back, to what is it going forward? What is the program?


James Horace King: The question the hon.
member has put to the government is not one which should be asked on the orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Finance indicated that my question should be directed to the leader of the government. I presume the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) is acting as leader of the government; therefore I should like to direct my question to him. Will the government welcome a report from the prices committee, and if so, will it provide ample time for a discussion of such report before the conclusion of the present session of parliament?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will bring my hon. friend's question to the attention of the leader of the government.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. It is another brief question which can be answered by yes or no. Is the C.B.C. now taking over or about to take over the Ford hotel building in Montreal for occupancy purposes?


Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question that can be answered by yes or no, but I shall be glad to state the present position. The government propose, and have already
entered into negotiations to that end, to purchase by agreement of sale the Ford hotel for the international short-wave service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Negotiations are being carried on by the C.B.C., and when the deal goes through, the corporation will become the tenants of the building.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may ask a further question, has the price been determined upon, and if so, what is it?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Although the agreement has not been consummated, the offer which has been made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on behalf of the crown for the purchase of the Ford hotel is $2,050,000.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: If I may ask a supplementary question, has the government given full consideration to the very strong feelings in various quarters in Montreal against this proceeding?


James Joseph McCann: Every consideration has been given to that. There has been no such great protest as has been indicated by my hon. friend that we know of.
LABOUR CONDITIONS seamen's strike on inland waters
On the orders of the day:


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is he prepared to make a report on the strike of seamen on certain steamships on inland waters in Canada, with particular reference to the basic cause of this strike?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can make a report. I think my hon. friend knows the basic cause. It is a jurisdictional scrap, to begin with.


Angus MacInnis: No.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know whereof I speak.


Angus MacInnis: I know what the commissioner reported.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know whereof I speak. Second, the position is taken by some of the companies that they will not deal with an organization led by communists. There are three parties in this dispute: Pat Sullivan, who used to be a communist, and then there is the other organization which is admittedly communist-led; and according to this morning's papers the American Federation of Labor is coming into the picture. I know
5154
Inquiries of the Ministry

something about the tactics of these people. We have just had a provincial election, and is it not passing strange that the only political meetings that it was attempted to break up were Progressive Conservative and Liberal meetings? I would say this to my hon. friend, that people who talk so much about freedom of speech and the right to express their opinions are the very first to deny that freedom to other people.


TOURIST INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask which I think should properly be addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it a fact that Canadian officials at the border are instructed to question United States tourist returning to their own country, and to ask them how much money they have spent in Canada and what kind of money it has been? If that is the practice, does the minister consider it wise?


James Joseph McCann: I know of no such instructions at the present time, but if it were the practice I would see no great objection to it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister give definite information later as to whether or not it is the practice?


James Joseph McCann: I will find out whether or not it is the practice. If it is the practice it is for the purpose of securing statistics with reference to the tourist trade.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Bad business!


COARSE GRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the session is almost over, is he in a position to say whether or not legislation will be introduced to provide that farmers who disposed of coarse grains prior to the removal of price ceilings last October 21 shall receive payments in addition to the adjustments made by elevator companies and purchasers?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The matter is still

under consideration. I hope to make an announcement before the session is closed.


John George Diefenbaker: The reason I ask
the question is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has announced out in Saskatchewan-outside of parliament-that something is forthcoming. I thought the minister might be in a position to confirm the statement of the Minister of Agriculture.


EMBARGO ON SHIPMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): In view of reports appearing in the press, will the Minister of Finance or the Acting Minister of Agriculture indicate to the house whether the government has arrived at a policy with respect to the removal of the embargo on cattle shipments to the United States?
Mr. MARTIN:: It was discussed here two weeks ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It concerns the consumers who are paying high prices for beef.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a matter which does not concern the Department of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I directed my question either to the Minister of Finance or to the acting Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Finance has indicated that it does not come within his department; therefore I direct my question to the acting Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is not in the house, but I will see that the question is brought to his attention.



TARIFF BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Tariff Board Act in respect to the tenure of office of and appointment of members of the tariff board to serve in a temporary capacity; to bring the staff of the board under the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act; to repeal obsolete provisions; and to increase the salary of the chairman of the board from twelve thousand to fifteen thousand dollars annually.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is of great importance, because for a

Tariff Board Act
long time the only difference between the Liberal party and the then Conservative party was the tariff question. I remember the time when Mr. Bennett rose in glory to say that with a higher tariff the price of butter would be higher. He imposed this high tariff and the price of butter fell down to rock bottom of seventeen cents. When he first enunciated that policy I was sitting in the part of the house where the hon. member for Madeod is, and I rose to say "on division," I was the only one of the Liberal party who protested against this high tariff policy, because I was not impressed by Mr. Bennett's victory. I knew that he would not be longer in office than the time prescribed by the constitution.
Later Mr. Bennett established this tariff board, consisting of three men of his choice. They stayed in office the whole time the Liberal party was in power, until the war-all Tories making up the Liberal policy, being the advisers of the government on tariff policy. One or two of them are still there; one has been promoted to the office of minister to Cuba. I cannot understand, sir, how it is that Tories are making up Liberal tariff policy as advisers to the government, I want them to be fired. One is now gone. I do not know where the second one is; the third is still there. We are asked to raise his salary from $12,000 to $15,000 a year. They are wizards. I remember the time when we had new tariff rates with the United States after the election of 1936. It was done in a very short time. These people do not seem to realize how important it is to be careful about changing any tariff item. If the tariff is to work clocklike, one must not forget a single wheel in the mechanism. It takes a long time to make adjustments. The tariff may be a dangerous weapon. It was used by President Hoover when he came to power, and it had a disastrous effect on American trade.
We cannot be too careful, and I cannot conceive how it was that there was a complete change in the tariff with the United States immediately after this party came to power. Just a few months after the election of 1935 we had a new tariff made by these experts-Tory experts-to change trade conditions in relation to the United States; to improve them. In one sense it was a good thing, because it showed that Canada was willing to trade with the United States and with all countries of the world. In that theoretical sense the tariff may have been acceptable, but it is so delicate a matter, and so difficult to size u,p the importance of each item, that I cannot conceive how those experts could produce it with a snap of the finger.
5849-327J
They are still there, still enjoying the confidence of the department, and making new tariffs. We have the tariff board, and they are supreme. WThen they decide something, it is most difficult to have it changed. What can they do with the multilateral agreements that we have with all the countries of the world? What did they do when they were at Geneva? What did they do in Havana? What did they do about the 800 amendments that were submitted in connection with the multilateral pact at Geneva?
This is an important question. We should not say yes to an increase in the salaries of these experts until we know more about the kind of work they are doing. I want to know also whether their advice is accepted freely by the cabinet, or with a grain of salt. These men who sit behind desks in their offices and look at the statistics compiled by other bureaucrats have not the knowledge of trade that some captains of industry have, and at times they ruin Canadian trade.
Why is it impossible to get some of the material that we should have from other countries? My idea is that Canada should not be tied up to agreements that may profitably affect other countries. We should make our own agreements with each one of the other countries, so that we may get from other countries the things that are not produced here. There should be an exchange in accordance with the intentions of Providence, which has given to this world different climates and different compositions of soil in order that people throughout the world should be able to trade together.
This is one of the most important questions we have before us. I would ask the leader of the opposition this question: What is the difference between the program of his party and the program of the Liberal party concerning the tariff? Will he tell me that if his party comes into power he will fire the present staff of the tariff board? I put the same question to the C.C.F. members. I put the same question to the members of the Social Credit group.
We should have reform, and it should start now. We should not wait until after the Liberal convention to have promise of reform. We should have it now, and I do not believe that Canadian trade should be kept in a strait jacket by the tariff board, by men who have no actual knowledge of that trade, men who ruined the trade of Canada in the years of Bennett and who have been a handicap to Canadian trade since they have been there. Personally I have nothing against them; they may be good citizens; but I believe that too much power is vested in them. I do not see
Tariff Board Act

why they should have supreme authority over tariff matters, which formed the only line of division between the two old parties before there were new parties in Canada.
I remember reading the speeches of Sir Richard Cartwright and Sir George Foster when they discussed trade matters. The Tory party was a protectionist party; the Liberal party was a free trade party. But at the time the policies were made they were made by the party itself. The Conservative party, alias Tory party, had chosen to make its own policies; the Liberal party had its own policies as to trade. We must deal with efficiency and friendliness with other nations, but we must make our own separate trade agreements, and those trade agreements should be discussed by the party itself before they are decided by these supreme wizards.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Does the minister propose to make a statement at this stage?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The bill which will be founded on the resolution is neither long nor complicated. It provides for certain amendments to the Tariff Board Act of 1931 that are desirable before steps are taken to reconstitute the board which, owing to unavoidable circumstances, is at present unable to carry out its duties.	.
There is only one member, the chairman, Mr. Hector B. McKinnon. The original board, appointed in 1933, consisted of the Hon. G. H. Sedgewick, chairman, Mr. M. N. Campbell, vice-chairman; and Mr. C. P. Hebert. On Mr. Sedgewick's death, Mr. H. B. McKinnon, who had previously been commissioner of tariff, was appointed chairman. In 1943, the ten-year term of Messrs. Campbell and Hebert expired. The former retired that year on pension, and the latter, whose pension rights had accrued, was on overseas service and has since entered the diplomatic service of Canada.
There are a number of appeals from decisions of various administrative authorities which have been awaiting hearing for some months, and it is important that the legislation be proceeded with at this session. Certain of the proposed amendments are consequential on other legislation approved at the last session.
As hon. members are aware, the act of 1931 laid upon the tariff board two main duties; first, to conduct inquiries in respect of tariff problems specifically referred to it by the Minister of Finance and to report thereon to him and to parliament; and second, to replace the then existing board of customs, which was

a departmental body, as a board of appeal from decisions of the administrative authorities in respect of the provisions of the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, and the Excise Act.
During the war, there were no references by the minister on tariff matters. Since the war, tariff negotiations on an international basis have fully occupied the time of the sole member of the board. But in the second sphere of the board's duties, that of a court of appeal from rulings of the administrative authorities, appeals have continued to be lodged which cannot be heard because, in respect of this section of the act, one member does not constitute a quorum, nor does the act provide for the creation of temporary members except in the case of incapacity of existing members.
There are now awaiting hearing ten or twelve appeals by Canadian interests, and the Minister of National Revenue is as anxious to see these disposed of by the board as are the appellants themselves. The house will recall that under Bill No. 229, which is still under discussion, much wider facility for appeal to the tariff board is being granted under the provisions of the Customs Act, with provision for further appeal either by the public or by the departments, to the exchequer court, and, indeed, to the Supreme Court of Canada.
For the information of members, I might state that it is most unusual for a decision of the tariff board to be further appealed, even though in the past there has been limited provision for appeal in respect of rulings under various sections of the Customs Act. The hearings of the board in these matters are open to the public; they lack the formality of court proceedings; they are participated in by men, whether government officials or otherwise, who have a practical knowledge of the subject matter and whose sole objective is the ascertainment of fact; they entail no cost whatsoever to any litigant, and within my memory at least there has never been a suggestion as to further appeal. However, as I stated a moment ago, the Minister of National Revenue is now making specific provision, in both the Customs Aot and the Excise Tax Act, for appeal to the courts from decisions of the tariff board, having in mind the greatly widened area of appeal to the tariff board which others of his proposals will make possible.
I suppose it would be more appropriate for me to outline when we come to second reading the provisions of the bill which will be founded on this resolution. As I say, they are comparatively simple.

Tariff Board Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. McKinnon was a Bennett appointee, was he not?


Douglas Charles Abbott: He was a civil servant. I understand he had been a newspaperman on the old Toronto Globe. He was appointed commissioner of tariffs, and in 1940 when he was commissioner of tariffs he was appointed chairman of the tariff board. He functioned, of course, during the war as chairman of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, and I should say that the greater part of his time was devoted to that function, since the tariff board was comparatively inactive.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was appointed secretary of the tariff board by Mr. Bennett.


Mr. GOLDING:: Not McKinnon.


Jean-François Pouliot: He was a Bennett
appointee. I do not know the job he was appointed to, but he was a Bennett appointee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I could not say for sure.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the third board within a week concerning which the government has introduced legislation. The resolution has to do with the organization, functions and powers of the board under the Tariff Board Act, and many other matters, such as increases of salary and repeal of obsolete provisions. The chairman of the board, Mr. McKinnon, is a good man, but the board was obsolete from the time of the Geneva meetings last year right down to November when the Geneva pact was announced. The intention is to place the board under the Civil Service Act. If that is done, it simply means that there will be political interference with the functions and powers of the board. I am opposed to the whole way the board has been carrying on. For eight months last year the board ceased to function as such but performed government functions both at Geneva and in-Cuba, when some of the officers down there, over the head of parliament, upset the whole economic policy which has been followed in this country since confederation.
I am opposed to the policy of bringing down at this late date, the 105th day of the session, legislation which will result in interference and expense, the amount of which we do not know. As for the civil service commission and the way they are functioning at the present time, they will be the next board with respect to which a bill will be introduced increasing their powers and salaries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the minister would give to the committee, not necessarily a
detailed review, but a brief outline of the provisions of the bill, it might save some questions.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I shall be glad to do that. Briefly, the provisions of the bill are as follows. First, provision is made that future appointments to the staff of the board shall be made through the civil service commission rather than as heretofore by order in council.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that include the chairman?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That does not include the chairman and the members of the board, no. I am speaking of the staff of the board only. Second, there is provision for the blanketing-in of the board's present employees, some ten in number, as civil servants. That is a necessary provision and consequential upon the first one. Third, provision is made, under prescribed circumstances, for the appointment of temporary members of the board, to meet situations created by absence or illness. It has been found inconvenient in recent months that it was not possible to make a temporary appointment in the case of illness or absence. Fourth, provision is made for cancellation for the future of the non-contributory pension provision for members of the board. It has been put on a contributory basis. Originally the act provided for payment of a non-contributory pension, which I think most members of the committee will agree is not a desirable general principle. Finally, provision is made for the restoration of the salary of the chairman of the board to the amount fixed in the act at the time of its adoption.
Those are the main provisions. The detailed discussion we could have when the bill is before the committee. As hon. members will see it, it is a comparatively simple bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: These appointments to meet a temporary situation, I presume, are to be simply ad hoc appointments for designated purposes?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it the intention that existing vacancies on the board shall be filled?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. It is the intention that at the earliest possible day the board will be reconstituted with three members as provided by the statute.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is no change at all in the present powers or functions of the board?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No.
Tariff Board Act


Joseph Henry Harris: I should not like the committee to proceed from the resolution stage without saying a word or two concerning the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I think perhaps he knows, as do the rest of hon. members in this chamber, that those who have served on this necessary institution in our economy, the tariff board, are recognized, not only in Canada and Washington but the world over, as most outstanding men in their particular line of work and outstanding civil servants.
The men who have had charge of tariff legislation for Canada are recognized everywhere as eminent and capable officers of that particular department. When the hon. member for Temiscouata rises in his place and says they should be fired, and when he talks about their being Tory appointments and what not, I say to him, with all due respect for his seniority rights in this chamber, that he is not stating facts. I am sorry that he should feel disposed to malign those who have served so faithfully and who are recognized throughout the whole commercial world as some of the most outstanding, impartial and capable servants of Canada in this difficult field of tariff legislation.


Thomas Langton Church: One of the functions of the board was to promote trade. Now the whole policy is to be changed. A week ago a bill was brought in with respect to another board, namely, the railway board. One of the duties of this board while over at Geneva was to promote preferential trade. They did not do that. In fact, all empire trade under that board has been practically abolished at a time when empire trade means more to the empire and the world than it ever meant before.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether I made it clear that no changes are to be made in the powers and duties of the board. It is probably not necessary for me to say in this committee anything about the outstanding record of public service the present chairman, Mr. Hector McKinnon, rendered both prior to and throughout the war. Since I have been Minister of Finance I have placed the greatest confidence in his knowledge and judgment with regard to tariff matters. I have constantly used the provisions of the Tariff Board Act which say that the Minister of Finance may

ask the tariff board to make inquiries. I have asked the chairman of the tariff board to advise me, as Minister of Finance, about tariff matters. I doubt if there is in Canada today a man with wider knowledge of Canadian tariffs than the present chairman of the tariff board. I have no idea as to what his political affiliations may be, or what they formerly were.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a question to ask my genial colleague, the hon. member for Danforth. Did he answer my question on his own behalf or on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party?


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have to sit and take that, even from the hon. member for Temiscouata. Never yet on my own behalf have I advanced any particular interests, speaking individually; and as a member of the party I am not authorized to speak on behalf of it. I have been here long enough, and I know enough about the matter now under consideration, at least to get up and to make some observations in which I have repudiated some of the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member had spoken on behalf of his party, I would have asked him to read his power of attorney.


Joseph Henry Harris: Does the hon. member for Temiscouata speak on behalf of his party?


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall I report the resolution?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I do suggest to the government that the next time it wishes to conduct an inquiry into prices or the reasons for price increases, instead of appointing a parliamentary committee for the purpose, and taking up a lot of time in that committee, and keeping discussions off the floor of the house-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that it use the provisions of the Tariff Board Act for that purpose. I say that because this act clothes the board with power to do these things. I draw the attention of the committee to sections 4 and 5 of the Tariff Board Act of 1931, chapter 55 of the statutes of that year.

Tariff Board Act


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I doubt if the hon. member's observations are in order at the present moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am simply drawing the attention of the minister to the powers of the board under the present act, and the provisions set out in the resolution now before the committee. I shall be brief.
The resolution is designed to enlarge the board, and to permit it to function hereafter. The minister has indicated it could not function during the past year.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not for purposes of appeals.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because they have not had a quorum available. I am simply drawing the attention of the minister and the committee to some of the powers which are given to the board under sections 4 and 5 of the act. Section 4 states:
4. (1) In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, at the request of the minister, make inquiry as to-
(a)	the price and cost of raw materials in Canada and elsewhere, and the cost of transportation thereof from the place of production to the place of use or consumption;
(b)	the cost of efficient production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of efficient production; . . .
(d)	The prices received by producers, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retailers and other distributors in Canada and elsewhere;
(e)	all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada;
(f)	generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries; and report to the minister.
Under subsection 3 the board may be empowered by the governor in council to hold an inquiry under the customs tariff; and under subsection 4-
The governor in council may empower the board to make any investigation or hold any inquiry authorized by the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, or of a relative nature,-
Under section 5 of the act the board has full power to summons witnesses, to administer oaths and to conduct hearings and inquiries. I suggest to the minister that any time he wishes bo have a further inquiry made into matters such as I have referred to, this would be a useful vehicle, instead of appointing a useless parliamentary committee for the purpose.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 345, to amend the Tariff Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now.
Mr. ABBOTT moved the second reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


James Horace King: Mr. Abbott moves that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself -into committee on said bill.


Mr. BRACKEN:: We have not seen this bill. We surely should not be asked bo give second reading to a bill we have not seen.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It can be done only with unanimous consent of the house. I do not press it at all.


John Bracken: I think there is no disposition to hold it up; but I suggest it is bad practice to proceed with second reading of a bill before we have seen the bill. .


James Horace King: Does the house prefer to have second reading at the next sitting?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is a routine bill. We have had a full discussion,


Jean-François Pouliot: If the leader of the opposition agreed with the hon. member for Dan-forth, he could swallow the bill in a gulp.


James Horace King: Then we shall proceed with committee of the whole at the next sitting.
An h-on. MEMBER: Second reading?


James Horace King: The motion for second reading has been carried.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GLEASON BELZILE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $85,882,-
Canadian National Railways
[Stage Direction]
200 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1948; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $85,882,200 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if at any time in any year the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges: Provided that all such amounts shall be reimbursed to the minister from the recipients' annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient, any insufficiency to be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the parliamentary assistant give a word of explanation?


Gleason Belzile: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house is long but I believe it is clear. By way of explanation I would say that the bill to be based on the resolution is to provide authority for the financing of capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, and the retirement of miscellaneous maturing obligations, either by way of loans from the government or by the issue to the public of securities of the company guaranteed by the government.
As stated in the resolution, the total amount to be provided for the purpose is $85,882,200. This amount is to be divided among six different items, of which I can give the details in committee. Those items comprise the capital budget of the Canadian National railway system which was submitted to and considered by the sessional committee on railways and shipping on April 20 of this year.
The procedure to be followed is that the loans and advances will be made according to the bill to be introduced.


Percy Chapman Black: I suggest that the parliamentary assistant put the main items on the record, what the expenditures are intended for.


Gleason Belzile: I have some additional information which I could give in committee.


James Horace King: I suggest that if hon. members have any questions they wait until we reach the committee stage.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Gleason Belzile: The hon. member for
Cumberland asked for a breakdown of the $85,882,200. As submitted to the committee on railways, the breakdown is as follows: Additions and betterments (less retirements)	 $20,250,000
New equipment	 59,000,000
Barraute branch line	 1,440,000
Acquisition of securities and retirement of capital obligations		1,007,200
Additional working capital	 20,000,000
Those items total $101,697,200. From that amount should be deducted the amount available from reserves for depreciation and debt discount amortization, $15,815,000. That gives a balance of the amount mentioned in the resolution, $85,882,200.


Percy Chapman Black: Where will the amount for additions and betterments be expended?


Gleason Belzile: The breakdown of that item is as follows:
Atlantic region	 $1,909,665
Central region	 9,916,680
Western region	 4,882,085
Grand Trunk Western	 3,684,877
Central Vermont	 386,670
Subsidiary companies	 1,376,503
Express, telegraph and other departments	 2,588,590
Additions and betterments to equipment (Canada)	 3,240,595
Equipment retirement credit	 2,735,665
These items give an amount of $25,250,000. To be deducted from that is a portion of projects included in the above requirements which will not be physically completed before December 31, 1948, estimated at $5,000,000. This leaves a balance of $20,250,000.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As usual this resolution is one sentence only, although it takes nearly twenty lines. After it gets through with the $85,882,200 for new securities it goes on to say:
-with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary-
Is that in addition to the $85,000,000?


Gleason Belzile: Yes.

Canadian National Railways


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Then this resolution and the bill to be founded thereon constitute an unlimited incursion upon the consolidated revenue fund.


Gleason Belzile: A similar bill was passed last year, but this year it was deemed advisable to add this provision. The bill to be introduced will give authority to the Minister of Finance to advance to the railroad the money mentioned by the hon. member for Rosedale to enable it to meet its charges if at any time the revenue should be insufficient to cover those outlays. That was not provided for last year, and this year the authority is also being extended to the Trans-Canada Air Lines.


Percy Chapman Black: From what the minister has told us, it would appear that only 81,909,665, out of a total of $20,250,000, is to be expended upon additions and betterments in the Atlantic region. It would be interesting to have a breakdown of the Atlantic region figure, but I shall not delay the committee. This would appear to me to be most inadequate if there is to be a fair distribution of moneys under this heading.
The question of the railway line from Moncton to Sydney has been before the house on many occasions. It was referred to a few days ago by the Minister of Transport when his estimates were before us. This line, which was built sixty or seventy years ago, carries heavy traffic. The grades are quite steep and it is probably about the worst railroad line in the country, having regard to the traffic it carries. Is there any appropriation for the improvement of this line from Moncton to Sydney?


Gleason Belzile: The hon. member understands, of course, that many of the questions he raised should be directed to the Minister of Transport. I am informed that there is no special appropriation for the Moncton to Sydney section.


Percy Chapman Black: No appropriation even for surveys?


Gleason Belzile: No; I see none here for that purpose.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like information on another point. In the appropriation for new equipment I notice quite a number of very heavy diesel locomotives, also smaller diesel locomotives. Are any such
locomotives being provided for the Atlantic division? If so, I would point out that diesel locomotives would replace locomotives driven by coal produced in the maritime provinces. Over the years this has been one of our best local markets for the output of the coal mines of Nova Scotia. Would the minister say whether any of these diesel locomotives are being provided for the Atlantic division of the maritime provinces?


Gleason Belzile: I cannot answer that question, because there is no reference to it in the C.N.R. budget.


Mr. ISNOR:: I should like to follow up the thought expressed by the member for Cumberland. It is all very well for the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance to say that this is a matter for the Minister of Transport, but the parliamentary assistant is sponsoring this bill, and he has mentioned certain items, one of which was quoted by the member for Cumberland, in reference to expenditures in the Atlantic region amounting to over $1,000,000. The member for Cumberland very properly asks how that amount is to be expended, and I too am interested in the answer. I wish the parliamentary assistant would pursue the matter a little further and give us a breakdown of that $1,000,000. I would also ask him to enlarge on expenditures to be made in the United States, particularly Grand Trunk extensions of over $3,500,000 and expenditures on the Central Vermont. I am particularly interested in the operation of these roads because of their effect in diverting traffic from our Atlantic ports to United States ports.
I would also draw attention to the part of the resolution which says:
... if at any time in any year the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges . . .
This really amounts to a perpetual undertaking to make good the deficits. Would the parliamentary assistant enlarge on that? Today trust companies and banking institutions limit their proxies to a particular meeting or to one year. I think the same principle should apply here and that deficits on the year's operations should be placed before parliament. We are unable to get from the Department of Transport all the information
Canadian National Railways

we require on the operations of the C.N.R., and I think it is poor business to give this more or less perpetual guarantee so far as deficits are concerned.
I should like to refer to a publication of the C.N.R., the Canadian National Magazine, which in its May issue says:
As a public enterprise, the Canadian National system is accountable to the people of Canada. Every spring we report to our owners, telling them of the work we did for them the year before, the loads of freight we carried, the number of passengers, the money we took in and the money we spent.
They give the complete story of their operations, but when we ask for information we cannot get it in the form in which we want it, either from the Department of Transport or at the present time from the Department of Finance. If the Canadian National Railways are to come before parliament from time to time to ask for further financial aid, they should be prepared to give us a breakdown of their expenditures. I have particularly in mind at the moment the expenditure in the Atlantic region and its application to the rest of Canada. That is related, Mr. Chairman, to the argument we made on the floor of this house concerning the 21 per cent increase in freight rates. I do not propose to go into that now, because I would likely be ruled out of order. But in connection with the operations of the C.N.R. as covered by this resolution I would ask the parliamentary assistant to be good enough to explain why the whole financial operations of the railway are not taken into consideration when arriving at a decision on an application for an increase with respect to any particular branch of its operations, such as freight. Why are the operations of only one particular branch of the railway taken into account? The large chain stores always take into account the over-all receipts of all their branches and pay income tax on their net profits.


Gleason Belzile: I have a breakdown of the expenditures for 1948 on additions and betterments. It is divided between the Atlantic region, the Central region, the Western region, Grand Trunk Western lines, Central Vermont and subsidiaries. It shows the expenditures
on rails, tie plates, ballast and so forth, and I would ask the permission of the committee to put it on Hansard.


William Henry Golding: Has the parliamentary assistant permission to put this document on Hansard"!


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The information is already available in the proceedings of the railway committee, and I see no use in putting on Hansard three or four extra pages of fine print. I object to putting it on, Mr. Chairman.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I understand that if any one member raises an objection, it cannot be included in our proceedings. I should have thought that the hon. member who raised the objection, and who is so much interested in the operations of the railways, would have welcomed the opportunity of having this information produced.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I do not think the senior hon. member for Halifax understands the point I made.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I would have thought the hon. member would welcome the opportunity of having the information placed on Hansard so that it could receive wider distribution than the report of the special committee on railways. That is my point.


Percy Chapman Black: I agree with the senior member for Halifax. If the hon. member for Rosedale will permit me, may I say that it is well for us to have as many particulars as we can possibly get on the subject under discussion. We have not all at hand the evidence given before the special railway committee.


William Henry Golding: Order. Unless the parliamentary assistant to the minister has unanimous consent, he may not put the table on Hansard.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Although I am trying to save every dollar I can of the taxpayers' money, I withdraw the objection I took to this table going on the record.
The table follows:

Canadian National Railways
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS SYSTEM Additions and Betterments Budget-Year 1948 Expenditures Less Retirements Applicable to Capital Account
-	Atlantic Region	Central Region	Western Region	Grand Trunk Western Lines	Central Vermont Railway	Other	TotalAdditions and Betterments- Rails and fastenings	
Tie plates and rail anchors	
Ballast	$ 110,534 218,626 366,170 212,572 7,850 4,583 126,080 60,720 137,192	$ 813,178 597,982 276,750	$ 661,002 488,320 138,400 72,900 94,525 15,720 301,512 96,125 601,050 120,760 43,812	$ 216,700 131,000 239,200	% 7,038 42,337 65,895 4,750	*	l 1,808,452 1,478,265 1,086,415 290,222 108,075 31,366 1,627,172 339,910 1,512,660 127,210 451,364 2,500,000 2,617,941 262,443 243,531 3,507,686 363,370 75,000 290,677 500,000 2,000,000 31,235 Cr. 355,301 846,406 1,376,503 165,650 4,698,879 Cr.2,735,665Rip-rap, retaining walls and crib-	5,700 6,563 953,380 119,515 525,999 6,450 258,152 2,500,000 1,096,999 121,309 132,281 2,286,713 49,360 75,000 123,408	Ditching, drainage and sewers	
Yard tracks and sidings	
Roadway machines	
Bridges, trestles and culverts.. ..	4,500 246,200 57,500 211,500	6,050 36,919	Highway and crossing protection.	10,000	139,400	Stations and station facilities	
Water supplies	75,631 4,700	1,123,205 86,832 77,301 520,410 10,090	301,810 22,116 25,000 291,547 267,600	20,296 27,486 8,949 31,230	Shops, enginehouses and machinery 	
Docks and wharves	377,786 36,320	Signals and interlockers	Cr. 639	161,908	6,000	500,000 2,000,000	5,000 156,540	20,000 Cr. 61,319 9,260	6,235 Cr. 192,432 454,410	General additions and betterments and contingencies	
Express and miscellaneous equipment	140,000 23,400	36,740 2,100	Cr. 434,830 357,770 1,376,503 165,650 3,240,595 Cr.2,735,665	
Additions and betterments to				1,361,404	96,880		
							
Total Estimated Additions and Betterments	 Less. Portion of projects included in the above requirements which will not be physically completed by December 31, 1948								
	1,909,665	9,916,680	4,882,085	3,684,877	386,670	4,470,023	25,250,000
							5,000,000
Net Estimated Additions and							
							20,250,000


Gleason Belzile: On the second point raised by the senior member for Halifax I wish to state that the resolution reads:
. . . to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if at any time in any year the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges:	Provided that all such
amounts shall be reimbursed! to the minister from the recipients' annual revenues in so far as such revenues are sufficient, any insufficiency to be provided for by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament.
Therefore if the companies have sufficient revenue they will meet their own expenditures, and they wall reimburse the government for the moneys advanced to them. If these companies suffer a deficit they will have to come back to parliament and ask for a special appropriation to cover the deficit. Therefore parliament will keep its jurisdiction over the deficit expenditures of the company.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am pleased to have that information. So long as we have that understanding we can raise no objection. So long as they have sufficient revenue there are no deficits. It is only when they have a deficit
Canadian National Railways

that they come to parliament for the money. In view of the answer given by the parliamentary assistant, I do not see that I can raise any further objection.


Thomas Langton Church: The discussion here this morning shows the difficulty of running the road from the commercial aspect. The matters raised here this morning have been placed in the hands of the board of transport commissioners for Canada-traffic, cars, and all these other matters, under the Railway Act. I want to point out the great mistake. I am not going to repeat what I said when this motion was up some months ago.
Because of the disaster which overtook the railways in 1916 and 1917, this national system was taken over five years later, and it had been predicted that unless the government ran the national railways from the commercial aspect, and stuck to its function, this disaster would happen. What are we doing here by this bill? It is contrary to the advice given by the royal commission which was appointed in 1917 that no capital structure or applications for additional capital or sale of securities could be granted unless they were recommended by the board of railway commissioners, now the transport board. The commission which conducted this survey of Canada's railways in 1917 consisted of able men. Mr. A. H. Smith was president of the New York Central. Mr. Acworth had made a great success of the British railways. Sir Henry Drayton was chairman of the board of railway commissioners. What did the report recommend to this house? That no capital structure shall be placed on that road without the railway commission of Canada reporting on it first to the government. The government has tom up that splendid report of 1917 and is not running the road from the commercial aspect.
Take this $85,000,000 deficit. Wait until you see the deficit next year. They have a board of directors which does not direct. Some of them were never connected with railways to start with. If we want a political rate structure it is all hidden in this resolution, instead of this public utility being run from the commercial aspect.
In the resolution there is a large amount of money for the subsidiaries. In fact the great proportion of the moneys is for that purpose. I think it was announced away back last March that the deficits would continue to increase. Some of that money is going into rolling stock and equipment for the subsidiaries of the Central Vermont and other subsidiaries in the United States. What is the result in Ontario-the Niagara dis-

trict, for instance. The railway facilities all through western Ontario are not being improved to the extent that they are in the subsidiaries of the system in the United States. They cannot get any of this fine rolling stock in Ontario, and that is the province in which the old Grand Trunk made all its money. It is time the Auditor General of Canada got control over this system and that we did away with the haphazard system of appointing outside auditors. Some of them are just duplicating work. The auditors do not give any recommendation to parliament to guide us in seeing that the money is well spent. Now they have added a whole lot of other things to it. We never intended to have a national railway duplicating the hotel systems and duplicating everything else all over the country. Now they are tacking on to it the deficits, the equipment, and all that kind of thing, of the T.C.A. With all that kind of thing going on it is no wonder that they are going behind.
What is the board of transport commissioners for? It has now been organized into a board of seven with other functions. You might just as well abolish any control by the transport board, especially when one takes into consideration the reply I got this morning about the disaster in Toronto. There is no control over this railway at all except political control. Are we going to continue this state of affairs in this public ownership venture? I do not know of any public ownership venture that could be run in the way that this business has been run. The directors do not direct, and there is no proper audit of the system, no report from any financial people about it.
I am surprised at the action of the government. The road has not had a chance to function properly, because it is in politics, first, last and always. We have seen it under a political rate structure. No system can function under such conditions. In Ontario we have made a success of great public utilities. This is a great public utility, the greatest venture we ever had in public ownership in this country. It is failing day by day as a result of the interference of this parliament in its operation. We do nothing to regulate the road at all. It is no doubt necessary for them to come to parliament to have their deficits met, forsooth, but I believe the day is coming when we as a parliament should strengthen the government's hands and see that this great railroad, which has done a magnificent job, is run from the commercial aspect.

Canadian National Railways


Mr. LOCKHART:: 
Harry Rutherford Jackman: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to say just a word or two along the lines followed by the hon. member for Rose dale. As he has pointed out, what we are doing here really commits us to an approval of Trans-Canada Air Lines accounts, whatever they are. We have a statement of TXH.A. for 1947, and it raises certain important questions as to the method of accounting of that
Canadian National Railways

enterprise. I should like to know whether this is the proper place to ask to have that gone into-because unless there is some other place, I think the matter should be gone into here. I do not think we should just take these accounts without questions of any kind. I am asking now whether this is the proper time, in view of the fact, as the member for Rosedale points out, that whatiwe do here really approves the operation of T.C.A., whatever it may be. Is this the proper place, as perhaps it is the only time we shall have to ask questions of importance about the operations of T.C.A.?
It is suggested that the matter may be discussed under the estimates of the Minister of Reconstruction and. Supply, but I am not sure about that. I do not remember its coming up in the transport estimates, and it is certainly before us now. I do not want to relinquish an opportunity of asking questions here unless it is quite clear that the opportunity will present itself elsewhere.


William Henry Golding: This resolution, of course, deals only with financial obligations. I do not think the operations of the railways would be considered under the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it might be done under the estimates of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I make that suggestion partly because I believe it would be more in order at that time, and also because it might be more satisfactory to discuss the phases of the matter brought up by the hon. member when we have that minister before us rather than the minister or assistant in charge of the Department of Finance. It is true there is no specific item in the estimates relating to Trans-Canada Air Lines, but it is also clear by the order in council that was tabled that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, or the Minister of Trade and Commerce-the same gentleman in either case-is the minister in charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines and responsible on its behalf to parliament. I suggest that either on the item for general administration of trade and commerce, or on the item for general administration of reconstruction and supply, it would be in order, and it would be more satisfactory, because the appropriate minister would be then before us.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is correct in his suggestion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it would be more convenient then, but I want to be sure that we shall not be told eventually that we have missed the bus.


Frank Exton Lennard: This resolution seeks authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system. Apart from the Canadian National Steamships, not mentioned here, what companies are there?


Gleason Belzile: In the 1947 annual report of the Canadian National Railways on pages 22 and 23, there is a long list of the companies that are owned by the Canadian National Railway system.


Frank Exton Lennard: I think that list should be on the record.


Gleason Belzile: It is always available to the public.


Frank Exton Lennard: But it is not read. It should be in Hansard.


John Bracken: Mr. Chairman, in the middle of this resolution there appear the following words:
. . . with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may ibe necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if at any time in any year the available revenues of the national railway system or the TransCanada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges.
What that means is that we are giving power to the government to pay the deficits of these institutions. The point I wish to make is that this clause gives the power to pay these deficits "if at any time in any year" there are deficits. I submit that this committee ought not to pass a measure with the latter part of that clause in it. If the government, by a blank cheque method, is to guarantee the deficits of these institutions, as it will probably have to do, I submit that the accounts of those institutions ought to come before parliament every year. I submit that the matter should not just come before us in some general way under some minister's estimates where there is no specific item dealing with it. The government ought to have no long-term powers in this form. It may be that the time to deal with this matter is when we get to the bill, although I am wondering if we ought not to move in this committee that those words "in any year" be deleted. I do not like to propose amendments without careful consideration, but if we do not do it here I propose to have it done later on.


William Henry Golding: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance will repeat what he said with regard to these deficits and their having to come before parliament.

Canadian National Railways


Gleason Belzile: As I understand the procedure in this matter, either the companies will have sufficient revenues with which to meet the loans and reimburse the government or they will not. If they have not such revenues to a sufficient amount, they will have to come back before parliament; that is, the government will have to come before parliament and say that last year such and such a company-for instance, the Canadian National Railway system-incurred such and such an amount of deficit. Then we shall have to pass a bill appropriating money to pay that deficit, and shall have to appropriate special money for that. That is exactly what is covered by the proviso contained in the three last lines.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Following what my leader has said with regard to the words "at any time in any year", it would seem to me that the whole of the wording throughout the rest of the resolution is "during the calendar year 1948." Surely that is what is contemplated. I still think that the leader of the opposition is right in saying that the words "at any time in any year" seem to have crept in by mistake.


Gleason Belzile: The intention on this particular point is to have continuous authority to make the necessary advance.


John Bracken: May I ask the parliamentary assistant if those words "at any time in any year" have been used in any previous year. It looks to me now as though we are legislating for all future years. In a matter dealing with deficits I think that opportunity for consideration ought to come before parliament every year.


Gleason Belzile: A somewhat comparable provision was in the 1941 act. But last year we passed chapter 29, and this provision is, as is mentioned, entirely new.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should like the parliamentary assistant to give one further interpretation. It relates to the words "to pay operating and income charges." As I understand it, it is based on the words "capital expenditure." If this $85,882,200 is for capital expenditures-


Mr. KIRK:: For the year 1948.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Yes, for the year 1948-how is it possible to pay out of that amount a balance toward operating and income charges? Will the parliamentary assistant be good enough to explain the term "operating and income charges" so that we can understand whether or not they come within our understanding of the meaning of the word "capital"?


Gleason Belzile: The provision to which the senior member for Halifax refers is in addition to the $85,000,000.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Then there is a further amount?


Gleason Belzile: Yes.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is right.-an unknown amount.


Gleason Belzile: An amount which we cannot determine now. The C.N.R. makes a budget. Of course a budget is to provide [DOT]for the future. They do not know what deficit they will incur, whether scarcity of materials will raise prices substantially, whether wages will increase, and so on. If they incur any deficit, they will have to come back next year before the government, explain that deficit and give the reason for it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me read the first part of the resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $85,882',200 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1948 . . .
Then lower down on the page the resolution reads:
-and to authorize the Minister of Finance to place at the disposal of the national company or the Trans-<Canada Air Lines, such amounts as may be necessary to enable them to pay operating and income charges if-
And I suggest the wording should be "during the calendar year 1948."
[DOT]-the available revenues of the national railway system or the Trans-Canada Air Lines and subsidiaries, respectively, are not sufficient to pay such charges:
Surely it is the same period we are talking about. I suggest that would	meet the
situation, unless there is some point which has not yet been brought out.


Frank Exton Lennard: Then bring it out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frank Exton Lennard: No, it is not carried.


Gleason Belzile: It is the government's policy to have authority to make these advances as required so that the company will meet its operating and income charges as they come due.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the parliamentary assistant suggest that we are now being asked to vote something which goes beyond the year 1948?


Gleason Belzile: That is right.
Canadian National Railways


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I still doubt that. I still cannot see why it is
necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just on the point of what we are doing, and for the moment not commenting on whether it is right or wrong, does this not mean that we would be laying down the policy that year by year the government would have the authority to pay over such moneys as the railway or the air line might need, without waiting in that year until parliament had actually appropriated the money?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then having done that, the government would come before parliament some time during the year, either with a bill or an item in the estimates and ask parliament to vote the specific amount which the government had already turned over to the railways. Would we not as a parliament still have the right to refuse to vote that money in any year, if the majority of the house felt so inclined?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It may have been paid.


Gleason Belzile: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has put it clearly. That is a correct interpretation of the clause.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall I report the
resolution?


John Bracken: No. Are you sure, Mr. Chairman, that the resolution has been passed?


William Ross Macdonald: I should report it.


John Bracken: Unless you have declared it passed, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that, since it is almost one o'clock, the parliamentary assistant take the noon hour to give the matter further consideration. I do not feel disposed at the moment to accept this new policy, where we would say for all time to come we give power to the government to provide for deficits of these railways and subsidiary enterprises. Obviously that situation will be met, and probably will be cared for in this way. I do object however to the tying of parliament's hands for years to come by action we would take now. It does not need to be done in that way. Action can be taken each year, at which time the activities of the different organizations can be brought before parliament and discussed in the house.
I suggest that the parliamentary assistant give further consideration to this matter, particularly the expression "if at any time in any year". That is the phraseology to which objection has been taken.


Gleason Belzile: I can only repeat what I said earlier, that provision is made in the resolution whereby, if there is a deficit, the government will have to come back to parliament, explain the situation, and have a special appropriation put through to finance such deficit.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope the parliamentary assistant will accept the suggestion of my leader, because I still feel that it is merely a mistake, and that it would be inconsistent with the rest of the provisions.
I should like to turn back to the Trans-Canada Air Lines and ask two or three questions with respect to that organization. I believe however it would be somewhat unfair to ask the parliamentary assistant, because I do not imagine he is familiar with the details. I wish to know about rentals, and various other expenditures. I should like to have the entire picture of expenses of Trans-Canada Air Lines, so that I might know whether the deficit which is shown is in any sense a real deficit. Perhaps I might go ahead and ask my questions now, or it may be that I should ask them of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Meantime my first question would be this -and I shall put the others later: I wish to know in particular what rentals they pay for the various airports. Then, in general, I wish to know what expenditures of Trans-Canada Air Lines either directly or indirectly are paid by the use of other government money.


Gleason Belzile: I do not believe the hon. member's question would come under this resolution. Perhaps I might point out that the deficit of Trans-Canada Air Lines was placed before the house in March of this year.


William Ross Macdonald: It does occur to me that the financial arrangements in connection with the operations of Trans-Canada Air Lines might more properly come under the Depart ment of Transport. That has already been submitted to the committee. I doubt if it is in order to discuss those details at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when your assistant was in the chair a while ago some of us pointed out that although civil aviation matters come under the Department of Transport, the responsibility for Trans-Canada Air Lines by order in council is still under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The two relevant items in each of those departments, those of general administration, have yet to be passed. My suggestion, in which there was

Canadian National Railways
general concurrence, was that the balance sheet of Trans-Canada Air Lines could be discussed at that time.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am in accord with the general principle expressed by the leader of the opposition. In addition to this sum of more than $85,000,000 we should not grant a further unknown amount. However this is only the resolution stage, and in virtue of the explanation given by the parliamentary assistant, that every year the Canadian National Railways must return to parliament for an amount to cover their deficits, we might pass the resolution. When we have the bill before us we shall be in a better position to make any required amendments or suggestions as to the period of time involved.


Gleason Belzile: For that reason I am suggesting that we pass the resolution and proceed to a discussion of the bill.


Percy Chapman Black: Under this appropriation of $85,882,200 is an amount of $23,400,000: In this appropriation is there any provision for the deficit of Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to know how much it is.
Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi)1: This seems to be a peculiar way of proceeding. I think back to the time when the estimates of the Minister of Transport were before the committee. He 'told me then that so far as subsidies on the Pacific coast were concerned, the Canadian Pacific railway and the Union Steamship company were both granted subsidies of about $400,000. This made up for the fact that they were not charging economic fares. He said the Canadian National Railways were excluded from the payment of those subsidies. It seems to me that if we give authority in this way, the Canadian National never has to be concerned about subsidies. It never has to be concerned about economic fares. An important principle is involved here, if we are going to say that anything owned by the government can always come back to parliament and does not need to consider costs of operation. It does not seem to be a sound principle.
When we ask United States tourists to come to this country to view the glories of the Alaska trip, we give them, and also our Canadian tourists, a $200 trip and we charge them $120 for it. If United States funds are that valuable to us, it seems to me there should be a cheaper way of getting them. Just to tell our nationally owned lines that they can
always come back here and get any sum they require to meet their operating deficits does not seem to me to be sound business.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My parliamentary assistant explained to me that there was a discussion this morning concerning the provision under which the Minister of Finance may make temporary advances to the railway company to pay operating and income charges of the system. As hon. members of the committee will appreciate, that provision is to provide a form of revolving fund without fixing the top limit. It is logical to do that in the case of a publicly-owned corporation such as this, because surpluses in any year have to be turned into the consolidated revenue fund. If at the end of the year it develops that the advances have not been repaid out of revenue, under the terms of the bill which will be founded on this resolution they will have to be voted by an item in either the main or the supplementary estimates.
That seems the businesslike way to proceed. There is no intention or desire to flout parliament in any way. If it is preferred, when we come to the bill I am quite ready to provide by amendment that there will be a time limit as of March 31, 1949. Frankly I think parliament retains just as much control under the section of the bill which hon. members will see when the resolution is passed; but if the other method is preferred I would have no hesitation at all in putting in a date limit. I want to make it perfectly clear that the provision as it now stands does not take away from parliament any of its control over voting deficits of the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines; it was simply to provide what seemed a practical and businesslike way of taking care of these temporary advances and their subsequent voting by an item either in the main or the supplementary estimates.
H the committee would permit the resolution to pass I give the undertaking now that if it is still -the feeling that there should be an annual time limit I will have one of my colleagues move an amendment when the proper section of the bill is reached in committee.
Canadian National Railways


John Bracken: I am willing that the resolution be allowed to pass, but I do suggest that that amendment should be made; otherwise it looks as though we are saying that for all time they can make all the losses they choose and those losses will be met by parliament. I expect that they will be met, but if things run wild some time in the future and the government has to come to parliament, with the amendment the minister is now suggesting we shall have an opportunity to examine and deal with it. I thank the minister for acceding to that suggestion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Like my hon. friend, I would be the last to suggest that parliament should not have an opportunity to deal promptly with any deficit of any of these publicly owned corporations. I am satisfied that parliament would have such an opportunity under the section provided in the bill to be distributed shortly, but I repeat that if any hon. member feels that there is any doubt I shall gladly agree to an amendment to make it perfectly clear.


John Bracken: Is the bill available for distribution?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It probably has not a number yet, but I have a copy here. Perhaps we could introduce the bill and it could be looked at, as was the case with the Tariff Board Act, between now and tomorrow, and we can settle that question when the bill comes up for second reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I observe that that part of the resolution which we are querying is new.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: While we all appreciate what the minister says with regard to the rights of parliament being maintained by the last two lines of the resolution, it seems to us that the new wording is discordant with the rest of the section.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is section 9 of the bill. If I could have the bill introduced, I should be glad to discuss an amendment to that section tomorrow if it is thought necessary.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 346, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways system during the calendar year 1948, and to authorize the guarantee by

His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 340, respecting the supplying of electrical power in the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. MacKINNON:: Mr. Chairman, I think it proper that I should make a fairly full statement at this time. I am making this statement more extensive than I ordinarily would in order to anticipate questions that might be asked.
It will be recalled that in recent years very promising mineral deposits have been discovered in the Yellowknife district north of Great Slave lake, Northwest Territories, and several mines are now producing. Many other mining claims have been staked and are in the process of development.
Among the mines that have gone beyond the preliminary development stages and are now underground are the following:
Con-Rycon Mines, operated by Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company Negus Mines Limited Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Limited Thompson Lundmark Gold Mines Limited Beaulieu Yellowknife Mines Limited Discovery Yellowknife Mines Limited North Inca Mines Limited Diversified Mining Interests Viking Yellowknife Mines Limited Ptarmigan Mines Limited Akaiteho Mines Limited
Of these the Con-Rycon Mines are milling 270 tons daily, and expect to increase this to 300 tons daily during 1948, as well as improving their plant. Negus Mines Limited, another gold producer, milled an average of 65 tons daily during 1947, besides other improvements, and an addition to their mill will increase its daily capacity to 160 tons. Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines Limited have done considerable work both at their surface plant and underground, and will soon begin operations on a 200 ton basis. They anticipate increasing this tonnage substantially as soon as hydro-

Northwest Territories Power Commission
electric power is available. Thompson Lund-mark Gold Mines Limited resumed production in September, 1947, and are milling approximately 100 tons per day.
Underground development work to various stages has been carried on by the other companies referred to above. In addition to these, Akaitcho Mines will begin a shaft-sinking program in the summer of 1948.
One of the great needs for the successful operation of mines, whether in the development or the productive stage, is electric power. Because of the high cost of fuel in this northern area, the hydroelectric power will probably be the main source of energy, and will undoubtedly be used in preference to diesel or steam-generated power.
In 1946 the dominion government decided to undertake the construction of a hydroelectric power development plant on the Snare river, and of the transmission line necessary to bring the power to the Yellowknife mining field and to the townsite. The work was begun in 1946 on the Snare river storage and power project, ninety-four miles northwest of Yellowknife settlement, with the object of developing an initial capacity of
8,000	horsepower. An agreement for the sale of approximately 4,000 horsepower has already been made, and it is expected that other agreements will be made in the near future. The characteristics of this project will permit further development as required up to 28,000 or 30,000 horse power.
The dominion's policy as indicated in this bill is to establish a Northwest Territories power commission to develop, operate, and administer electric power in the territories, and which will plan and correlate as much as possible power needs in the mineral area. Power will be transmitted from the Snare river project to those mines and settlements requiring it within economic power transmitting distance, under present circumstances considered to be about one hundred miles, and where demands are established in other areas additional hydroelectric plants will be planned.
The objective is to supply ample power at a low cost and thus assist substantially in the development of the mineral industries in the territories. At present gold is the chief mineral being recovered in the Yellowknife district.
Practically all the mines that have been mentioned are within economical transmission distance of the Snare river development, and it is expected that many other mines will be developed within the same radius.
I shall not go into detailed explanation of the various sections of the bill, because these are covered in the explanatory notes printed with the bill, or by the sections themselves.
Briefly the bill provides for the construction and operation of power plants in the Northwest Territories to sell electrical power at as low cost as possible, subject to the plants being self-sustaining. The proposed Northwest Territories power commission will take over and operate the hydroelectric development under construction on the Snare river, and in addition will develop, operate and administer other power plants needed in the territories. The commission will have authority to sell power generated by its plants in large blocks to mining companies. The commission may also sell power on a retail basis to consumers in any district or area.
Climatic hazards and the short seasons when certain types of construction work or hauling of supplies must be undertaken, make it advisable to invest the power commission with certain authority to make capital expenditure for such things as branch transmission lines, substations, additional installations or works to increase power output of existing plants. If it were necessary to wait for the voting of funds at the next session of parliament, considerable time might be lost and beneficial projects could be delayed a year or more. Every advantage has to be taken of the seasons and limited facilities in the territories. Section 17 of the bill, which is implicit in itself, covers this authority.
With the approval of the governor in council, the commission shall establish schedules or ranges of rates for the power it supplies on the basis of not less than cost, which will include interest on the principal amount made or deemed to have been made to the commission in respect of the plant supplying the power, and all costs of operation and maintenance of the plant lines and other structures, together with costs of administration and salaries. Charges will also cover the establishment and maintenance of a contingency reserve fund. Rates are to be reviewed annually by the commission.
At the request of the commissioner of the Northwest Territories the commission may investigate the supplying of power to any local administrative district, company or other person in the Northwest Territories and advise the commissioner of areas that might be served, the capital cost, and the rates necessary to cover the cost of supplying the power.
5172	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Power Commission
It is believed that this bill represents an important advance for assistance in the development of the great natural wealth which lies in the Northwest Territories. Numerous mining and other enterprises can and will be stimulated if power is made available at low cost.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support this program of a commission for the governmental production of electricity in the Northwest Territories. I have always felt that the power should belong to the people in those territories, and this is a step in that direction. I hope that the personnel of the commission will include at least one engineer, preferably one who is thoroughly conversant with power production. There are to be three commissioners, I understand.


James Angus MacKinnon: Provision is made for three, but one is to be appointed to start with.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I hope that the commission when it is set up will make a survey of all the Northwest Territories with a view to ascertaining the possible power developments in the area. The minister spoke of the Snare river area, where just one power development is to be made.


James Angus MacKinnon: To start with.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are two or three more possible power developments on the Snare river, the power potential of which is about 35,000 horsepower, of which the present development will produce 8.000 horsepower, to be transmitted by wires principally to the Yellowknife area where the mines are in operation.
I should like to see the commission make a survey of the east end of Great Slave lake and Lockhart river. That may be called after the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart); if it is not, it could well be, since the name is the same. The Lockhart river drains Artillery lake, and, after a series of rapids and falls, finally falls into Great Slave lake. That river has a potential, I believe, of 150,000 horsepower, which can be developed at three heads, each of which is capable of developing a substantial block of power. The potential power there will be under the commission, will it not?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Likewise on the Thelon river there is the possibility of developing power. I hope the commission will survey these possibilities and then consider the territory north of the Yellowknife, to the east of Great Bear lake, on the Coppermine river at what is known as Bloody falls-a very beautiful falls, of which I have a picture. There is a

natural power site. The river turns around like a hook before it goes over the falls.
In the far north country I imagine that the question of precipitation would be important, because the land there is dry, and the flow of the river would have to be carefully surveyed before any attempt was made to develop power from that water. But away to the west, over on the Mackenzie river, I saw what I thought was an excellent power site at Sans Sault, north of Norman Wells, and before you come to Fort Good Hope. The river, which is two or three miles wide above that, is reduced to about 1,500 feet where it bursts through the mountains. Previously the mountains are on the right side of the river as you go north but they cross the river at Sans Sault. In my opinion a gigantic power plant could be built on that site if the time ever came for it to be constructed. I am anxious that the government should have possession of the power facilities at Sans Sault, which in my opinion would amount to not less than half a million horsepower.
In a word, I for one am pleased to see the government taking control of all the power potentialities of the Northwest Territories for future public development. If they follow the same program that has been followed by the hydroelectric commission of Ontario, and keep the cost down, they will be able to sell power to the miners in that country at a reasonable rate. Nothing will develop a country more rapidly than cheap power. It has to be produced by one of four methods: water, coal, oil, or gas. That country has so much water power on hand that it will produce electric power for a long time to come.
I do not need to say anything further. I am supporting the bill, and wish the commission that is to be appointed every success in developing that great country which is overflowing with incomparable resources, minerals of every description. With other power plants east, west and north to supplement this one, perhaps before many years Canada will learn that in these so-called barren lands to the far north there lie minerals out of which we will reap a harvest such as no other country possesses. With that power will come an influx of population such as has not been dreamed of. There is nothing like electricity to make life worth living. I for one support the bill.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I have lis-tended as carefully as I could to the minister's remarks. As I understood him, there was a reference to rates. There was a bit of noise in the chamber at the time and I may not have caught him correctly. I understood him to say that these rates were to be such as to take care of the carrying charges of the plants.

Northwest Territories Power Commission
Am I correct in assuming from that that the project is not to be self-liquidating?


James Angus MacKinnon: The project is to be self-liquidating.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps I was not clear as to what the minister said. I thought be referred only to carrying charges.


James Angus MacKinnon: All charges.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: I am in favour of this measure, and I hope that when the commission begins to operate it will see that equitable rates are charged to the citizens of Yellowknife. I had the pleasure of visiting Dawson City in the Yukon last year. The company there had its own electric plants to operate the dredges, but it is taking the citizens of Dawson City to the cleaners through the high rates it is charging. I should like to see the government hook up the Yukon with the Northwest Territories. I wish they would extend the commission in there so that the jity of Dawson could get equitable rates for its citizens.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask one or two questions on this project? First of all I should like to pay a tribute to the enterprising investors, miners and others who have developed this section of our great country to the extent that they have. It is far removed from some of our largest centres, and was distinctly one of the greatest pioneering projects in Canada. Fortunately this development has been crowned with a certain measure of success, which promises well for the future. The questions I should like to ask the minister are these. I understand that the first development of this power project is one of 8,000 horsepower. The firm contracts which are in hand now for certain mining companies will include 4,000 horsepower.


James Angus MacKinnon: We have contracts now for approximately 4,000 horsepower from one mining company.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What I am interested in finding out, Mr. Chairman, is just how these rates are to be assessed against the whole development and applied to the first people who come into the use of this power. For example, if the total project is for 28,000 to
30,000	horsepower, I presume there will be certain dams and water hold-backs constructed which will enable the whole development to be made use of in the most economical way possible. If the first instalment is for 8,000 horsepower, it is obvious that the government cannot expect to get back all the cost of the storage dams, and so forth, by assessing the costs against the small amount of initial production. Therefore I think the committee should be given some information as to the method of fixing the rates which will be applicable from the very start, because if the rate is too high for an individual mine it may be found that the cost of production of gold, or whatever metal is being mined, will be so great as to discourage any future development in that country. If the minister will let us know exactly what factors are to be taken into consideration when the rates are determined, it will be enlightening.
As I understand the bill, not only the costs of operating the power plant and distribution will be part of the schedule, but also the amortization of the whole project, of which just a small part is being developed now. Perhaps the minister will include with his answer his own opinion, backed by that of his officials, as to the extent of the ore resources of the mines which will make these contracts, because the committee will be interested to know whether or not there is a likelihood of the mines being able to use the power over a long period so that they will be in a position to honour their contracts during their lifetime.
Perhaps the minister will tell us how long the present contract for 4,000 horsepower is to run and whether or not there have been any other applications from adjacent mines, and for what periods of time they want to take power.


William Henry Golding: Order. I wonder whether the committee would agree to deal with the clauses as we come to them. Clause 6 deals with power. What we are dealing with at the moment is just the short title, which reads:
This act may be cited as the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act.


Thomas Langton Church: I am glad to see the minister take the action he has in connection with this bill. I wish to commend it to the wisdom and judgment not only of the house but of the country. The Northwest Territories are rich in natural resources of many kinds lying yet undiscovered. As a pioneer in cheap light and power movement in our own province-


William Henry Golding: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would deal with the short title. We shall reach the different clauses later.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to delay the proceedings, but I wish to commend the bill to the house. I know the minister is taking the right attitude if he gets the right men on the commission to develop it. The various definition and interpretation clauses are all right so far as I have seen them. I have read
5174	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Power Commission
the bill over two or three times. The interpretation clauses of the bill are most important, because the principle is very largely wrapped up in them. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you were in this movement yourself, in the early days of power development in our own province. The high cost of developing a mine is due largely to the lack of cheap light and power. I hope the minister will see to it that this commission is operated on a strictly commercial basis and that this great district will receive the justice that has long been denied it. It is entitled to cheap light and power. We have a potential of 44,000,000 horsepower in this country, of which only one-sixth is developed, and that in part is seasonal.
I commend the bill and I should like to see the minister undertake eventually a national hydroelectric system for the entire dominion, so that no part of Canada will be without this great heritage, which has been a boon and a blessing not only to those in the cities but to the people in the suburban areas and on the farms. What we need in Canada is development from one end of the country to the other, and the provision of cheap light and power is the first essential.


Angus MacInnis: A word on the point you raised, Mr. Chairman. I agree that it is the proper way to deal with the matter, but the minister made his explanation on the short title. True, the explanation is largely on the opposite page, but if the minister is to be allowed to make a statement such as we have heard, I think other hon. members will claim the right to do the same, and they should be in order.


Mr. CASE:: The questions I have to ask come under the short title. I wish to know whether there is anything in the bill to prevent private interests, mining companies, from developing their own power. Is it the intention of the crown to develop all the power for this area? What limitations and restrictions are imposed, and what privilege will be left to the mining interests to claim rights to certain water-power resources?


James Angus MacKinnon: In a general way, it is intended that the commission shall sell power to all users. It is quite possible that in some isolated districts permission may be given to a company to produce its own power, but that is not under consideration at the present time.


Mr. COCKERAM:: What about the developments that existed prior to the functioning of the commission?


James Angus MacKinnon: There is only one case I know of, and that is the power developed by the Con mine, as it is familarly known. They will still use that plant. As a matter of fact, the Con mine is now supplying power to other mining developments in that neighbourhood.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Where risk capital is used in seeking to discover mines and to develop a territory, will private enterprise have a reasonable assurance that the commission will supply them with power? Suppose there is a development that they can undertake, will there be restrictions prohibiting them from going ahead? In other words, what guarantee have they that the commission will deliver power to them? Will the commission restrict or resist the development of the territory?


James Angus MacKinnon: The whole purpose of the legislation is to enlarge the development of the district. There are, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, bright prospects in large numbers in this same territory, and it is with the object of getting power as cheaply as possible for the use of the present mining companies and other companies developing further discoveries.


Alan Cockeram: Does the department intend to carry the power to some of the new sections 90 and 100 miles further north? I am thinking of Creetaurum and North Inca. What assistance will be given in completing the power line, or will the company build the *line?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is intended to use this development to provide power in the districts indicated by my hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not quite understand the minister. Did he say that when this commission takes over it will enjoy a monopoly privilege in the production and distribution of power within the territories? Is that the general plan, in view?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is not a monopoly of power. It is the wish of the commission and of the government to supply power to the mining companies at a rate which will make it profitable and reasonably satisfactory to them. In the district at present there is a private corporation, the Con mine, which has its own power, and that development is continuing. In the legislation we could take over that plant if it is found advisable, but there is no present intention of exercising that power.


John George Diefenbaker: That still does not meet the situation. When this commission is set up and begins the production of power,

Northwest Territories Power Commission
will this body be exclusively the agency for the production of power within the Northwest Territories?


James Angus MacKinnon: We expect that the mining companies will be very glad to buy power from the commission, because we hope they will be able to get it more cheaply from the commission than they can produce it themselves. Special circumstances might arise that would necessitate further consideration of a particular project, but in general the commission expects to serve all users with power.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the committee would deal with the clauses as we reach them. What we are considering now is simply the short title.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: On the introduction of the bill the minister read the short title and went generally into the purposes of the bill. He gave an explanatory statement. Surely members can deal with it in the same manner. I suggest that the committee would make better progress that way.


William Henry Golding: I do not wish to press the point. After all, I am in the hands of the committee, but my own opinion is that we would make better progress if we dealt with the clauses as we reached them.


John George Diefenbaker: "This act may be cited as the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act," and with the greatest respect to you, sir, I submit that the scheme followed in the past has always been to permit general discussion on the short title in order to determine the question. We are trying to co-operate so as to get this through.


William Henry Golding: I hope the hon. member will not spend time arguing that point, because if the committee wishes to carry on as it is doing, I raise no further objection.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, sir. I come back to this matter because the minister takes so many words to answer a simple question. Is it the intention of the Northwest Territories power commission to be the exclusive producer and distributor of power within the Northwest Territories, subject to the existence of one company which at the present time generates power there?


James Angus MacKinnon: I might give the hon. member for Lake Centre an answer by stating that at the present time mining companies may develop individual power sites under the Dominion Water Power Act-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Angus MacKinnon: -but the smaller mining companies are often unable to finance a
hydroelectric power development. There is also the tendency to have scattered water power plants in a mineral area rather than a larger development which would serve the whole area at a cheaper rate. The bill reduces the danger of smaller power plants prejudicing the development of a large plant on the same river.


John George Diefenbaker: Sometimes in a multiplicity of words there is wisdom, Mr. Chairman, but not always clarity. Surely it would be a simple matter to say whether or not the government intends, regardless of price or other considerations, to be, under this commission, the exclusive producer of power in the Northwest Territories. If it does, let us know it. If it does not, let the minister say that it has not that intention. I do not like the use of many words to answer a simple question. I am not at the moment critical of whatever the answer will be, but I should like to know what it is.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think it is essential at times to add something to the answer rather than to say merely yes or no. But in this particular case, answering briefly, I would say that it is not the intention of the government or the commission to do what is suggested by the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: To have a
monopoly?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Alan Cockeram: I should like the minister to clarify the question of these power lines. I have in mind a mine a hundred or so miles farther north which has had consider-abe correspondence with the department and which for months was unable to get an answer to their letter asking whether power would be brought up to the north from the Snare river. If it is the. intention that it should be brought up, who is to pay for the power line? Is it to be paid for on the basis of fifty per cent by the mining company and fifty per cent by the power company? I think this is a necessary investment in the Northwest Territories, but I believe there must be greater co-operation than has been shown up to the present with regard to these outlying places.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have already stated that it was the intention of the commission to consider favourably any application for power in the district mentioned by the hon. member. I should also like to add that these are matters of negotiation and arrangement between the prospective user of power and the commission. If there is a reasonable necessity for the extension of the transmission line to the area, the circumstances surrounding the
5176	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Power Commission
application will have to be considered. Under certain circumstances I would think that the entire cost of the transmission line would be borne by the commission and covered by the power rates. In other cases it might be a matter subject to negotiation.


Alan Cockeram: I raised this point because I realize that one must know the ore position and everything else before those decisions are made. But when a company comes to the department, as several companies have, with fairly well estimated ore reserves and has been more or less given the run-around- when for months it has received no reply to its letters-I think there is evidence of a situation that we should guard against.


George Black: Can the minister tell us how many power plants will be established?


James Angus MacKinnon: Will the hon. member repeat the question?


George Black: Can he tell us whether power will be sold at cost or under cost? In the explanatory notes I find this paragraph:
At the present time mining companies may develop individual power sites under the Dominion Water Power Act hut the smaller mining companies are often unable to finance a hydroelectric power development. There is also the tendency to have scattered waterpower plants in a mineral area rather than a larger development which would serve the whole area at a cheaper rate.
I should like to know how many plants the government proposes to put in, and how many of those scattered plants are operating now, if any. Or is it just an idea that they might be established? The paragraph goes on to say:
The bill reduces the danger of smaller power plants prejudicing the development of a large plant on the same river.
It looks to me as if the smaller plants are to be shut out-


James Angus MacKinnon: Oh, no.


George Black: -even though they have the money with which to build. Has the minister ever considered the advisability of the government going into the power business in the Yukon territory? He and his staff administer that territory, as they do the Northwest Territories, except that Yukon has, or thinks it has, some local government which on analysis does not amount to much. Yukon has been developing her natural resources in that territory for over half a century. The natural resources of the Northwest Territories turned out to be of some value only within the past few years. Now the government

expects to put millions of dollars of public money in there to help these people develop their resources. Why not put some money into Yukon? There is a crying need for power development up there. Two individual plants are operating in that area, and the rates charged to the consumer are 25 cents and 20 cents per kilowatt hour respectively. You cannot operate on that. Will these plants in .the Northwest Territories, apart from overhead and operating expenses, be developed to give the people cheap power? Has that been estimated scientifically? Is there any probability of the government's doing the same thing in Yukon as is proposed here?


James Angus MacKinnon: At the present time the government has not in prospect the establishment of a similar commission in the Yukon, nor does it suggest that this commission should at the present time consider extension to the Yukon. The hon. member for Yukon asked about the establishment of different plants. At the present time there is just the one unit being established. There are other sites on the same river, and it is quite possible they will be developed by this commission as the demand for power increases.


George Black: Where will the head office of the commission be?


James Angus MacKinnon: In Ottawa.


George Black: And the government of the Northwest Territories has its head office in Ottawa?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


George Black: The government of the Northwest Territories consists of a committee of civil servants, with the exception of one member who is not a civil servant, and so far as I know he has not bothered to attend a meeting of the commission yet; at any rate he has not attended more than one. It seems to me that the head office of the commission which is to be created should be in the Northwest Territories where the work is being done and where the power is developed, not here in Ottawa.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I want .to say first that I think this legislation is a slow and hesitant step in the right direction. What we need is public development of our power sites throughout this country. I deplore the fact that we have had, since I have come into the house, nothing more than piecemeal attitudes and policies in this regard. Sometimes I listen to my free-enterprise friends, and it seems to me they would ask that public money be spent-

Northwest Territories Power Commission


William Henry Golding: Order.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Private enterprise has done a pretty fair job of development.


Edward George McCullough: -on such developments as this Northwest Territories power commission. I think the time will come when they will not want to take any responsibility greater than the bookkeeping and the collecting of the profits. I take exception to their attitude, in that it applies solely to a section of Canada the chief industry of which is mining.
We have in the province from whence I come some large power projects which could raise the standard of living of our people. I think the time has come when we must have more public development.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What is the matter with your provincial government?


Edward George McCullough: Let me tell the hon. member that in the four years the present government of Saskatchewan has been in office we have reduced our power commission rates by forty-five per cent.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How much power have you developed?


William Henry Golding: Order. The bill before the committee is the Northwest Territories Power Commission Act, dealing with the subject of electric power in the Northwest Territories. I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to the bill, and if possible to the short title.


Edward George McCullough: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If my hon. friends to the right will not try to provoke me into saying other things, I shall keep to the bill.
I was saying it is deplorable that we should be using public money for a certain type of public development, namely, to dig up gold in the Northwest Territories only to have it buried down in Kentucky, when we have so many other fields in which development could be made.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to [DOT]follow the remarks made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, because the record of development by the government to which he referred in opening up northern Saskatchewan has been distinguished by its absence. I had in mind the fact that nothing particular is being done in northern Saskatchewan, and we have vast mineral potentialities there.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I am coming to the point. There is a provision right in the bill which deals with my point. I refer to section 6.


William Henry Golding: I suggest that the hon. member wait untH that section is called. We are discussing the short title.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to ask a question, and I find it difficult to do so without letting the minister know the purpose of my question. Anyway, to put the question simply, suppose in northern Saskatchewan mineral resources are available for development, will this power company in the Northwest Territories sell the power necessary for such development to such mining companies in order to assist them in developing their fields? I ask my question because in paragraph (i) provision is made for the purchase or lease of power from, or the sale of power to, any person who operates a power plant within or outside the Northwest Territories. In view of that provision, is the commission to be charged, not only with the sale of power within the territories, but also with the assistance of worthy projects in northern Saskatchewan which today are not being developed because of the lack of power?


James Angus MacKinnon: The commission has
power to sell outside the territories.


John George Diefenbaker: Fine.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am familiar with the development in northern Saskatchewan at Goldfields, where there was a power development serving a mine which was in production for a while, but which I am informed has shut down because of the low quality of the ore deposits. But the power development for which this bill makes provision is to serve an entirely different area, one very much to the northwest and in the centre of a proven highly mineralized area. If there were mining ventures in northern Saskatchewan and elsewhere which required power, I think it would be impacticable to get it from this particular development. It might be possible however, to get the required power from other rivers, including the Lockhart river.


Edward George McCullough: Is this power commission being set up mainly because of the requests of interested mining operators in the area?


James Angus MacKinnon: The setting up of this commission is a governmental endeavour to provide as cheap power as possible for the development of mineral areas served by the
5178	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Power Commission
commission, and not as a result of particular pressure of any individual or group of individuals.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Agent of His Majesty.
John George Diefenbaker: This is one of the sections to which I take exception, because it places the commission in a position of being agent of His Majesty. Is it true that under this section, before any individual whose rights have been interfered with may proceed against the commission, in view of the fact that the commission is an agent of His Majesty the consent of the crown will be necessary before action can be taken?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am informed that the commission can sue and be sued. I believe that answers my hon. friend's question.


John George Diefenbaker: Provision is made for that in section 3. However, that does not answer my question. Can the commission be sued without the grant of a fiat on the part of the crown? Here is another example of the state going into business. Unless provision is made whereby the state, in going into business, may be sued as can any ordinary person in business an advantage accrues to the state, one which has no place in modern development.
Petition of right was a proper procedure when the principle was accepted that the king can do no wrong. Today His Majesty, in the person of a commission such as this, goes into business and, on occasions, operates to the detriment of private individuals who are denied the right to take proceedings unless petition of right has been granted.
In Great Britain the same condition prevailed until January 1, 1948, when for the first time the crown placed itself in a position of equality with the subject, and the subject may proceed against the crown without the issue of a fiat or without an application through a petition of right. Having regard to the fact that the state today in Canada is in business on every hand-I shall not go over all the types of business in which it is engaged; it is a long record-the day is past when the crown should be allowed to stand in a position of advantage as against the subject in His Majesty's courts.


James Angus MacKinnon: I would refer the hon. member to subsection 3 of section 4. I am informed that a fiat would not be necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.

On section 6-Powers.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Are there any other power developments in operation in the Northwest Territories outside the one now being constructed on the Snare river?


James Angus MacKinnon: I know of none except the Con mine development.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a nice little plant northeast of Yellowknife and, if I remember correctly, it develops about 10,000 horsepower, or it may be only 5,000.


James Angus MacKinnon: Four thousand, seven hundred.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I understand it, every other potential power site in the Northwest Territories belongs to the crown?


James Angus MacKinnon: Any development by the commission will belong to the crown.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From now on, every power development in the Northwest Territories outside the one operated by Consolidated Mining will be under the direction of this commission?


James Angus MacKinnon: While the hon. member was out of the house for a few moments I answered other questions, and I think my replies on Hansard will fully answer the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Release of former owner.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: Does this mean that the crown can take over a property by agreement, by expropriation or otherwise? Is there any tribunal which will reconcile an honest difference as to value?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think section 7 fully explains it.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This relieves the owner of a property that is expropriated from any obligation to deliver power; but, as far as I read it,, it does not carry any obligation on the part of the commission to deliver power in the place of the party whose property has been expropriated.


James Angus MacKinnon: I do not think there will be any question about the commission serving the mining interests.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This section reads:
Where any power plant is acquired by the commission with or without the consent of the owner, the commission may by order release the owner from all his obligations relating to the generation, purchase or supply of power from the plant so acquired and the order is binding on all persons.

Northwest Territories Power Commission
The only power plant now operating in the Northwest Territories is the privately owned one operated by the Con mine?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is corrcet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be the only one which could be purchased by the commission?


James Angus MacKinnon: At the present time that is the only one which would be subject to expropriation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From what I saw I believe that particular power plant could be increased in size. I do not think it would be out of place for the commission to buy that plant and couple it up with the wires they are going to run from the Snare river down to Yellowknife.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Snare river project transferred to commission.
Wilfrid Garfield Case: To what extent has the crown or the commission or any other authority developed power resources in this territory up to the present time?


James Angus MacKinnon: Any development that has proceeded has been under the Department of Mines and Resources annual votes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Power rates.
Harry Rutherford Jackman: On the title I asked the minister some questions which related to power rates, and I wonder if he can give an answer now.


James Angus MacKinnon: The initial rates that will be charged for power are based on the sale of 4,000 horsepower, but it is well known by all who know the district that the 4,000 horsepower will be used quickly and that additional power will be required. As additional power is furnished, the rates will be reviewed and obviously the commission will be able to sell power more cheaply than at the initial stage.
The total charges, including maintenance of the generating or power plant and the main transmission line, which must be covered by the rates charged the consumers in the Yellowknife district and which provide for a minimum fifteen-year amortization charge, will be $451,449. On the basis of a 4,000 horsepower load, this works out to a cost of approximately $112.86 per horsepower, or 1-73 cents per kilowatt hour.
To gain a true picture of the benefits of hydroelectric power for the Yellowknife
district, even at this apparently high rate, a comparison must be made with other sources of power. There is only one alternative to hydroelectric power and that is the generating of power by the use of fuel oil. Our consulting engineers estimate, and this is borne out by prices in the Yellowknife area, that the price of fuel oil alone would be three cents per kilowatt hour, and overhead and amortization charges on a fuel oil plant would create a total cost of power of five cents per kilowatt hour. This would be over two and a half times the rate that will be possible from the Snare river plant. It would appear that at the present time hydroelectric power is the only practical solution for the furnishing of power in the district. I do not think there are any extensive coal deposits sufficiently close to this district to provide for development.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If on the basis of 4,000 horsepower you can amortize the costs of the initial development by charging $112.86 per horsepower, if you produced and sold 8,000 horsepower your costs would go down substantially; that must follow?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is right.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Have you obligations for more power than the 4,000 horsepower contract?


James Angus MacKinnon: They are not concluded, but we believe that there will be further commitments for power.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The whole 28.000 horsepower potential development is from the one site on the Snare river?


James Angus MacKinnon: The one unit now being constructed will provide 8,000 horsepower. There are on the same river other sites which can be developed to yield an estimated production of from 28,000 to 35,000 horsepower.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: But 8,000 is the total development of this one unit?


James Angus MacKinnon: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Section 12(c) provides for:
(c)	the establishment and maintenance of a contingency reserve fund in the amount considered necessary by the commission to meet unforeseen or emergency expenditures.
I happen to know that the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission have found it necessary to set up substantial reserve funds; in fact I sometimes think they have too many. Nevertheless I doubt whether one contingency reserve fund will be sufficient for your purpose here.
Northwest Territories

Power Commission


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the singular
includes the plural.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Advances for capital expenditures out of moneys appropriated.
Mr. SINNOTT:: I am interested in this section, and I want to commend the government for taking this action to help out the people in that mining district. How much money will be required to complete this project?


James Angus MacKinnon: The total estimated expenditure for this 8,000 horsepower unit, is $4,500,000.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This section reads:
The Minister of Finance may, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, make advances to the commission . . .
I do not like that provision. Why not treat the commission as a crown company? If the money is to be taken out of consolidated revenue fund you will never know where you stand. Why not sell bonds as the Canadian National Railways do? The bonds could be guaranteed by the government and earmarked for the development of power.


James Angus MacKinnon: The government is in a position to supply money at a lower rate of interest for this project than could be got by the sale of bonds.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: First of all, there is to be an appropriation by parliament to cover the capital cost. Will that come before the house later?


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct. The project has been under construction for a period of two years out of appropriations voted by parliament, which are being continued.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That vote was passed two or three years ago.


James Angus MacKinnon: The money has been voted from year to year.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: So that the only amount which has not been approved by parliament is this $1,000,000 for current expenses, I take it, which will be approved subsequently.


James Angus MacKinnon: When the estimates are approved.
. Section agreed to.
Sections 18 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



YUKON ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 341, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Commissioner.
James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee it might be convenient for me to make a statement at this time.
The explanatory notes covering the bill are quite explicit; however, I should like to elaborate on some of the amendments. It is proposed to re-establish the position of commissioner of the Yukon Territory in place of the present position of controller. The position of administrator, who acts in the absence of the commissioner, is also being re-established. The positions of commissioner and administrator were abolished in 1918 and their powers are now vested in the controller. The change in the title of the chief executive officer to that of commissioner will bring it back to what it was before, and this position will now have the same title as is given to the similar position in the Northwest Territories.
The bill also proposes to change section 20 of the act to permit an increase being made in the indemnity of members of the Yukon territorial council and as well to provide for their living expenses while the council is in session. There are three members of the Yukon territorial council who are elected for a three-year term to represent the Dawson, Mayo, and Whitehorse districts respectively.
The members of the present council are: R. Gordon Lee, Whitehorse district; Ernest J. Corp, Mayo district; and John R. Fraser, Dawson district.
During recent years the length of the sessions and the amount of legislation which they must consider have greatly increased. In view of this and of the increased cost of living while the councillors are away from home, it is considered reasonable to provide for an increased indemnity to the councillors and for living expenses while the council is in session.
It is proposed to amend section 23 of the act to permit the appointment of a suitable person as public administrator, being a barrister or advocate at the bar of any of the provinces, but who has not necessarily had at least five years' standing at the bar of a

Yukon Act
province. The law now requires five years standing at the bar. It has been found extremely difficult in recent years to find a suitable and competent person, a barrister or advocate, particularly one with five years' standing at the bar of any of the provinces of Canada, who would be willing to accept the appointment of public administrator. The few barristers or advocates practising their profession in the Yukon Territory are, for one reason or another, unable to undertake the responsibility of acting as public administrator, and it has become necessary to recruit a barrister.
There is at present no authority in the Yukon Act for the acceptance of holograph wills and, under some of the isolated conditions prevailing in Yukon, this is about the only evidence that certain people can leave of their desires. The acceptance of a holograph will is not provided for in the Yukon Act, but it is in the Northwest Territories Act. It is desired to make the practice uniform, and the bill provides for this.
At present the controller of the Yukon Territory is authorized to administer the oath of office to a stipendiary magistrate. Since the amendments proposed in this bill change the title of the chief executive officer to "commissioner", this power will be exercised by the commissioner and an amendment to the act is provided for this purpose.
The legal officers advise that there is apparent conflict between the terms of the Yukon Act and the criminal code. It is therefore proposed to repeal section 118 of the Yukon Act, because this section has created a conflict in interpretation as to whether, for the purpose of the criminal code in the Yukon Territory, the court of appeal is the Supreme Court of Canada or the court of appeal for British Columbia. It is desired to make it clear that an appeal shall lie, as provided for in the code, to the court of appeal for British Columbia.
It is also proposed that section 129 of the Yukon Act be repealed and a new section substituted. This section refers to the sale of liquor and provides for its importation or manufacture only with the permission of the governor in council. In order to facilitate the administration, it is proposed to give this authority to the commissioner. In the case of the Northwest Territories, this authority is exercised by the commissioner; thus the two acts will be consistent.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: The minister left the impression that he is reverting to the title which was used some time ago. When was the
change made in the title to which he is reverting, and what was the reason for the change?


James Angus MacKinnon: By order in council P.C. 745 of March 28, 1918, the positions of commissioner and administrator were abolished, and it transferred the duties and powers vested in the commissioner and the administrator to the gold commissioner of the Yukon Territory under the authority of the War Measures Act. The next order in council is P.C. 2152 of October 18, 1919. In the meantime the Yukon Act had been amended by the inclusion of section 132, chaper 50 of the 1918 statutes, and this order in council confirmed the abolishment of the two positions and the vesting of their powers and duties in the gold commissioner of the territory.
Order in council P.C. 1481 of June 30, 1932, ordered as follows:
All the powers and duties vested in the gold commissioner under the provisions of the Yukon Act or any other act respecting Yukon Territory be and are hereby transferred to and vested in Mr. George Allan Jeckell, comptroller of the Yukon Territory under the authority of section 132 of the Yukon Act.
Section 132 of the Yukon Act reads as follows:
The governor in council may abolish any position or office authorized or created under the provisions of this act, and may transfer to any officer of the crown any or all of the duties or functions of the position or office so abolished, whether any of such duties or functions are,defined in this act, or in any other act, or in any regulations made under the authority of this act or any other act applying to the Yukon Territory.
Order in Council P.C. 35/343 of the 20th February, 1934, deals with the superannuation of George Ian MacLean, gold commissioner, and goes on to recommend that the above-mentioned position of gold commissioner be abolished with effect from March 26, 1933.
Order in council P.C. 3072 of December 3, 1936, amends P.C. 1481, changing the designation of George Allan Jeckell to controller of Yukon Territory with effect from December 1, 1936.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Sessional indemnity and expenses of councillors.
George Black: Section 3, which substitutes a new section 20 in the Yukon Act, gives to the members of the elected Yukon council an indemnity of $1,000 a year. Prior to now they have been paid $400, which was very much less than their services entitled
,5849-329
Yukon Act

them to. I am indeed glad to see that the department and the minister have adopted my suggestion that the indemnity be increased to $1,000. The present minister's predecessor replied to my letter suggesting $1,000, and asked me why I suggested that amount. My reply was that I considered it an appropriate amount, and that ended the correspondence. I am glad to see that the minister has taken the suggestion and put it in the act.


Alan Cockeram: Paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 3 provides for a living allowance of $5 a day. That certainly is not enough for that district. It should be increased.


James Angus MacKinnon: My understanding is that that $5 a day is not subject to taxation. If it were subject to taxation, in order to give them a sum equal to $5 a day it would have to be considerably higher than that.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Very few expense accounts are subject to taxation. If a living allowance of $5 is not sufficient, taxes should not enter into it at all. It should be sufficient to maintain the councillors in that district. It should be doubled.


George Black: I must admit that I had overlooked paragraph (c), which reads:
An allowance for living expenses, not exceeding five dollars for each day in which the council is in session, but the amount that is paid to any member of the council pursuant to this paragraph shall not exceed one hundred dollars in respect of any one session.
Usually the meetings of the council do not take more than two weeks, sometimes three. A man cannot live on $5 a day expenses in the city of Dawson where the council meets. It is out of the question. If you gave him $10 he would be put to it to live on that, even if he were living in a modest way. No private member can suggest an amendment, because it would be a tax on publice revenue. In fairness to these councillors, I would ask the minister to make a more appropriate amendment to the act by increasing the $5 to $10 or $15.


James Angus MacKinnon: When this matter
came before me I immediately asked questions about this item of $5 a day. I know something about the cost of living in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. I thought it was a ridiculously low amount, but I was informed that that was the amount recommended by the controller on, I believe, the advice of the council. I have allowed it to stand. I am quite ready to have one of my colleagues on this side move that the amount be made $10.


Mr. JEAN:: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Appointment of public administrator and official guardian.
George Black: It may be that in the war years and in the immediate past the government experienced some difficulty in finding a barrister or an advocate of at least five years' standing at the bar of the province who would take the position of public administrator in the Yukon, but that time has gone by. At any rate, the territory now has a first-class barrister as public administrator. He has been carrying on well and has been for much more than five years a member of the bar of the province of Manitoba. However, if the minister wishes to have this clause go through I do not raise any great objection. I do not think it is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Section repealed.
Mr. FULTON:: Perhaps I should know; but since I do not, would the minister be kind enough to say what has been the practice until the present time? Do appeals from the Yukon go to the Supreme Court of Canada, or have they been going to the supreme court of British Columbia?


James Angus MacKinnon: I inquired regarding this matter, because I thought they might very well go to the supreme court of Alberta, seeing how closely Alberta is connected with the administration of Yukon. However, in direct answer to the hon. member's question, I may say that, in the past, cases have been going to the British Columbia court.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This will not change the practice that has been followed in the past?


James Angus MacKinnon: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 334, to amend the Land Titles Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.﻿JUNE 14, 1948
Criminal Code
On section 1-Registration where change of name by marriage.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister explain this?


James Angus MacKinnon: I may say that the explanatory notes included in this bill are extensive and complete. The eight proposed amendments are of a technical nature. They deal with such matters affecting titles to property as registration of land transfers, lapse of caveats, and limitations on the amounts of land to be included in a certificate of title. New forms are also provided.
The justification and intention of this legislation is to bring the forms and practices concerning land titles in the Yukon and Norths west Territories into conformity with similar legislation in the western provinces. The only new provision in the bill is that restricting the number of lots to be included in one certificate of title. This change is entirely due to the fact that otherwise there would be so many entries on some certificates as to make them unreadable.
The bill also provides that where a woman holding property marries and desires to have the record of her marriage incorporated into the new certificate of title, the registrar is given discretion to decide what evidence he requires in order to grant such a certificate.
The most important provision relates to caveats. Under the present act, a caveat will automatically lapse at the end of three months unless proceedings are under way. By the proposed amendment, the registrar can determine whether a caveat Shall be discharged or continued for a definite period.
The changes are suggested in order to simplify the act, assist in its administration and bring its provisions more into line with the practice in the western provinces.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I did not quite hear what the minister said in regard to a provision in the bill for the protection of married women.


James Angus MacKinnon: It refers only to the
case where a married woman desires to have her name incorporated into the new certificate of title.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 337, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Military law.
Jean-François Pouliot: Military law may be all sorts of things. It may be the king's regulations and orders. During the war we had the mobilization regulations which were part of the military law and which were concocted by the notorious Brock Chisholm, a Quebec lawyer and a former deputy minister who is no longer in the government. Those regulations were iniquitous and they could not properly be called the law. I protest against that kind of legislation. I hope that we shall be at peace for a long time, but if we are at war in the remote future-and God forbid that we should be-I hope that such hybrid legislation will not again be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-What shall be prima facie evidence of neglect to supply necessaries.
John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister might explain the purpose of this amendment. I appreciate what it says, but did some case arise which made this amendment necessary? If so, what was the case and what was the nature of the decision?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not able to answer the hon. member's question. I am under the impression that this was recommended by the commissioners on uniformity. The section as it stands at the present time without amendment is defective, in that the presumption is rebutted by support for the first month by the man who leaves his wife. If hon. members will look at the explanatory notes they will find they read as follows:
Paragraph (c) of subsection four of section two hundred and forty-two of the criminal code reads as follows:
"(c) evidence that a man has, without lawful cause or excuse, left his wife without making provision for her maintenance for a period of at least one month from the date of his so leaving, or for the maintenance for the same period of any child of his under the age of sixteen years, shall be prima facie evidence of neglect to provide necessaries under this section."
If support is provided for the first month and never provided again, no presumption is raised by the failure to provide for subsequent months. Therefore the new paragraph reads as follows:
(c) evidence that a man has left his wife, and has failed, for a period of any one month
Criminal Code

subsequent to the date of his so leaving, to make provision for her maintenance or for the maintenance of any child of his under the age of sixteen years, shall be prima facie evidence that he has omitted or neglected or refused without lawful excuse to provide necessaries.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I understand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section	7-Manslaughter-infanticide
defined.
John George Diefenbaker: Experience has
shown, of course, the necessity for a clause such as this; for in a great number of cases in which a woman finds herself in the position of having on her hands a newborn child, loses her power of control and the child dies in consequence of some act on her part, over and over again juries have refused to convict, regardless of the evidence. I presume that the reason for the amendment is to make it easier to get a conviction for the offence of homicide short of murder or manslaughter. This gives me an opportunity to ask the minister whether or not any study has been made by any of the officials of the crown as to the deterrent value of the death sentence in the case of murder. Has there been any investigation along that line dealing with the general problem?
Recently in England when the death sentence was abrogated by a majority of the House of Commons, it was only to find that action reversed in the House of Lords; and the person holding a position equivalent to that of the Minister of Justice in Canada was left in a difficult position in consequence. Consideration is now being given in England to a compromise between the commons and the lords, whereby the death penalty for murder will be imposed only in certain cases; that is, where the murder is premeditated or is of a particularly gross nature, as, for instance, in the case of murder by poisoning, or homicide arising out of the killing of a policeman while in the execution of his duty. In view of the fact that something is being done to amend the criminal code by sections, I ask the minister if any consideration has been given to this matter. I have the feeling that taking the code in this manner, and having a kind of selective amendment of it, may cause some difficulties in the future which I think are fairly obvious. But if the decision has been made to follow this course in order to meet certain ad hoc matters which have arisen in the last year, and if it is thought that this is the best way of doing so short of a complete revision, naturally I support it. However

I feel that a statement by the minister in regard to the matter I have raised would be of some interest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Naturally the Department of Justice took some interest in the recent legislation in Great Britain, but I must frankly say that no investigation has been instituted as to the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. The issue of capital punishment has been debated a great deal. It is always a favourite topic of debating societies. College debates, inter-class debates and inter-collegiate debates have taken place on the subject, and there is an immense amount of literature on it. From statistics I do not think it is possible to come to any conclusion about the matter. Conditions vary from place to place; and I felt that there being, so far as one could ascertain, little demand in Canada for any alteration of the present system, it was clearly not incumbent upon the government to institute a statistical investigation. I felt, as I say, that it would not be possible to arrive at any conclusive results if such an investigation were instituted. So I am not proposing any change in the system of capital punishment in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Where the death penalty is imposed, to what degree is there any investigation subsequently by officers of the crown relative to the rightness of the conclusion of the jury, and as to the advisability or inadvisability of granting a commutation of sentence?


James Lorimer Ilsley: One of the most careful- one might say exhaustive-investigations is instituted after a person is sentenced to be hanged, because the governor in council has to pass on every single case, as the hon. member knows. Officials of the Department of Justice read all the evidence and communicate with various sources to find out whether there are any circumstances which would justify clemency. Then the matter is taken to council, with the recommendation one way or the other of the Minister of Justice; and it is then dealt with by council.


John George Diefenbaker: On any occasion where a trial judge in his personal report recommends that the sentence of death be carried out, does the Minister of Justice ever recommend commutation to the governor in council?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not believe any general statement can be made on that point. More often the trial judge makes no recommendation one way or the other. Sometimes he makes a recommendation for mercy. I am not prepared to say that in every case that

Criminal Code
recommendation of the trial judge is accepted by the governor in council. Certainly I am not prepared to say that, in every case where a jury makes a recommendation for mercy, that recommendation is accepted by the governor in council.


John George Diefenbaker: That is, a recommendation for mercy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: I know of a case where it was not accepted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Sometimes where there is no recommendation from anyone, judge or jury, there are commutations.	______-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to i leave no doubt in anyone's mind, not only that I am in favour of capital punishment for murder, but that I am in favour of capital punishment by way of hanging. It is the ; greatest deterrent I know of, after some 1 experience in criminal matters.
'-Thrrrrr'Frdroukf Like to ask a qu'esTIon about this definition of the crime of infanticide. What is the reason for it? The minister may have made a previous statement with respect to it. I gather from the section that it applies where there is some doubt about the sanity of the mother who does away with the child. Does it apply only to the mother? Might it not also apply to other relatives? I have in mind a case of infanticide of some years ago where two people were charged with murder. They lived in a district far removed from towns or cities. Apparently this child was conceived prior to wedlock; and these two people, because of fear, distress and talk of the neighbours, did away with the child. In other words, could it not be that the father of the child might be included, or does this apply to the mental derangement of the mother through suffering? Then, is there much of this type of crime? What is the reason for the section? Have we been allowing parents guilty of infanticide to go free? The minister will understand that there is some interference here with the law with regard to insanity, or the rules thereto.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that there are cases where the mother kills her newborn child, and that in the normal case of that kind it is useless to lay a charge of murder against the woman, because invariably juries will not bring in a verdict of guilty. They have sympathy with the mother because of the situation in which she has found herself. Therefore crown prosecutors, and those who lay charges, if they are to obtain convictions lay charges of concealment of birth; or a
charge that is equal to concealment of birth. Anyone who looks at the section will see that it is really not concealment of birth, but rather concealment of the body. However, this charge is known as concealment of birth. Sentences of a few months, or even shorter than that, are imposed. To a minor extent that brings the law into disrepute, because the offence is murder; that is, unless the woman is insane.
Many years ago in England the crime of infanticide was created by statute. It applies to cases where there is not the degree of mental derangement amounting to insanity.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister has in mind Macnaughton's case.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not go as far as the rule in Macnaughton's case. Those rules were laid down in 1842, or the early part of the nineteenth century.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And never J been changed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have taken the wording of the English statute. Those words are found in section 7, and there are English cases on this section. Therefore we are not without precedent to guide judges and juries in determining the circumstances in which a charge of infanticide is proper. We have placed the penalty at three years. It is purely a matter of judgment; the time may be too short, or it may be too long. I am told, however, that even in cases where manslaughter has been charged and convictions obtained-and I should think obtained quite improperly, because I cannot think how a charge of that kind would have any of the elements of manslaughter-sentences have been rarely more than two years.
Therefore we have set three years as the maximum imprisonment for a conviction on a charge of infanticide. I believe it is correct to say that in that respect the law of Great Britain is different; their law places it on an equal footing with manslaughter. The information we obtained is that, under these particular circumstances where the child is newly bom and where the mother has not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof the balance of her mind is disturbed-


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a big word.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. In view of that, the sentence is never more than a few months, or one or two years, and we think three years would be the proper term of imprisonment for infanticide.

Criminal Code


Arthur Leroy Smith: Three years certain?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; three years maximum.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to prolong what the Minister of Justice has referred to as a high-school debate, but I think there is more interest by Canadians in this question of the possible abolition of capital punishment than the minister realizes. In that connection I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre that an investigation, statistical and otherwise, might well be made by the department. I realize that there are arguments on both sides as to what is the most effective deterrent, along with arguments as to whether or not the present practice is civilized. I think the suggestion that the matter should be studied further is a good one, and I hope the minister will follow it up.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With a
Gallup poll?


Thomas Langton Church: Is this the only amendment proposed in connection with murder and manslaughter? The other day I referred to peace officers or policemen who might see a man fleeing on the street after committing probably a minor offence. Such an officer might shoot first over his head, but after that he fires and hits the man. Has the minister considered an amendment which would set out how far a peace officer can go when he kills a man who is fleeing after committing what may be only a minor offence and the police are thus the judge and jury all combined?
I know that some of these officers, many of whom are returned soldiers, are doing fine _ work. They have to face desperadoes at all times. Some of the police have been sued in the civil courts, and all phases of this matter should be considered and clarified. That is why there should be an amendment made to the code to clear up any misunderstanding. Judges cannot tell what the law is, and some of them differ also about "voluntary statements" in connection with murder and manslaughter. There was the recent case in Hamilton where this point came up. The court of appeal in Ontario has doubts about this matter, as have other judges throughout the country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The law with respect to murder is not being changed by this bill except as it applies to infanticide. I am not sure that I understand clearly the suggestion the hon. member is making with regard to peace officers.


Thomas Langton Church: Is this the only amendment that it is proposed to bring down this session in connection with murder and manslaughter?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: A peace officer can kill someone who is fleeing; he automatically shoots, no matter what offence the man .has committed. First he fires his gun in the air and then he fires at the man and may kill him, although he may be running away after committing just a minor offence. This amendment to add "or infanticide" may or may not be all right, but there seems to be no effort to clear up the other matter I have raised. The court of appeal of Ontario is wondering what is a voluntary statement made by a prisoner charged with murder or manslaughter, and law courts all over the country differ as well. I think that ought to be cleared up.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If the department is looking into the matter of punishment for the crime of murder, it might well consider the suggestion that a judge be permitted to impose an alternative sentence; I mean that the sentence should be life imprisonment, and nothing less. We know that some murderers are extremely vicious, while others may be closer to the line. I am not suggesting an amendment; but in their deliberations I think they might take that into account.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall take note of what the hon. gentleman says. Sir James Stephen, in his commentaries on the criminal law, advocates vesting discretion in judges, but it has not been done in Great Britain or here. It places a frightful responsibility on the judge.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know they do not want it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They do not require that. At the present time the responsibility is assumed by the governor in council.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After what the minister said about changing the law with respect to infanticide, I hesitate to say anything, but I wonder if he would not give consideration to the suggestion that what is actually being done is to change the law in order to permit convictions being made. From what the minister said I take it the feeling is that the present penalty is such that juries do not convict and that, therefore, the crime is being made subject to a little less severe penalty in the hope that juries will convict. I wonder

Criminal Code
if perhaps that is not the wrong principle to follow in amending the criminal code? What you are actually doing is making a crime, which is most shocking if committed, subject to a less heavy penalty. Would it not be better to leave the crime as serious and with as great penalty as at present in the code, and simply let public opinion be the factor which will determine whether juries convict or do not convict?
In other words, why make it a lesser penalty and thus run the risk of encouraging persons to commit the crime? So long as they might be convicted of murder, they would be less inclined to commit the crime, but if they knew they could get a maximum of only three years, those who might be tempted might yield to the temptation to commit the crime. Leave the crime subject to the same penalty as formerly, and then let public opinion, as reflected in the mind and action of the jury, be the factor which determines whether you will have convictions or not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This change in the law was recommended by the uniformity commissioners, which means by the departments of the attorneys general, and the reason they recommended it is obvious. They do not like to have to prefer a charge that does not charge a crime, and that is what they have to do right along. Otherwise nothing happens. They make charges once in a while of manslaughter, but generally a charge of what is called concealment of birth because that is a charge on which they can get a conviction. It is a most undesirable situation that our law should be such that nobody will apply it properly. We are meeting not only public opinion as shown by the indisposition of juries to convict, but also the wishes of experienced prosecuting departments who want a law that is susceptible of application. I do not think there is anything in the suggestion that a slightly deranged, distressed mother will be any more likely to do away with her child because the penalty is three years instead of a greater penalty.


John George Diefenbaker: If the certainty of punishment or the nature of the punishment were a deterrent there would have been few murders during the middle ages or even up to 1834. In many cases there were varieties of executions. I read the other day of a member of the nobility who was found guilty of murder and sentenced to hang by the neck until he was dead. He thought that was ignominious, so this noble was granted the unusual dispensation by the court of being
hanged until he was only partly dead and then cut down so that he could view his own disembowelment.
In cases of infanticide, everyone who has appeared for the defence realizes the fact that the jury, knowing the penalty and realizing that the sentence will ultimately be commuted, do not want to leave an unfortunate woman, who has made a misstep and whose mind is partly deranged, in the position of having to live within the shadow of the gallows until commutation takes place. Any counsel for the defence knows that juries, realizing that the woman suffers and the man escapes, will acquit in most cases, however strong the evidence may be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then you should make it no crime at all.


John George Diefenbaker: The law will either make it punishable with some penalty, or almost every person committing this crime will escape. That I believe is what impelled the minister to introduce this amendment. It is not the best course to be followed; but when the hon. member for Kamloops suggests that a woman in that position, having just given birth to a child, will give consideration first to what the penalty will be-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what my argument was.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend corrects me, but I took it from what he said that a person in that position would contemplate the penalty. I say that a woman in the condition in which she must be, alone in the world and fearful of the consequences of going out into society with a stigma upon her, does not realize the gravity of her offence until after it is committed. The practice is that, after the jury has made its finding on the murder or manslaughter charge, the woman is brought before the judge and asked whether she pleads guilty to concealment, which usually carries a penalty of six months or a couple of years, and in that way justice is done to some extent.


Thomas Langton Church: This section repeals section 252 of the criminal code. What about hit-and-run drivers committing murder on the highways? I find no provision in this bill to deal with them, let it is a straight case of murder. A child is killed on the highway by a car and the driver runs away. It is the most cowardly kind of murder. I have had letters from my constituents and many letters from the public about this crime of killing infants and children on the highway by misuse of the motorcar, often by drunken drivers. If we are going to
Criminal Code

open up this section, which deals with murder and manslaughter, we should introduce a proviso leaving it to the jury to decide as to hit-and-run drivers, whether that is not a form of murder or manslaughter. It does not matter whether the child is killed by a pistol or a car; the child dies anyway and the parents have no redress. The driver gets away with it. I know the minister is very busy, but I was hopeful that he would introduce an amendment this session to punish what I consider the most cowardly form of murder or manslaughter by hit-and-run drivers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The penalties for hit-and-run drivers were increased in the criminal code amendments last year. Full consideration was given to that at that time. My hon. friend says it is murder. It is not murder; it is manslaughter, and the punishment is for that if there has been negligence, which in most cases there has been.


Thomas Langton Church: Whether the law covers it or not, it is the most cowardly form of murder.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Penalty.
John George Diefenbaker: This is the post office theft section. Originally it was subject to a minimum of three years.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Then the minimum was removed. We have had two years' experience with that. The minister now asks to have a minimum of one year for these offences of stealing from the mail.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: From his experience, has the minister found that thefts from the mail have increased as a result of the deletion of the minimum sentence of three years?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the figures as to the increase or possible decrease of thefts from the mails, but the most ridiculous sentences are being imposed. I had the whole schedule before me the other night when I was going over these amendments to the criminal code. Some of them were as low as two hours, and others were eight days. Sentences of that kind are common. This experiment of removing the minimum was not a success. The Post Office Department has now come to the conclusion that they want the minimum restored, but not as high as three years. I think myself it might not have been a bad idea to leave the three years in the code. The trouble was, there was a case, or perhaps a few cases, where persons obviously and manifestly guilty were acquitted.

The Post Office Department said, "That won't do; take that minimum out." We took the minimum out, and we began to get these ridiculous sentences of a few days.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that not a pretty good argument for an appeal of these cases by the crown in order to secure a degree of uniformity across the country? When the minimum was removed the magistrates trying the cases had no standard basis upon which to operate. The minister mentioned a sentence of two hours. Was that case taken to the court of appeal?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know; I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information.


John George Diefenbaker: Somebody on behalf of the crown slipped up in not appealing a sentence that was so ridiculous as to shock the public conscience in a direction opposite to that which a sentence of three years for the theft of one letter had shocked it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know that it does. When I went to law school I was taught that there was one thing which was a very serious crime, namely, theft from the mails. I think it is, whether it is one letter or ten letters, or whether it is money or whatever it is. As I say, I have doubts as to whether it was not a mistake to take that three-year minimum out, because the mails must be left alone. There is no doubt about that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We tried taking it out, and it did not work. We got these sentences. My hon. friend says, "Appeal the sentences." People cannot be appealing all the time. You do not get any consistency in the appeals. The appeal courts may say what I am saying now. It is a serious matter. It does not mean that the courts which try the cases always do what the appeal court says. They will do it now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I know of one particular case in the part of the country from which I come. Over a period of time the postmistress pleaded guilty to six different offences from the mails and got a mild reprimand. She did not get any sentence at all. I am in favour of restoring some minimum so that our mails can be safe. I consider it wise to leave the three years in. Let us start with one year. A year from now some of us should be back here. If we find an experience similar to that which the department has had recently, then I for one will be here ready and anxious to increase the minimum.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to call the minister's attention to section 10. I am referring to the part of it which deals with the post office,

Criminal Code
stealing from the mails and so forth. I remember a few years ago when the former postmaster general, Mr. Muloek, was a member of the house. I brought to his attention a report issued in regard to the post office, which showed that only about one-eighth of one per cent of those officials, notwithstanding the tremendous volume of business which the post office carries on, did not carry out the law, and stole a few cents out of a letter.
Since the code was established the maximum had been three years, and no minimum was allowed to the magistrate at all. The sentence was automatic. The state did nothing to look after the wife and children of the person who was sentenced to jail. They were left to charity. The minister at that time brought in an amendment which received the support of the late minister of justice. There has been a conflict of decisions by magistrates on what the amended section meant. Some of them gave only thirty days in connection with a theft of a few cents from a letter.
The penalty of a year is altogether too long for a man who steals such a small amount. Out of $15,500,000 which the department gets out of the Toronto post office, it is only a very small amount which comes from the department stores, as I said the other night. You have to think of the family as well. The state should look after the children and also the wife. Very few men are involved in this section. They are automatically liable to a sentence of a year in jail. The sentence should be thirty days or sixty days. There should not be a minimum any more than there is a maximum. Some discretion should be given to the magistrate. He hears all the evidence and has all the facts before him. Most of the sums involved are very small. I am sorry to see men who are employed in a great public utility such as the post office being treated in this way. They have a hard time. They go out in all kinds of weather, winter and summer. No section of the public service is more popular with the working classes than the men who work for the post office. I do not think it is right automatically to send a person down for a year.
It will be noticed that the change in the code does not name the place of confinement. These people have largely been confined in federal institutions instead of near their homes, and the women and children are left to suffer. I thought that at this session the minister would leave it to the discretion of the magistrate, make the minimum thirty to sixty days, and bring in a maximum of a year. Usually, in interference with the mails, small amounts of money are involved. I think the amend-5849-330
ment I suggested would be much better. It will help the public service more than a long term like a year, which is a very long time. A man may escape and get two more years added to it. The penalty goes a little too far.
I may say that, after a long fight in the House of Commons, the late postmaster general a few years ago did accept an amendment to the code to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Defrauding the public.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister explain this section?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Sections 12, 13 and 14 are being enacted at the request of the province of Ontario. They are very important sections. In fact they were requested in the past, but it was felt that the abuse that they were directed to possibly did not justify the changes in the criminal law. But the conclusion has been arrived at that now they do. These sections will have to be taken as a group. Section 12 speaks for itself. Section 13 requires explanation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What does the minister think about the words "written or oral" in section 12? Will that not make it tremendously wide? Somebody will be made responsible for a remark that a taxi driver makes or anybody who is with him. Is that not pretty wide?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may be wide, but I do not think there is much wrong with it. I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the explanatory note, which reads:
This amendment arises out of a judgment in the case of Rex vs. Morgan and Dempsey, 1947 O.L.R. 805, in which it was held that if the statements referred to in the said section were made orally they did not constitute an offence thereunder.
Previously, it would appear, the prosecuting authorities were of the view that the section included oral fraudulent statements, but the courts decided against them and it is considered desirable to amend the section.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Limiting it to these various officers would, I suppose, take care of what I had in mind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Section 13 requires some
explanation. It was an essential ingredient of the offence that there be conspiracy. Now there does not need to be conspiracy. The conspiracy sections in the code, elsewhere provided, will, of course, take effect if there is conspiracy. Now there does not need to
Criminal Code

be conspiracy. Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment who, by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, defrauds the public or any person, ascertained or unascertained, or affects the public market price of stocks, shares, merchandise, or anything else publicly sold, whether such deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretence as hereinbefore defined.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why would not the ordinary provisions respecting false pretences cover what the minister has in mind?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, but I would assume that fraudulent statements could be made for the purpose of affecting the market price of shares, which would not amount to the offence of obtaining goods or money under false pretences. That probably would be the case. There is also a special penalty of five years here, while the penalty for false pretences is only three years.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not wish to hold up this section, but I am still concerned as to whether or not it is an addition to or a restatement of the law as it is.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. The main part of the section is to do away with the necessity of proving conspiracy. That is the purpose of the section. The wording has all been in the code before, but heretofore the words were "conspires with any other person" to do it. No conspiracy is now necessary in order to obtain a conviction under the section.
The next section, 14, which is part of this group of three sections, is a very important one. It deals with fraudulent manipulations of the stock exchange. It is designed to prevent fraudulent manipulations of transactions on the stock exchanges and will make quite a number of "wash" sales criminal.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I gather that this is also asked for by the province of Ontario.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I believe there is a stock market in every province. There is one in Toronto. That is the city with the new look. Do they really want to go to such a length?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: They have never failed in any province to obtain convictions under the conspiracy sections with respect to the very things that are dealt with

here. I have never yet known the conspiracy sections of the code to fail. If, by a "wash" sale, the minister means that the transaction did not go through at all-and I gather that is what he means-I think that is already amply covered by the criminal code as we have it today. Certain famous cases that went across the country, which I had the honour of instituting out west, were successful, and they were in connection with stock market operations. I am not objecting to tightening up the law, but I am wondering whether we are doing a great deal. I do not think there is anything new in the whole section. We have always found when prosecuting that we had greater latitude under the conspiracy sections than will be afforded under this, as far as bringing in evidence is concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: I have always found that when the crown did not have a strong case and wished to introduce a lot of hearsay evidence of discussions that took place among individuals, whether joined together at the moment or not, it invariably charged conspiracy. When conspiracy is charged, statements made by one alleged conspirator in the absence of another are admissible, and the result is that often it is difficult to defend, however good the defence might be, when the charge is conspiracy. I am wondering why the necessity of establishing conspiracy, which, after all, is not a very difficult matter in any case, is being deleted, and an overt act of deceit or falsehood is substituted without the necessity of establishing conspiracy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The conspiracy section can still be used. The fact that you take conspiracy out of this section does not mean that it is not an offence to conspire. That is constituted by the conspiracy sections.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This stiffens the section and renders it unnecessary to prove conspiracy, which it might be impossible sometimes to prove.


Frank Exton Lennard: I should like to know whether section 13 is broad enough to take under its wing a member of the cabinet who, at a by-election, makes a statement which affects the public market price of merchandise or anything else sold.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
On section 15-By threats.
John George Diefenbaker: I think this is a
worthwhile section. Some weeks ago I brought up the question of intimidation of people in Canada by threats or suggestions of

Criminal Code
threats, through the intimation that wrong would be done to or harm perpetrated upon the relatives of such people in the countries in which those relatives reside. This section, whereby the threat that in Canada or elsewhere violence will be done to any person is made an offence, is one that will go a long way toward strengthening the hands of the enforcement officers. Persons in this country are sometimes subjected to the threat that, unless they give support to communist works or to communist funds, or in any other way assist in the spread of communism, harm will be done to their relatives. This section will cover such a situation. I am glad also to say that the addition of the words "or attempts to intimidate", placing it in the same position as though the full and complete offence of intimidation were perpetrated, will be of great assistance and will uphold the arm of the law in a great many cases throughout this country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
On section 17-Search in gaming houses.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the
minister explain section 17? I notice that the explanatory note reads:
17. This section is amended by striking out the words "as defined by section two hundred and twenty-nine" because the definition of "disorderly house" is moved to the definition section.
Is this merely a matter of mechanics, leaving the substance of the law as it is?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Bail after committal.
Arthur Leroy Smith: This amendment is just to correct an obvious error?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On section 24-Information not objectionable on certain grounds.
John George Diefenbaker: Is this supposed to cover objections which have been taken from time to time that the information contains a duality of offences or where the offence has been stated in the alternative and the information has been declared defective because of that fact?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no change whatever in the law. I debated with myself whether 5849-330^
I would introduce this amendment. It leaves out the explanatory matter found in the present section. If the hon. gentleman will look at the present section 725, which is set out in the explanatory notes, he will see that in it a most unusual thing is done. An explanation is given, beginning with the words "for example, in charging an offence under section 553 it may be alleged" and so on. The commissioners of uniformity thought that was bad draftsmanship and that it was better to leave those words out. They just clutter up the statute book.


John George Diefenbaker: It must not restrict the generality of the foregoing words?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
On section 26-Dismissal of complaint for assault.
Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the purpose of the words "if requested so to do", in the fourth line from the bottom of the
page?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The justice does not have to force a certificate on a person who does not want it; that is all.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What is the object of the certificate in the first place? I suppose that has to do with civil proceedings or something of that sort. There is some general law to the effect that if I go into a police court and charge somebody with assault, I may take away my civil rights by so doing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. Only the words "if


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was wondering if there was any substantial change there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. Only the words "if requested so to do" were added.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 27 and 28 agreed to.
On section 29-Complainant may be bound over.
John George Diefenbaker: With regard to breach of the peace or threatened breach of the peace, up to the present time the procedure has been for the charge to be laid by the complainant. Then, if the charge is well founded, the defendant is bound over to keep the peace. Now a new section is introduced whereby the person who complains that he has been interfered with, and that threats have been made to him, finds that
Criminal Code

when he comes to court he stands in danger of himself being bound over by the magistrate. This is the first time that the complainant, the person who sets in motion the wheels of the law, finds himself in jeopardy as a result of his own act.
This is a section that will require a bit of explanation. I should like to know the background of it. What it actually does in effect is this. It places a person who is threatened- who has had an argument with his neighbour, we will say-in a position in which he may well be fearful of setting in motion the wheels of the law in order to prevent possible further and greater breach of the peace, because, if he does that, he may end up by having registered against himself an order of the court binding him over to keep the peace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For twelve months.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the most unusual amendment that has been brought before the committee in years. I should like to have an explanation of it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I join with the hon. member for Lake Centre in asking the minister to drop this. I know whence it comes; because this has to do, as a general rule, with backyard quarrels-


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -between women whose children throw things at one another's windows and that sort of thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought it was to stop the hon. member and me from quarreling here in this house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No. That is one of my great pleasures in being here. If the hon. member went home, I would go home with him. I know we all want to do something with regard to the thing I am talking about. On the other hand, with great respect I submit that we should not reverse the traditional procedure, and that the complainant should not be bound over to keep the peace. It must be remembered that, in various parts of this country which are thinly settled, we necessarily have justices of the peace who are not experienced in matters of this kind.
I remember that I once worked for the Saskatchewan government. I was adtviser to the justices of the peace of the province, and they never had a worse adviser. But I know some of them were simply terrible, solely because of lack of experience. I really do not think we should take this risk. It might be one of ourselves who was set on by somebody else, and when we came to court we might find that the justice bound both of us over.

Because we went over and complained that somebody kicked our teeth in, I do not think we should be bound over to keep the peace. This is one amendment that might well be dropped, I do not think it is so serious that it should remain.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not press this. I take the view of experienced members of the bar in the committee. I questioned this amendment myself, but I was told that in many cases a fight or quarrel of some kind takes place between neighbours, and one rushes off to the courts to have the other one bound over to keep the peace. The magistrate sees that the fault is about equally divided, and he says to the one, "Yes, I will bind your neighbour over to keep the peace, but you will also be bound over to keep the peace, and you will both stop it." It will, I think, put an end to a great many unjustified applications to the magistrates. But, as both hon. gentlemen seem to think, it may put too much of a curb on justified applications. If that is the feeling about it, then I am content to drop it. It was recommended by these commissioners as a salutary sort of thing to do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Both these women may lay charges against each other, so that a magistrate can usually bind them both over, if he so wishes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then, I shall withdraw it.


William Ross Macdonald: Is it the consent of the committee that section 29(2) be withdrawn?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Section 29(2) withdrawn.
Section 29 as amended agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
On section 31-Appellant remains in custody or gives recognizance or makes deposit in court.


Thomas Langton Church: It seems to me the government is going very far afield in this section. Apparently the amendment provides for a case where an order has been issued for suspended sentence under section 1081. The headnote of section 31 states, "Appellant remains in custody or gives recognizance or makes deposit in court". Many of these are poor people, industrial workers and others who have no money.
The newspapers have been talking about the remand type of magistrates who wish to have time to make up their minds, and then they depend upon some report, for which I can find no provision in any section of the criminal code. Such a code amendment will

Criminal Code
burden the present jail accommodation provided by the municipalities, because it must be remembered that the federal government does not enforce its own law. That is left to the provinces; and the provinces in turn charge it up to the municipalities. It seems to me that we are going very far afield when we take this action in respect of a person who is in custody and who is subject to a suspended sentence under section 1081. Such a person might not have the necessary deposit money with him, or it might not be in the hands of his family.
In England they have what is known as the summary offenders act, where time is given to pay a fine. As a result, half the prisons there have been closed. I can find no reference to that in this or any other section of this bill. I must repeat, however, that the minister is going far afield in this instance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 32-Judgment on appeal final.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER. What is the object of the addition of the words underlined in this section? Has not a court at all times been in the position of being the absolute judge of the facts?
James Lorimer Ilsley: It means the final judge. The law in the past has been that the court appealed to was the final judge of the facts and law. Last year we provided for an appeal on a question of law from a county or district court judge to the court of appeal for a province. However we forgot to amend this section. We had an appeal on a question of law to the appeal court, and we left in the provision that the court of appeal was the absolute judge of the law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 33, 34 and 35 agreed to.
On section 36-Part XVI.
John George Diefenbaker: Section 36 covers amendments in sections 771 to 784 inclusive. Over the years there have been large numbers of cases dealing with technical objections to the various sections existing in the code. It was just like adding annexes to the law; the point was finally reached where those sections had no uniformity and no certainty, and indeed they were an incongruous mess.
Was a complete study made of those authorities before these sections were evolved in their present form? It would be quite impossible to deal with these sections and to know whether or not some uniformity had been brought out of the practice which prevailed regarding these
sections in the several provinces. Does this restore a degree of uniformity based upon decisions throughout the country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what decisions the hon. member has reference to. This is, of course, an important procedural change. It adds immensely to the responsibilities of magistrates. This section should not be brought into force unless the magistracy is of a pretty high order in the various provinces of Canada.
In the event that the provincial governments wish to improve their magistrates, they are being given time to do so, because this does not come into force until October, 1949. At the present time offenders may be tried for many offences, whether they consent or not. That includes several indictable offences; and they may be tried by magistrates without their consent. The principle of this amendment is that those offenders must consent. I believe it is true to say that these magistrates may hereafter try the same offences that can be tried by superior, county and district court judges under the speedy trials provisions.
Of course there will be a certain number of important cases which can be tried only by juries. However, there will be some offences here now which may be tried in three ways- that is, by magistrate; by a county, district or superior judge under the speedy trials provisions, or by a judge and jury. So that this streamlines the section. It certainly changes this part of the criminal code in a very important way.


John George Diefenbaker: What are those important changes?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Those are the important changes. In part XVI, at the present time magistrates in towns of over 2,500 population have jurisdiction that magistrates in towns under 2,500 do not have. Then, there are some provisions for cities of 25,000. At the present time the provisions are very complicated indeed. Continual complaints are made about the necessity to ascertain population of a town or city, and complaints about magistrates having jurisdiction in certain municipalities. The important change is that under part XVI at the present time there are indictable offences for which an accused person may be tried by a magistrate, whether he consents or not. He does not have the option of trial by jury. If this amendment is passed, then he could not be tried by a magistrate without his consent. That is an important change.
Then again, these offences, instead of being listed as they are in the present part XVI, are all offences except those which must tried by a jury. Therefore these magistrates will have jurisdiction comparable with that possessed by
Criminal Code

county court, district court and superior court judges, the latter in Quebec, under the speedy trials provision. It does two things, one is to restore or provide for the right to trial by jury for all indictable offences, and the other is to extend considerably the jurisdiction of these magistrates, of course by consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister anticipate that more magistrates will have to be appointed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I do not know whether it will work that way; it may work just the other way. Prisoners accused of crimes may elect to be tried by juries, instead of being taken before magistrates whether they consent or not, as at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Section 37 agreed to.
On section 38-Prosecuting officer to be notified to act where judge does not reside in county.
Thomas Langton Church: It seems to me we are practically abolishing the juiy system altogether for many of these offences. The explanatory note says:
This amendment arises out of an amendment to section eight hundred and twenty-seven by section twenty-eight of chapter fifty-five of the statutes of 1947 wherein the words "having first obtained the depositions on which the prisoner was so committed, if any" were repealed.
I fail to see why the prosecuting officer should be asked to assume such duties as this. There are no institutions available at the present time in the province of Ontario. Some of our prisons were built at the time of confederation. If this is all the law reform we have here, it does not amount to very much. The onus is on the prisoner and on the industrial worker, who have very little funds at the present moment. I fail to see why it is necessary to put the prosecuting officer in charge instead of a county court judge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
On section 40-When juror dies or is discharged for illness or other cause.
John George Diefenbaker: This clause represents an endeavour on the part of the Department of Justice to meet a situation which occurs quite frequently when, through illness

or death of one or more of the jurymen, trials have been abortive. This section provides that where any member of a jury is, through illness or other cause, unable to discharge his responsibilities as a juryman, the trial may proceed with a reduced number of jurymen, not less than ten in eight of the provinces and not less than five in Alberta.
With the greatest of respect, I cannot see that this section covers the situation at all. First, it merely provides a means whereby in certain cases the trial shall not be declared abortive and the jury be discharged. It requires the consent of the crown and of the defence. If this section is to be worth anything I cannot understand why the consent of the crown and the defence should be necessary. The crown has been able to pick the members it wants on the jury, first by standing-asides, and, secondly, by challenges, either peremptory or challenges for cause, so the twelve men on that jury represent a group, each and every one of whom has been accepted by the crown. The defence is limited sometimes in the case of lesser offences in the number of challenges it may use; four, twelve, and in serious offences twenty challenges. With only four challenged, the jury chosen is sometimes not exactly the jury that counsel would have chosen. But once the jury is chosen, every one of its members has been accepted by the crown and the defence.
My first suggestion is that we delete the words "subject to consent being given in writing iby or on behalf of both the crown and the accused." Alternatively I again place before the committee the suggestion I made some time ago, that supernumerary jurors be sworn in; that over and above the twelve jurors in the eight provinces and six jurors in the province of Alberta, fourteen and eight jurors be sworn in respectively, and that, in case of illness of any one of the jurors, one of the extra men becomes a juryman. In that way a number of trials which have been declared abortive during the past year would have been continued to a verdict by the jury. I ask the minister whether he has given consideration to the latter suggestion, and if he has not and does not want to give consideration to it, then let us make this section worthy of parliament so that it will work.
Here is the practical position as I see it. After a trial has been under way for two or three days, counsel for the crown has some idea of the attitude of the jury, and counsel for the defence sometimes has the same idea, although they are never quite so astute as crown counsel in that regard. Suppose that crown counsel has concluded

Criminal Code
that the jury's attitude is one of disregarding the cogent parts of the crown's case; is he going to consent? Take the other side. When the defence has seen the attitude of the jury and the attitude has been one not indicating the interest in his case which the defence counsel would like to have seen, will the defence consent in writing if he sees that the jury is against him? Either way I think this section will be just one .more section in the code that will not work. If we are not going to make it work I suggest that we delete the requirement that both crown and defence shall consent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think highly of
the plan that my hon. friend suggested of having supernumeraries because these extra jurors would be sitting there, devoting some attention to the case; but the chances are a hundred to one, perhaps one thousand to one, that they would not be called upon, and so they would not assume the responsibility they should. I think that proposal should not be favourably considered. The amendment before us is based on the rule that an accused is entitled to be tried by twelve of his peers unless he waives that right. In Alberta the number is, of course, only six. I am told that the section is similar to one in Great Britain and to one in Australia. I am sorry I cannot give any information as to the extent to which this section has been used in those countries. But the fear that my hon. friend has that it will not work because either counsel for the crown or counsel for the accused or both will have some idea of how the jury feels about the case is somewhat surprising. I never knew, or seldom knew, what a jury would do about a case until it did it. I doubt whether most counsel do. I should think that perhaps this will work all right and that we had better give it a try anyway before we take away the many centuries old historic right of man to be tried by twelve of his peers.


John George Diefenbaker: If what my hon. friend says is correct, that the accused is entitled to a trial by twelve jurors-and by the way, we changed that a few years ago-


James Lorimer Ilsley: In Alberta.


John George Diefenbaker: -we still have six in Alberta; we had six in Saskatchewan-why the necessity of consent on the part of the crown? If it is looking after the interests of the accused and assuring him of a trial by twelve good men and true, why should it be necessary to have the consent of the crown before the lesser jury, or a jury of the remaining members, if illness has struck down one or
two? Why the necessity of consent by the crown? What year was an amendment similar to this adopted in Great Britain?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.


John George Diefenbaker: I am quite interested in that, because I could not find that among the criminal law amendments in Great Britain. I should like to know the year that it was
passed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to try to get that information. I do not know the year myself. I do not know exactly how to answer the first question except, I suppose, that the crown is entitled to have the case tried by twelve, as well as the accused. The system is the judgment of twelve jurors. I do not know that it would be altogether fitting just to make that concession to the accused without giving the same right to the crown. At any rate, that is the kind of legislation they have on it elsewhere.


John George Diefenbaker: What year was it passed in Great Britain?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall try to get the information before we cover the remaining sections.


John George Diefenbaker: A person cannot keep up with this issue. The minister stands firmly that he is going to insist on the amendment to section 40 as it appears in the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I would not feel like changing it.


John George Diefenbaker: The section stands until we ascertain the year in which Great Britain passed a similar amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Section stands.
Sections 41, 42 and 43 agreed to.
On section 44-Criminal sexual psychopaths.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the section dealing with sexual psychopaths. I should like to ask the minister a number of questions in connection with this matter. Why is it that, before any evidence may be submitted to the court that the accused is a sexual psychopath, the consent of the attorney general of the province to such procedure is required? I can see no reason why that consent need be given. This is an endeavour by the Department of Justice to meet a class of offence which is becoming very general. Various suggestions have been made on how to meet it. One is by lengthy imprisonment, which does not reform, and on discharge the offence is re-committed. The other is by psychopathic treatment during incarceration, resulting in a change in the
Criminal Code

character of the individual or of his propensity for sexual crimes. But, as the section now stands, no matter whether a person is or is not a sexual pervert, he cannot lead evidence without the consent of the attorney general. The provision that seven days' notice be given is a good and proper one, because, if it were otherwise, evidence might be led that would take the crown by surprise. Let me read the material portions of the section:
When any person is convicted of an olfence under . . .
The sections are named.
. . . the court, before passing sentence, may hear evidence as to whether the offender is a criminal sexual psychopath.
Such evidence shall be given by at least two psychiatrists . . . duly qualified.
The court may hear such other evidence as it may deem necessary.
Subsection 4 reads:
Such evidence shall not be submitted . . .
That must refer back to subsection 2.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it does, although it is not too clear.


John George Diefenbaker: The way it is
worded it is not as clear as it might be. I continue:
Such evidence shall not be submitted unless:
(a) the attorney general of the province in which the accused is to be tried consents thereto.
How does the attorney general of the province know what evidence is to be advanced, what the psychiatrists are to say, what the evidence is to be? Before they give the evidence, before they indicate what the evidence will be, the attorney general has to consent to the accused advancing the evidence by which he will endeavour to establish that he is, in fact, a psychopathic sexual offender. I suggest, first, that the attorney general's consent be not required. That in itself might well defeat the purpose for which this is intended. If the attorney general gets seven days' notice, surely that is enough. The accused is convicted of a serious crime. After his conviction, he comes up for sentence. On his behalf a representation is made that he is a pervert and should receive such remedial treatment as is provided for. I say that man should not have to convince the attorney general that he is what he says he is, or his counsel says on his behalf. Those who are to be convinced are the judicial officers. Once the notice is given to the attorney general that evidence will be led, he is in a position to meet it. If you are to require, first, that the sexual pervert has to prove to the attorney general that he is that kind of individual, and convince

him before he convinces the court, you may very well defeat the purpose of this legislation.
I think, too, that the definition of criminal sexual psychopath is rather too confined. It is necessary to define what such a person is, in order to establish some line at which treatment may be given the offender. In my opinion the use of the words "uncontrollable desires" widens the scope to such an extent as practically to defeat the purpose for which this legislation, is intended. If the criminal sexual psychopath were defined as a person who, by a course of misconduct in sexual matters, has evidenced a lack of power to control his sexual impulses and who, as a result, is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury, loss, pain or other evil,-stopping there-the definition would be wide enough, without the addition of the words, which are unnecessary, "on the object of his uncontrollable desires".
In my opinion, this provision represents the first action on the part of the parliament of Canada to meet a type of offence that is becoming general, a type of offence that creates fear in the minds of mothers and fathers of children who, by reason of residence in cities, are brought into close contact with strangers. Out of this legislation, with psychiatrists receiving training, ultimately I believe this section will have the effect of punishing wrongdoers and protecting the public at large, and I also believe that eventually it will restore many of these wrongdoers, after treatment, to a place in society wherein they may contribute something to the welfare of the country, instead of being chronic recidivists whose crime ends only with their lives.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am inclined to ask that this section stand until a little more thought has been given to the wording of it. The fact that the section has given rise to some of the observations which the hon. member has made indicates that it is not as clearly drawn as it should be. The scheme of the section was simply this. In the first place, there is prepared a list of offences which are named. The section provides that evidence may be given, on the trial of one or more of these offences, that the offender is a criminal sexual psychopath, and the term "criminal sexual psychopath" is defined. If the court finds that the accused is a criminal sexual psychopath the consequences are serious indeed so far as deprivation of liberty is concerned. It is serious in two ways. In the first place, the minimum sentence is two years, and in the second place, the sentence is indeterminate, which means that the accused, if convicted, may be kept in custody indefinitely.
The section was modelled largely on the sections relating to habitual offenders last year.

Criminal Code
The consequences being so serious so far as deprivation of liberty is concerned, it was felt that the attorney general, who is responsible for the maintenance of order and the enforcement of law in the province, should consent to action against a person in that way and to the production of these psychiatrists, one nominated by the Minister of Justice, with a view to getting a finding that might land the accused in custody for a great many years.
It was thought that the attorney general of the province should give his consent to that. It was never intended that the consent of the attorney general should be required for other evidence, or specifically for the kind of evidence which the psychiatrist gives. It was merely desired that his consent be obtained to the putting forward of that claim by the prosecuting authorities and the production of psychiatrists who attempt to prove that the accused is a criminal sexual psychopath.
Looking at the section, I think there is enough in the criticisms of my hon. friend to justify a little redrafting, and despite the fact that I should like to get it through tonight, I shall have to give the drafting of it a little more consideration.
The other, point which the hon. member has raised, as to the definition of "criminal sexual psychopath", I am willing also to reconsider. My hon. friend thinks it is too confined. Legislation similar to this exists in eight states of the American union, and while the definitions vary somewhat, this is the one which was regarded as probably the most suitable.
Naturally, with regard to this entire method of trying to meet this problem, the important factor which we have not discussed much here is the lack of facilities for curative or remedial treatment. I think the legislation has to precede the establishment of such facilities, and I would hope that the authorities might in some way or another try this out to see whether they get anywhere with it. I am told that the results in the United States are not the least bit conclusive. My hon. friend the other day seemed1 to think they were.


John George Diefenbaker: I said, in New York.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I listened carefully, and I understood him to say that only nine per cent of those who were released proved to be recidivists. A statement like that does not mean very much under a law whereby you need not release anybody. If you released one person and he was not a recidivist your figure would be 100 per cent. None of them should be a recidivist. They are not supposed to be let out until they are cured.


John George Diefenbaker: There were over 500.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The fact that only nine per cent are recidivists does not mean anything, unless you know a great many other facts, and I am told that the results are not conclusive as to the advantage of this way of proceeding. The problem is, however, of sufficient importance to justify some experimentation here.


John George Diefenbaker: Where does the minister get the definition of "criminal sexual psychopath"?


James Lorimer Ilsley: From Massachusetts.


John George Diefenbaker: Governor Dewey vetoed the bill in which the definition was very wide.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it was on account of the definition that he vetoed it. In any event, we do not get much help from the experience in the United States. It is at a very early stage. Claims are made for certain methods of treatment and so on, and nothing can be proved. What I thought about this legislation was that it enables certain of these persons to be taken out of circulation at any rate and to be given curative treatment which will lead to their release without their being a menace to society. That is the reason I am bringing the legislation forward. A great deal of thought was given to this matter, and this amendment was the best we could do. But in the light of criticisms tonight, I will take another look at the evidence, and I will take another look at the necessity of getting the attorney general's consent to all the evidence which appears to be necessary under this section. It may be entirely impracticable.


William Henry Golding: Shall section 44 stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to ask the minister one question with respect to subsection 6. Do the words "such disciplinary and reformative treatment as may be prescribed by penitentiary regulations" refer to any penitentiary regulations or arrangements now in effect, or do they refer to something that might be brought into effect?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Such as will be made; such as may be brought into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, there has been no experimentation along that line yet in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; not that I know of.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to say one word before the section stands, and I hope that the part dealing with the consent of the attorney general will stand forever. It
Criminal Code

seems to me that if, as has always been the case, insanity has been a defence in criminal matters and we can find a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity, that provision should be extended, and it should be equally possible to find a verdict of not guilty on the ground of psychopathic impulse or something in these sexual matters. I am sure the minister has been impressed, as have been all the rest of us who have to do with these matters, by the great increase in crimes of this kind, and by the brutality and the bestiality of them. In my own little local area it has come to the point where mothers, for example, are confining their children even in daylight hours, to the homes or the home grounds, if I may use that expression. Therefore I am not for a moment opposing in principle what the Minister of Justice is trying to do. I am all for it, but I am saying that if that right is given to the attorney general to consent, then it is of equal or greater importance that the right be given to the person accused who perhaps is up before the court for the second time. If you talk to them, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has done, I am sure you will find that there is this urge. In other words, I am trying to go to insanity, if you like. I think of the rule that was made in 1842 in the Macnaughton case. At that time we almost thought the world had gone mad.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has, I am sure, if not an intimate knowledge, at least a better knowledge than have most of us of these things which we have now discovered are largely mental. It is not so long ago since an insane person was chained to a post and thrown raw fish to eat. We have learned a good deal since then, and we have these institutions. It seems to me that sex perverts, or people who are born that way, should have this right. As I understand the matter, there is the homosexual who is just that way anyway. But the pervert, if I understand the definition correctly, is a person who was born properly, who had the natural instincts but who, because of his own fault perhaps, went in that other direction.
I acted for attorneys general for fourteen years in the province from which I come. They are all grand people and all of that, but it seems to me that the accused man should have the right to go out and bring in evidence as to what his mentality is in sexual matters. I think it is a mistake to confine our bill to the consent of an attorney general-who does what? He consults persons who are within his employment. He reads the evidence of the offence. It seems to me that it is rather too much to put up to one man, who is the

deputy attorney general in practically all cases, to say whether or not he, an individual, consents to this being done. I think it should be open to both sides to bring in evidence of that kind.
I am not trying to speak so much from personal experience, but I know of people who have been charged with murder, found guilty and hanged, and who, it occurred to me, were under an impulse, an urge or something of that kind which they were quite unable to resist. They were not mentally weak as you would see if you were in ordinary conversation with them. I am glad the minister is having this section stand. Particularly that feature of it should be given further consideration.
May I go a step further along the line the hon. member for Lake Centre discussed the other day? I think the doctors in the house- and I can see two or three of them-will probably agree that we have not gone far enough in psychiatry to delimit those sex impulses which we now know, through practical experience, some people have. If it were possible that curative measures would restore those persons to health as normal human beings, then I would be all in favour of that. But I doubt, as the minister has said, if the evidence today goes far enough to establish that as a fact.
I am anxious that the minister follow up what he said and let this matter stand. We know of no greater problem in crime than this one. Since we have been here, I read about some crime on a lake shore with regard to a man and his wife, where a woman was found in water. No solution has yet been found. It is obviously one of those sex crimes about which we understand so little.
Let us place first the curative idea. On the other hand, let us not leave it to any individual to say whether or not psychiatrists may be called to prove a given state of mind. It will be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that in our criminal courts today a man can be found not guilty on the ground of insanity, without a single psychiatrist being called. I myself have proved that. We all are beginning to think we need expert evidence on that, but we do not. We can get the general opinion of a jury as to whether a person is insane or not. I am thinking more of the curative aspect and of the fairness of the procedure of permitting the accused person to call such evidence, without the consent of the attorney general in a given province.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was the intention of the section.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree.
I was not being critical at all.

Criminal Code


William Henry Golding: Shall section 44 stand?


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this section stands, let me say I do not see why we have such compassion for people who are unworthy of it. So long as the death penalty exists, I do not see why we should have compassion for these men who act like brutes, who attack young children and who kill them. Why should there be such compassion for them? Is it by virtue of human rights? Why did the hon. member for Lake Centre quote wrhat happened at Westminster recently with regard to death penalties? Death penalties existed in England when England was considered a civilized country.
The hon. member reminds me of a former member from Montreal whose name started with B. That is the only thing I remember about him. Some years ago all he was interested in was the suppression of the death penalty. Every session he placed on the order paper a motion to suppress the death penalty. That member died; the death penalty is still here.
In my view the death penalty is a rampart against crime. I was surprised when I read the bill and saw in it the section giving powers to justices of the peace in respect of cases where persons are about to commit crimes. Does the hon. member for Lake Centre or the hon. member for Calgary West know a justice of the peace who is a mind reader?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not; I will answer right now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know anyone of that kind. I remember when Senator Roebuck was attorney general of Ontario, and he dismissed ten thousand of them with a stroke of the pen. I say he deserved the thanks of the country for that. It is dangerous to give big powers to persons with no legal information; and when I refer to legal information I do not mean lectures given at universities. I mean contact with men, and an understanding of the men with whom one has contact.
At the present time we treat these criminals just the same as those who suffer accidents when they fall on the street, from a window or from a roof, men who suffer civil damage. These men are a menace to society; why should they be handled with white gloves? They are monsters whom society cannot endure.
I can understand a man who has a quarrel with someone else. That quarrel becomes worse and worse, and finally one man kills the other. That is something which has been understood since the time of Cain and Abel. But 5849-331i
to think that one who is supposed to have attained the age of reason would attack a young boy or a young girl and kill him or kill her-why, that is something which reminds one of barbarism, of the barbaric ages. It is worse than what happened in the stone age.
Then we would hear some stand up and be lenient-"Oh, that poor fellow; he is not well!" Or they will say, "He has human rights we must respect." The question of human rights makes some people crazy. "He has human rights; we must respect his human rights!"' That man is dangerous to society. Does not the child who is bestially attacked by a much older person have human rights? That child has had human rights since he was bom. What about the parents of the child; have they no human rights? But no, we pay no attention to them; we pay attention only to the human rights of the criminal, the bestial criminal offender.
I am surprised that the Minister of Justice, with his sense of justice, has allowed such provisions to enter this draft bill; and I urge upon him the necessity of withdrawing them as soon as he can.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, just let
me disabuse the mind of the hon. member for Temiscouata of any idea that anything is to be relaxed here. The hon. member seems to think some relaxation is provided in this section. On the contrary, a minimum sentence of two years, which does not exist with respect to any of these offences, is provided now by this section. In addition there is provision for an indeterminate sentence which may last for life. There is the provision that the Minister of Justice will review the case every three years.
My hon. friend may rest assured that there is no sentimentality and no relaxation whatever in this section. I want to make that clear to all members of the house. But it would be contemplated that if some course of treatment could be given that would be of benefit to these persons, they should receive it. I do not think there in anything wrong with that.


Alan Cockeram: Anybody who is
human would do that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not familiar with streamlined modern law. But according to the law I read when I was a student at law, rape was classed with murder.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend has a point there, but in an earlier section which was scarcely noticed the punishment for rape has been made life imprisonment instead of
Criminal Code

death. But why not? Did my hon. friend ever hear of a capital sentence being imposed in a rape case?


Mr. CROLL:: Yes, in Chatham, Ontario, last year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Often both offences are committed at the same time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then the conviction is for murder. However, if we would just let section 44 stand I believe I could produce a draft which would meet the objections and still carry out the original intention of the draftsmen.


William Henry Golding: Does the section stand, then?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.
Section stands.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us go back to section 40, which was permitted to stand earlier.
On section 40-When juror dies or is discharged for illness or other cause.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to section 40, the English provision is contained in the Criminal Justice Act of 1925, section 15 of which states:
Where in the course of a criminal trial any member of the jury dies or is discharged by the court as being through illness incapable of continuing to act, or for any other reasons, the jury shall nevertheless, subject to assent being given in writing by or on behalf of both the prosecutor and the accused and so long as the number of its members is not reduced below ten, be considered as remaining for all the purposes of that trial properly constituted, and the trial shall proceed and a verdict may be given accordingly.
Our section is based upon that. I suggest that we should try it.
Section 40 agreed to.
On section 45-Coming into force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before section 45 carries,
I should like to ask the minister whether he has completed the consideration he promised to give to the question of the suppression of the circulation of crime comics. On June 9 the minister said he would consider the matter and would introduce legislation by way of amendment to the criminal code when this bill was before the house; or that, should he decide that that would not be the .proper procedure, he would give his reasons at the time this bill was being considered in committee. To what decision has the minister come?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, naturally I expected to deal with that, and to deal with it fully, before the discussion on this bill was

completed. The other night the hon. member produced a magazine called Crime or Crime Does Not Pay. I still say that I regard the publication of that particular magazine as a shocking abuse of the freedom of the press. My hon. friend asks that we legislate against that kind of publication. I told him that I was drafting legislation with a view to discussing it with council and that if it was decided to introduce it I would do so when the criminal code was up for amendment. If it was decided not to do so I would give reasons. I should like to read to the committee the section which was drafted for consideration and which is the best the Department of Justice can do in meeting this situation. I want to say that I am not going to introduce it, but I shall give my reasons. For the purpose of discussion and as I assume there is some public interest in the matter, perhaps it should be placed before the committee. The section that was drafted for consideration reads:
Subsection 1 of section 207 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following:
"(d) prints, publishes, sells or distributes any magazine, periodical or book which exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially the commission of crimes, real or fictitious, and thereby tending or likely to induce or influence youthful persons to violate the law or to corrupt the morals of such persons."
My hon. friend suggested that the Juvenile Delinquents Act be amended, but it would be out of keeping with the generality of that act to select one particular and specific set of circumstances and try to answer them in the midst of that general language. I am advised that this is the proper place to make an amendment if an amendment is to be made. It will be seen that if that section were to be passed, and I cannot think of any other kind of section that would be suitable, there would be several objections to it.
In the first place, it is somewhat uncertain. It would be difficult for any person to know when he published a magazine whether he was violating the law. In the second place, there would be considerable possibility of evasion under that section, because it provides for a publication which is exclusively or substantially devoted to the pictorial depiction of the commission of crime. There is no escape from the necessity that it be exclusively or substantially devoted to the depiction of crime, because otherwise you would be making it impossible for the odd picture of the commission of crime to appear in a book or newspaper. I have seen pictures depicting the murder of Damley or the murder of Rizzio or the assassination of Thomas a Becket or something like that. It would be ridiculous to

Criminal Code
legislate against pictures of that kind, so you have to say "wholly" or "exclusively". The moment you do that, you open up the possibility of evasion, because there could be a magazine, the half of which was devoted to this and the other half to real comics or something of the kind. There would certainly be charges of discrimination. It would be said that we are preventing the publication of this, while we do not prevent the showing of horror features in moving pictures and that sort of thing.
I am merely pointing out the difficulties of drafting effective legislation. I am not making a strong case against the principle of the legislation itself, but I wanted to find out whether it was thought these crime comics actually induced the commission of crime. The representations that we have received in the Department of Justice were practically confined to one province, British Columbia. If we put this legislation on the statute books it will be the responsibility of the attorneys general of the other provinces to enforce it. We shall have to give them a little more time.
The discussion brought up in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Kamloops has brought the matter before the public and there will be some discussion in the other provinces. However I am not satisfied that the matter is at the stage that would justify legislation at the present time particularly, because many persons interested in this matter say there is no evidence, or practically no evidence that the publication of this material does induce the commission of crime.
We communicated with Doctor W. Line, director of the division on research, national committee for mental hygiene, and he sent the following wire under date of June 11, 1948. This was addressed to the commissioner of penitentiaries, because I had asked him to make this inquiry. The wire reads:
Confirming telephone conversation McCulley-Line this date. To handle this problem at the level of legal banning would be to confess that parents educators and others are unable so to raise the child as to make this kind of material from the child's point of view unnecessary and undesirable. Banning serves rather to distract attention from the real problem of how we educate children in our culture. Organized voluntary action contributing to public education is preferable both operationally and ethically to legislative banning.
Doctor Line also enclosed a quotation from Doctor C. M. Hincks, general director, national committee for mental hygiene, who said:
It has never been scientifically established that crime or thrill stories either in movies, radio or comics have contributed to delinquency. Prohibiting publication is an admission of failure on the part of the family and the educational system in encouraging the development of wholesome and healthy interests.
Some juvenile court judges and gome police officers were consulted.
Ex-Deputy Commissioner Meade and Inspector Regan of the R.C.M.P. are both of opinion that crime comics do not contribute to any appreciable extent to the commission of crimes by youthful offenders. They advise me that they have consulted such leading psychiatrists as Doctor Line of Toronto university who is also of the same opinion.
Judge Harley Mott of the juvenile court, Toronto, says he has no evidence that crime comics are contributing appreciably toward the commission of crime. He says he has no doubt, however, that they have a bad effect, but he thinks it is with the class of boy over sixteen, and he is mainly concerned with boys sixteen and under.
Judge Nicholson and Judge Laramee of the juvenile court in Montreal advise me that they have no evidence that crime comics contribute appreciably toward the commission of crime amongst juvenile offenders. They feel, however, that they have a bad effect, and they are in complete agreement with any measures which would be taken to have them banned.
In talking to some of my friends about this matter, they say: "Yes, ban them, they do not do any good". But I, as Minister of Justice, cannot lightly consider introducing amendments to the criminal code on the ground that a certain thing does not do any good and may do some harm. That would not be a responsible course to follow.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do not ban my blood spitters; I love them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On the other hand, I have some other letters here which I have not had time to go over. It must be said that very strong resolutions have come in on the other side. I have just received one dated June 7, 1948, from the parents-teachers' association of Victoria, British Columbia, which recites the evils of crime comics and certain other publications dealing with crime, sex, and so forth, and which ends with this:
Therefore be it resolved that we approach the civic, provincial and national authorities of Canada to do all in their power to enforce legislation to stop the publication and distribution of such publications.
The conclusion I come to, in the division of expert opinion and because of the great difficulty of drafting legislation that would not be open to serious objections, is that we should not try to deal with this matter this session. I would not feel like sponsoring any
Criminal Code

such legislation now. I should like to see it given further consideration between now and next session. If it can be established that crime comics are having the effect of an inducement to crime and are causing young people to set fires, stab and shoot and grow up into criminals, they ought to be banned entirely, and I would be fully justified in adding such a provision to the present sections of the criminal code, but in the absence of some agreement among those who have had an opportunity of judging this matter I do not consider that I would be justified in introducing legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am certain that everyone who is interested in this matter will appreciate the obviously careful and full consideration which the minister and his officials have given to it, but as he has expressed it as his considered opinion that we should not proceed with direct legislation on the matter at this session, I must express my disappointment that it has not been found possible to draft some amendment to the code to deal with this problem. Since the minister has said that he thinks further consideration should be given to the question, there occurred to me, while he was making his statement, one or two thoughts which I think ought to be before the committee and before the country to help determine a proper course of action.
One of the difficulties which the minister said occurred to him in dealing with this matter by way of legislation was a thought advanced to him-I am not certain whether he said it was by a Royal Canadian Mounted Police official or a psychiatrist-that it would amount to a confession of failure on the part of parents and our educational system to cope with the problem. That may be true, but from all those who have spoken to me and from articles I have read I know that parents and teachers are literally at their wits' end to find a solution. They cannot suggest any way of dealing with it and have found no way of dealing with it, to check the growing tendency toward complete absorption in crime stories on the part of many children. They are powerless to prevent the tremendous circulation of these crime comics and think we should have some legislative means of preventing it in Canada, and we should take appropriate action.
The minister dealt also with the difficulty of drafting legislation which would be sufficiently specific to make prosecution possible and yet not be so wide as to include quite harmless publications. That, I think, could be solved by making the question of whether the publication is exclusively or substantially devoted to the portrayal of crime a question of fact to be determined by a jury. Make it an

offence to devote a publication exclusively or substantially to the portrayal of crime, and then leave it to a jury of citizens of Canada to determine whether in fact the publication does come within the definition laid down in the section. In that way I think the difficulty which the minister had in mind would largely be resolved.
The minister also dealt with the question of enacting legislation which would be applicable to every province in Canada when the majority of requests for such 'legislation have come from only one province. But it would be open to the attorneys general of the various provinces to determine whether they should take definite steps under the legislation. If there was a province in which public opinion felt that action should be taken, presumably the attorney general of that province would see to it that certain prosecutions were laid under the section as amended, and if in another province that was not the state of public opinion there would be no necessity for the attorney general of that province to proceed. The legislation would be available for those provinces that wanted it and those that did not, need not use it.
One other point should be before the committee and the country. The minister dealt with the question whether it was a fact that such publications do conduce to juvenile delinquency and criminal offences on the part of young persons. The minister said he had had referred to him an article by Doctor Wertham printed in the Journal. It is certainly an authoritative article, and cited instances of groups of children who had reenacted in their homes or on the streets scenes which they had seen portrayed in these crime comics. That is a substantial proof that children do try to do the same things they have seen pictured in these crime comics. I would refer the minister to another article in a recent issue of Collier's ; I have not the date of the issue at the moment, but I will supply it to the minister after this discussion is concluded.
After all, this consideration should be borne in mind: we do not hesitate to make it a criminal offence to publish pornographic or obscene literature; yet we do not define specifically in the code whait is pornography or obscenity. We leave that to the criminal courts and to the jury. Therefore all we have to do is to make it a criminal offence to publish magazines which, as the minister suggested in his draft, are "substantially or exclusively devoted" to the portrayal of crime, and then leave it to the criminal courts and the jury to determine whether the publication fits that description.

Floods in British Columbia
In concluding his remarks the minister expressed the belief that it would be necessary to have further discussions and further representations before finally proceeding to draft and enaot legislation dealing with this matter. I certainly hope that the discussion which has taken place in this house tonight and on previous occasions when the matter has been mentioned, will have the result that many representations will be received by the minister, because I am quite certain that when they are received and when the facts which I know will be brought forward by those interested in this matter come to his attention, he will be convinced that it is high time that we did take legislative action to deal with this question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 44-Criminal sexual psychopath.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I suggest two changes in this section and invite members of the committee who are interested in the section to follow this change. I suggest that subsection 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
The evidence as to whether the offender is a criminal sexual psychopath shall not he submitted unless at least seven days' notice has been given by the proper officer of the court to the offender that such evidence will be submitted.
That, I think, completely meets the objections which were raised.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That does away with any consent of the attorney general. It makes it clear that the only evidence the notice must cover is evidence that the accused is a criminal sexual psychopath. It does not leave open any question as to the particularity of the notice; it does not leave it that the notice may cover every statement that has to be made in the evidence or anything like that.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on, will he read the amendment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: . . . unless at least seven days' notice has been given by the proper officer of the court to the offender that such evidence will be submitted.
If that is satisfactory I shall have somebody move the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to be quite clear, the evidence referred to in subsection 4 that the minister is now proposing can be given only by at least two psychiatrists, as set out in subsection 2?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the sole purpose?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, at least two psychiatrists. The other change in the section is in
subsection 8. I suggest that the words "the object of his uncontrollable desires" in lines 15 and 16 be struck out, and the words "any person" substituted therefor.


John George Diefenbaker: How would the section then read?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It would read as follows:
(8) In this section "criminal sexual psychopath" means a person who by a course of misconduct in sexual matters has evidenced a lack of power to control his sexual impulses and who as a result is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury, loss, pain or other evil on any person.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That makes it male and female, anyway. I think it is a good addition.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I ask my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to move the two proposed amendments.


Alphonse Fournier: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the proper time for me to make a few remarks on a matter which is of great importance not only to the province of British Columbia but to this country of Canada, namely, the Fraser river floods. There seems to be a fair amount of misunderstanding in this house and across the country about the nature of the floods, to begin with. High water on all British Columbia streams is an annual occurrence, caused by our heavy snowfall and the ordinary runoff in the spring. As a consequence of that, we have flooding in all our major streams every spring.
That very occurrence of flooding, which causes a rich alluvial deposit, has made the bottom lands and the delta lands extremely valuable farm lands. Therefore we find that the farmers, despite that flooding, have chosen these great lowland areas, and to protect themselves against these floods, have constructed dikes. These dikes are mainly of
Floods in British Columbia

local construction, either constructed privately, by municipalities or by the province. Such ordinary floods, therefore, cannot be classed as any concern of the federal government. They are matters of local concern.
The Fraser river flood this year, however, is a very different matter. There are three factors which have combined to make the flooding of the Fraser river and its system a catastrophe almost unequalled in the history of British Columbia. On all our four principal mountain ranges, the coast range, the Cascades, the Selkirks and the Rockies we had an unusually heavy snowfall. That in itself would have resulted in a very substantial run-off. Secondly, this year we had a very cool slow spring. There was very little warm weather to begin the process of melting snow, so that the river could take an ordinary run-off of this water. Thirdly, three or four weeks ago we had an unusually hot spell of weather, the temperature going to 80, 90 and almost 100 degrees in the interior of British Columbia. Any of these three factors would not have resulted in the floods we have had; but all three of them coming together have resulted in a situation which has not been equalled since 1894. As a consequence of this combination of circumstances, we find that almost the entire Fraser valley, and large portions of the delta area in the riding of New Westminster, are under three, four and five feet of water.
Attempts have been made to apportion the blame around. I do not think blame can be laid to anyone. If ever there was an act of God it is the combination of these three factors happening at one time. It is quite true that if the dikes on the Fraser river had been bigger more land could have been saved. But I am quite sure that if two or three years ago either the local diking commission, the municipalities affected, or the provincial government had told the farmers that they were going to build another six feet upon the present dikes the farmers would have protested most strongly. They would have said it was unwarranted, that the present diking taxes were too high anyhow, and they could have asked where the extra money was to come from. The old-timers, who have been there for fifty years, would have said the new height was unnecessary because they had never seen the water that high, which would have been true.
There has been the charge, too, that this unusual run-off was the result of heavy logging. I do not think that can be borne out. On the coast of British Columbia itself many of our smaller streams do have

a very fast run-off in the spring because the mountain sides have been denuded of trees by heavy logging, but that is not true of the great inland tributaries of the Fraser where there has been little logging.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank)-he is out in the Fraser valley -in his eight years in parliament has repeatedly drawn attention to two or three factors where the federal government has some responsibility as far as the Fraser river is concerned. In the first place, he has repeatedly called the attention of the house and especially of the Minister of Public Works, to the necessity of a large-scale program of dredging in the lower stretches of the Fraser river. The Fraser river is an exceedingly long stream. It is 800 miles long, with thousands of miles of tributaries, but it is only in the last 100 miles that it is navigable in the ordinary sense, where it pours through the Fraser river canyon at Hope and suddenly opens out into the Fraser valley, and further down into the delta of the Fraser river.
The river in the olden days was navigable as far as Yale, but in recent years what little dredging has been done by the federal government has been done only in the lower stretch between the sea and the city of New Westminster. The upper fifty miles, where the flooding is so bad, has been almost untouched by dredges.
The Fraser river is fed by glacial streams. The glaciers grind off a fine rock powder which forms glacial mud in the streams, and this is carried down the river. When the speed of the river slackens in the lower valley this silt or sand begins depositing on the river bottom. The dikes so far have been built by using earth off the farms, and the same situation has been developing there as has developed in the Mississippi valley.
The dikes on land are built higher and higher; the river keeps piling up silt on the river bottom, and finally we get a situation where the river is higher than the surrounding land.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley has pointed out on several occasions that the obvious way to build dikes is not to use land from farm lands but to send a dredge up the centre of the river channel, deepening the channel and using that material to build dikes on the sides. Certainly I would suggest that any program of rehabilitation of the lower stretch of the Fraser river must include such work.
I can tell the minister that if the Fraser river had the same amount of money spent on dredging it as has been spent on the

Floods in British Columbia
St. Lawrence, I am quite sure that the people out there would rest more easily at night. The channel being deepened and the material dredged being piled on the sides, the dikes could be constructed without the use of earth from farm lands.
Two years ago the hon. member for Fraser Valley raised another point with reference to the Canadian Pacific railway. There is a railway bridge crossing the river at the town of Mission, and he charged that the Canadian Pacific were dumping stones over the bridge to protect the abutments and the bridge piers against spring flooding. The hon. member for Fraser Valley pointed out, as did the engineers, that such a course was wrong, because any additional obstruction in the river, such as these rocks, meant a backing up of water and the additional silting of the stream, with a resultant increase in deposit in the river bed.
The wise thing was to dredge the centre channel deeper to let the river run there rather than to build up obstructions which aggravated the conditions, and how right the hon. member was has been proved by the fact that the bridge was carried away and that the worst of the flooding occurred just above the Mission bridge, in the Matsqui and Hatzic areas.
A third point the hon. member raised about four weeks ago in this house was the matter of the two railways escaping their rightful responsibility as far as these dikes were concerned. The dikes are paid for by a substantial tax levied on all farmers who are protected by these dikes, but both the Canadian National Railways-our railway-and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have avoided the payment of the tax. They have declined to pay any diking tax despite the fact that their lines run behind the dikes.
Both railways claimed that their lines were above the flood level. Today, however, we see that both railways are cut off, and the current estimate is that it will cost the Canadian National Railways 87,000,000 to replace their line of railway through the flooded area, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is faced with an expenditure of at least 81,000,000. If any evidence were needed as to whether these lines are above or below the flood level, hon. members need only go into the reading room in this house and look at the Vancouver newspapers, and they will see many pictures of railway lines in the flooded area that will convince them.
The government has a responsibility henceforth, at least so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned, to see that our railway system pays its fair share of the diking tax.
Having said these things, I wish, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, to say a word of strong commendation of the very fine way in which the federal agencies in British Columbia pitched into the battle. The army, the air force and the navy, all three services, have done a magnificent job which has won the admiration of all the people of British Columbia. Each has been excellent in its own way. It shows clearly to some people, who were very much against military establishments, the value to a country, even in peacetime, of having a well disciplined, well organized establishment, with first-class machinery at its command.
The way in which the navy, from Esquimalt, went up the river with all ships it could muster for the relief of the people, to remove them and their livestock, and to help in building up the dikes; the way in which the army and the reserve army did their bit; the contribution which the air force made in flying sandbags and relief supplies for the people of the flooded areas, have filled the people of British Columbia with admiration. They are extremely proud of our armed services, and I am quite sure that, in the years which lie ahead, many people, remembering this, will advocate the maintenance of such services for internal emergencies as well as in any external crisis which may arise during war.
The public works engineers centred in New Westminster, under the district engineer, Mr. Morton, have rendered an exceptional service. They had the engineering know-how, and, more than that, they have had fortunately a fair amount of equipment. The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned the great services rendered by the civilians. There were some days during which 25,000 civilians from Vancouver were on the scene doing all they could, filling sandbags, and doing their best to help their farmer neighbours who were in such distress.
The people of British Columbia have been exceedingly pleased with the immediate offer of assistance made by the government through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The offer to share in immediate relief costs, 50 per cent by the federal government and 50 per cent by the provincial government, was most gratifying. Better still was the offer of 75 per cent federal to 25 per cent provincial in the building of new and proper dikes and pumping systems.
This flood has taught the people of British Columbia one lesson, namely, that the only good dikes are dikes of the type built in Holland-a broad dike with a double roadbed on top. These are the British Columbia dikes that held best because, when the breaks
Floods in British Columbia

occurred, trucks loaded with rock and sandbags can cross in a never-ending stream, whereas, in the case of dikes constructed with a single roadbed, traffic is impeded and cannot flow over in the same way. On the small dikes it was necessary to employ a system somewhat after the fashion of the Chinese coolie method, whereby individual men carried sandbags on their backs.
In the end, it will be necessary, so far as the 200 miles of dikes are concerned, to construct broad dikes with a gravel roadbed on top.
The next part of this question to which I wish now to call the attention of the house refers to the statements which the Prime Minister made on June 9, in which there appear these words:
The costs of rehabilitating the areas affected by the floods to be settled by subsequent agreement between the two governments . . .
The peak of the flood is over and the question of temporary repairs will soon be settled. The question of long-range planning of new dikes and controls and building them need only be finished by flood time next year, but the third point is an important one, that is to say, the point of re-establishing on the farms of the Fraser valley as soon as possible those farmers who have been displaced by the flood.
Immediate announcement of such a program would do a great deal for the morale of the farmers. Most of the farms were established by the present owners or by their fathers or grandfathers as a result of great effort. The land in British Columbia is not easily cleared, and in two or three nights the farmers there saw the work of thirty, forty or fifty years swept away. They are now housed in quarters provided by the Red Cross in New Westminster and Vancouver, and they are wondering how and when they will get back to their farms and, above all, how in the world they will face the coming year.
At the moment the estimate of the loss in crop this year is $25,000,000. The main crops-strawberries and raspberries, about which this house has so often heard from the hon. member for Fraser Valley-are almost completely lost. Hay and grain, vegetable crops are destroyed, and livestock have been lost or dispersed. Valuable equipment including barns, machinery, houses and so on, have been completely ruined by the flood.
Some program must be worked out eventually, and it would be well if an announcement could be made without delay as to what the farmers can expect in immediate financial and material aid. There must be planning in order to get the farmers back on the land; what crops are still possible this year. There must be assistance to the farmers so far as their

cattle are concerned, because the Fraser valley, as well as being the great berry district of British Columbia, is also a great dairy section.
Provision should also be made for feed grain for their cattle and poultry over the winter. I think an immediate announcement of such a program would do a great deal to restore the morale of the farmers. I also think the implementation of such a program will save us a great deal of money in the end, because if we can put these farmers back immediately with enough financial assistance to carry themselves with one crop for this winter, they will be that much more ahead, and then our program of relief for the wintertime will be so much less.
The question of the control of the river by dams is, I believe, one that has been mentioned in the house. In this connection it is interesting to notice the effect of dams on the Columbia river. As most hon. members know, the Columbia river starts in British Columbia, goes around the big bend and then winds up in the United States, flowing between the states of Washington and Oregon. Two of the three biggest dams in the world are on the United States part of the Columbia system, namely, the Grand Coulee dam and the Bonneville dam. Yet, despite those tremendous dams, it was impossible in any way to check this tremendous flood down the Columbia river. Actually the losses on the lower part of the Columbia river were even greater than they were on the lower part of the Fraser river. It is perhaps questionable whether any effective system of flood control in the Fraser river watershed could be devised which would completely control such an unusual combination of circumstances as were met with this year. Undoubtedly such a system of dams would help a great deal in relieving the effect of ordinary spring freshets which we have every year, and in reducing even our present flood damage to a minimum.
This country has done so much for the distressed people of Europe that I think the people of Canada expect the federal government and the government of British Columbia to do just as much, if not more, for these Canadian farmers who have had such devastation wreaked on them so quickly. I would suggest to the government that this third part of the program announced by the Prime Minister, the actual financial details of what aid is to be provided and how it is to be provided, should be announced as quickly as possible. I say that should be done, not only to reassure the farmers of the Fraser valley but also to reassure the people of Canada.
In this afternoon's mail I had an interesting example of just what this means to those

Floods in British Columbia
people of Canada who are outside the flood area. I have a pulp and paper town in my riding, Powell River, 100 miles north of the Fraser valley, whose people are as far removed from the farmers of the Fraser valley in every way as any city dwellers. Nevertheless the union there, 1,500 strong, had a meeting; and at that meeting they, first of all, put their own house in order by voting one day's pay from every man to the Red Cross for relief. That is a substantial sum, running from $8 to $20 a man. Having thus established their right to speak about financial aid, they put themselves right behind this threefold program. First of all, they said, the important thing is to re-establish the farmers. Second, they have a suggestion, which the income tax department can review, that the farmers' income tax for this year be waived. They say they have enough troubles without being bedevilled by the income tax people. However, I imagine most of them have already paid their income taxes. Third, they ask for this long-range program of proper diking and flood control.
Hon. members, too, have shown the greatest interest. I am sure that every British Columbia member-and I know at times we are rather obstreperous about our problems-has been very grateful of the way in which hon. members from every part of Canada have evidenced great interest in this unusual disaster which has befallen the richest and most lush farm land in British Columbia.
So I will close by again urging that the third part of the program announced by the Prime Minister on June 9 be immediately implemented and the farmers of the country be told quite clearly what program of re-establishment and rehabilitation is to be commenced by the two governments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the house has listened with the greatest of interest and appreciation to the illuminating and constructive address just given by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair). It was illuminating in that it dealt with the circumstances of the flood this year, and it was constructive in the steps which he has suggested to the government that they might well take to re-establish the farmers of British Columbia and of the Fraser valley area.
However, certain matters were not covered by him. In addition to the points mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver North, there are certain questions on which I think the people of that province would like to hear a statement from the government. First, they would like to know whether the relief to be afforded by the federal government will be
extended to the portions of the province which have been seriously damaged, but which do not lie in the Fraser river delta. This question was not covered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the statement which he made on June 9, which was referred to by the hon. member who has just spoken. The Prime Minister's statement covered exclusively relief and rehabilitation in the Fraser river valley. When I asked him whether the same principles would apply to the rest of the province at the other points which have been damaged he said, as reported at page 4936 of Hansard:
My statement relates to floods in the Fraser river valley only.
Then I asked him whether discussions were under way or whether they had been held with respect to damage occasioned in other areas. He replied that other areas had been considered and that "matters with respect to them are still open." So that the people in the interior of the province, from my own constituency in the valleys of the Thompson rivers, in the Nicola valley, at Lillooet on the upper Fraser as well as in the Kootenay districts and the towns of Kimberley and Trail and to some extent also at Revelstoke where damage has been occasioned or is imminent, would very much like to know immediately whether the same terms for the prevention of floods or damage in the immediate future, the rehabilitation of the flood works and especially relief and compensation for damage suffered will be extended to those other areas of the province as are now being applied in the Fraser river valley. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member who has just spoken when he says that point three of the Prime Minister's statement, the relief and compensation to be provided, should be the subject of an announcement in the immediate future. But I urge that the rest of the province is entitled to this same full consideration and is entitled to know the details of that consideration in the same measure as received by those in the Fraser river delta.
The other point on which the people of our province would like to have some assurance relates to what is, as the hon. member for Vancouver North pointed out, a less immediate problem, but it is still one of some urgency. They would like to know what steps the federal government will take in conjunction with the provincial authorities to prevent the repetition of such disasters in the future. The hon. member for Vancouver North has, I will not say belittled the construction of dams, but he has said that their construction would not prevent floods, and he has cited the two dams on the Columbia river. I agree with him that the construction of dams alone, well
Floods in British Columbia

down on the river's course as those dams are, certainly will not prevent such unusual floods as we have had this year. But I suggest that a program of construction of dams back at the head waters of the rivers, many of which rise in lakes where the raising of the level of the water by only a few feet would dam off a vast body of water, would go a long way toward preventing this sudden run-off with its disastrous consequences, such as we have had this year. I think some such program must be undertaken in British Columbia. I would call to the attention of the house the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported in today's press to have spoken in Saskatchewan in glowing terms of the enormous dam which is to be constructed with federal funds on the Saskatchewan river. We in British Columbia for some years now have been asking that the same terms and the same treatment be extended to our province as is given to the prairies by the federal government under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act or any other agency and as is now being given in a slightly different manner, but in the same general program, to the maritime provinces. We would like to have the assurance which the minister has just given to the people of Saskatchewan that federal funds will be provided for flood control and similar projects in our province and on the same scale as they are being given there.
I say those two points, in addition to the point covered by the hon. member for Vancouver North, should be included in any statement which is made by the government and which, with him, I hope will be made in the very near future.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to discuss the subject which has been raised, except to say that I could not agree more with anyone than I do with the two British Columbia members who have just preceded me this evening. I am not even going to make a plea for the town of Drumheller in Alberta, which was flooded out, or the town of Emerson, Manitoba. What has happened in British Columbia has assumed the proportions of a national disaster, and Canada must take its full responsibility, having regard to the proportions to which that disaster has attained.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in what I am now about to say I shall not waste the time of the house. I had intended saying this when the estimates of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) were before the committee. However I have decided not to wait until that time, first, because I do not know when those estimates will be before the

committee, and for the additional reason that the minister is now in the house.
I intend to discuss the problem of housing -and I do not want you, sir, to be shocked for one moment. I am not going to talk about any general policy of housing in Canada. Rather I am going to talk about the matter of housing for members of parliament who do not live in Ottawa. Some of us come from quite some distance. I know my own personal experience has been that for two years my wife and I lived in a hotel bedroom. Even with your wife, there is not much room to circulate when you have only one room. I did not have two rooms, because I could not pay for two.
Last year I was in an apartment block. We paid $165 a month for two bedrooms and a sitting room, without a kitchen. This year, after much chasing about, and after my having paid $50 for breach of contract with respect to one place which-


Mr. BRYCE:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member is speaking on a subject not related to flooding. If anyone now attempts to speak about the flood conditions will Your Honour rule that he has no right to speak on that subject, now that a new subject has been introduced?


James Horace King: I must call the attention of the house to citation 345 in Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair, without any amendment being proposed, but once-
And I call the attention of hon. members to this:
*-debate is stopped on one matter, and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
That is the rule.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I do what I can to rectify the matter, so as to permit the hon. member to proceed?


James Sinclair: Go on.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not mean to hold anyone back.


William Scottie Bryce: I am only protecting any hon. member who might wish to speak about the flood conditions, because I know from reading Beauchesne that under the rules they would not have the right to speak.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has unanimous consent, then, of course, he can be permitted to go ahead.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.

Housing Accommodation for Members


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I shall detain the house for only a very few minutes longer. I am not suggesting for one moment the expenditure of money of the Dominion of Canada for the financial benefit of members of the House of Commons. What I am proposing is this, that the scheme should be completely self-liquidating. My suggestion is -it is definitely and seriously made; and it may not help some of us older fellows; that is perfectly true-that we should have some housing, without all this nonsense which we have to go through when we come here to Ottawa. We should be charged rentals sufficient to carry the thing, and to liquidate it over a period of years.
I know this cannot be done at once. My thought is this: why can we not begin with one block of flats? For example, a man and his wife would want two bedrooms, a kitchenette and a living room, and that is all. Let us pay for it for the months we are not here, if necessary. But sir, with the greatest respect I do say that those of us who come from distances and who bring our wives with us require accommodation. For example, this year with a stroke of good luck I have a small house. I should say the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) got it, and our two families are sharing it. I admit I could not have better joint tenants in the world than these two people.
But to my mind it is just complete nonsense to ask us to come here without accommodation-and, of course, nobody asked us. We ran elections, and then we had to come. I do not mind admitting that before I came here in January I sold the house in which I had lived for something more than twenty years. I had to do that. W7hy? I could not close it up; if I had, the newspapers would have been full of letters saying that, in view of the housing shortage, for closing my house I should be hanged, drawn and quartered at dawn. And probably that would be right.
I had rented the house. But, even in the case of renting it to friends, those friends had children, and some of the furniture which probably we were proud of-well, it came out second best in the struggle.
I do not want this laughed off, because it is a suggestion well worth consideration. We could experiment, anyway. Let us, for example, consider some of the members whose wives are not here. Why not give them a place where they could have single rooms, baths and kitchenettes. Make them pay for that accommodation. But let us have a place here where we can anchor.
Has anyone ever thought about those of us who come from distances; have they thought
about what we have to do? We have to move all sorts of truck back and forth. There is no place where we can store it-unless we place it in storage. Sometimes we do that. I am not talking about the money angle of the matter; I am talking about the bother.
We are now sitting in Ottawa for about six months each year. We are now all rushing to see if we can get accommodation on the trains to go home. I have tried to get accommodation for the 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th- accommodation for myself on the main line trains.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Try the air lines.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am unlike the minister, because I hate flying. He loves it, because he gets a degree at the end of every trip he takes. So he ought to love it. But, so far as flying is concerned, with me flying is out. I came east twice on big planes. But I started that too late in life, because when the plane went down I lifted it up; when it rolled this way I pushed it back that way. I was never so busy in my life, never worked so hard-and I had to cancel all my appointments next day.
I admit I am a coward-but I am through with flying. I will not do it any more. It is all right for young fellows like the minister- particularly with the rewards he gets at the end of each trip. So, that will do, so far as the flying part of it is concerned.
I now close with this simple statement. I think there are many hon. members who come short distances who would like single rooms where they could leave their baggage if there was an Easter holiday. Then they would not have to give up their rooms in the hotels. But certainly those of us who come from long distances are entitled to something which would not cost the people of Canada a cent. Every time we get a little raise in pay, which incidentally does not even compare with the rise in the cost of living; every time we get anything of that sort there is a holler. So far as I am concerned, let them holler. But they would have no holler, because I would charge sufficient money that there would not be a burden of one five-cent piece upon the treasury of the Dominion of Canada.
I do not suggest that the minister can do a great deal this year, but he can give my suggestion consideration and let us have his well considered views when his estimates come up. If he does not do that when he comes to bat before this House of Commons I am going to start recruiting around here to see what we can do to give him a rough ride.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker. I was quite

Housing Accommodation for Members
surprised at this new idea advanced by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith).


James Sinclair: They do it in Washington.


Alphonse Fournier: They may.
There is something in what the hon. gentleman says about the government providing housing for members of parliament. The hon. gentleman says that when he comes from afar to Ottawa he has trouble in finding a flat or an apartment or a house. That condition exists all over the country, not only for members of parliament. There are a lot of other people who complain, and perhaps with reason.
AVhy the hon. member undertook to ask me to put up houses for members of parliament I do not know. We have never had any such problem to handle in my department. Perhaps it is a question that could be studied by the architects in the department, and then perhaps we could get a consensus of the members of the House of Commons to see how many would agree to that suggestion. I do not know whether a majority would want to be directed to lodgings when they come to Ottawa. They would hardly have a choice if it was to be a compulsory system. If it is to be on a voluntary basis, then we would want to know whether we could rent these houses to other people or whether the members of parliament would be segregated. We would have to make quite a study of this new idea.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was
referring to flats, not houses.


Alphonse Fournier: Apartments or flats. However I was drawn into the discussion and I shall consider it. The hon. member has directed his suggestion to the Minister of Public Works and has said that if it is not considered seriously my estimates will get a ride. I am always ready to be ridden, if that is what he means.
I do not know whether he has addressed his remarks to the right minister. There has been a lot of housing under government control since the war and I have not touched any of it. Perhaps the suggestion should have been addressed to another minister, but it may be that the hon. member has made so many suggestions to that minister that he feels it is time for a change. However I am going to consider his suggestion, and anything he wishes to ask me when my estimates are up I shall do my best to answer.


Mr. ROWE:: He thinks you may be able to build better houses than the other minister.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull)': He has been building some pretty good houses.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are acquainted with him and I hope you will let him know about what you and I have said.


Alphonse Fournier: I never thought the hon. member was so bashful.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to express my support of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) in connection with the flood disasters in certain parts of British Columbia. I agree with his suggestion in respect to the necessity for immediate relief and also for long-range planning to remedy this situation in the future. The hon. member described most accurately the causes of this flooding in British Columbia. The same causes have produced previous floods on the Columbia river. In 1894 we had a flood identical with the one this year and from the same causes. In that year there existed at the headwaters of the Fraser and Columbia the same causes as exist today, heavy snowfalls and sudden hot weather.
We have been more fortunate in my constituency up to date than they have in the Fraser valley, but considerable damage has been done with farm lands and industrial sites flooded. The main point of danger has been the 'lower portion of the city of Trail and East Trail, where several blocks in the business area have been flooded and where a number of houses in the area along the riverbank have been flooded. Through the excellent co-operation between the city of Trail, the reserve army and other organizations in the community, along with that of all the people, young, middle-aged and old, they have been successful in building sandbag dikes to hold the river back and prevent a major catastrophe.
In this connection the people of my constituency, particularly the people of Trail, wish me to express their appreciation of the assistance that has been given to date by various federal agencies, other communities and particularly the Royal Canadian Air Force which flew in urgently needed sand bags. I rise at this time to make two points. I agree with the necessity for immediate federal and provincial assistance to those who have suffered in the Fraser river area.
The point I wish to make is this. As a result of the announced policy of the government to consider the Fraser valley disaster a national disaster, there may be a tendency in some quarters to run to the federal government to ask for assistance for every small unfortunate happening throughout Canada. We should try to keep our perspective. We should formu-

Floods in British Columbia
late and support a policy that defines a national disaster as a disaster which is beyond the capacity of the province concerned to meet adequately in so far as the expenses of immediate assistance are concerned.
I support the action of the federal government in declaring the Fraser valley floods to be a national disaster, but I do hope that, as a result of that declaration, every village or community will not be pressing upon this government their difficulties as a national disaster. I know our people have enough spirit; I certainly know they have in the riding I have the honour to represent, to meet minor difficulties. I have received letters pointing out the co-operation by all classes and ages and elements in the community. I am informed it has been an inspiration to watch these people fighting together a common danger, the rising waters of the Columbia river.
I am sure that, where difficulties arise on a lesser scale than what should be considered a national disaster, our people have enough spirit, enough spunk and enough local cohesion to mend their own fences. Now that the federal government has declared the Fraser valley disaster a national disaster, I hope that every isolated farm which is flooded will not be brought to the attention of the federal government as a national disaster. That is all I have to say with regard to immediate assistance.
Long-range planning of the type mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver North to control these floods and to provide for the conservation of these waters is, I think, a matter that comes under federal jurisdiction to the extent that the federal government and the provinces must combine to work out a long-range solution for the control of these flood waters. So far as the Columbia is concerned, as the hon. member for Vancouver North has mentioned there are two of the largest dams in the world on that river. At the present time a joint board of engineers working under the direction of the joint international commission is making a survey of the river, both in the United States and in Canada, both in the United States section and in the Canadian section there is a survey of that river proceeding with regard to building secondary dams to hold back the flood waters in the mountains, and major dams on the main portion of the river for the purpose of conserving those waters both for the development of power and for irrigation. In that respect the problem is to a great extent a national problem.
I do think, Mr. Speaker, that out of this flood disaster on the Fraser river and the near
disaster on the Columbia river we can derive some inspiration to work together and solve this problem jointly as between federal and provincial governments; federal, provincial and local authorities co-operating together to harness the powers of nature, so that they will not in future be a menace but will serve mankind to great advantage.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) for bringing up this subject tonight and for the able manner in which he laid the whole picture before the house. As one who was out in British Columbia during the flood and flew over the district three times at a low altitude, I can say it has to be seen to be realized how great the catastrophe is. I thought, after the speech by the hon. member for Vancouver North, we might have had some statement from one of the ministers regarding what is going to be done. The waters are beginning to recede, it is true, but the great task of rehabilitation lies before that whole country, and as one coming from that country I would like the ministry to be good enough to tell the house what steps are being taken by the dominion government, in co-operation with the provincial government, in the matter of rehabilitation.
I know that many statements were made during the flood, and many wild statements, too, as to the reasons for the disaster. Perhaps I can give the house an idea of the seriousness of the situation by describing what took place at Hell's Gate canyon. That is where the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries built their fisheries. Three weeks ago the floor of it was dry. The fisheries are sixty feet high. Inside of eleven days the water rose 128 feet in the canyon and swept away the suspension bridge and all the little buildings around it. When one listened to the suggestions made to keep the flood waters back one realized that those who made those suggestions had no conception whatsoever of the great and sudden rise that had taken place in the Fraser river waters.
Hundreds of people have been driven from their homes and, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver North, they are wondering what is to be done. Many of them will not be able to go back to their places for months. It will take time for the waters to recede, and there are districts where the water will have to be pumped out back into the Fraser river.
I was hoping that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) or some other minister would tell the house and the country what
Floods in British Columbia

governmental committees have been set up. There have been many volunteer committees set up, and I want to commend the wonderful spirit shown by thousands of our citizens who not only gave of their time and labour but contributed to their utmost as well.
We look to the future and ask what is to be done. I am one of those who believe it might be advisable to set up a large committee consisting of dominion and provincial representatives, and that an office should be built somewhere in the valley where those who have been flooded out and lost their all can go and find out just what will be done for them. The task is a gigantic one, but a great deal can be done to pacify the people there if definite rather than vague statements are made as to what will be done. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works or some other minister to tell the house and the country what steps have already been taken. We know that one or two officials are in charge, but we are in the dark as to what plan has been formulated, not for the construction of dikes for that will come later, but as to the setting up of a strong committee and the announcement of a plan as to what those who have lost their all may expect in the way of rehabilitation.
May I indicate to the house what may happen and has happened without proper direction. In one part of the valley where the water started to recede one farmer said, "I want seed. I have no money and I have nothing in the bank." He was told, "We have no money for seed but we have for feed." And they haggled for several days over whether he should have feed or seed. Things like that cause a great deal of unrest and discontent, when we have hundreds of people who have lost everything they have. We should stop haggling with a man as to whether he should have feed or seed. The thing to do is to rehabilitate him in the best manner possible.
I trust that the government, if not tonight, will make an announcement shortly, so that many hundreds who have lost their all will have new courage given to them, knowing they are to be helped to re-establish themselves on their property and in the homes in which they have lived for many long years.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I have no thought of prolonging this debate, but, as a member from British Columbia and speaking on behalf of the C.C.F. group with which I am associated, I wish to say I concur in everything that has been said by hon. members from British Columbia with regard to the flood conditions in that province. When this matter was first brought before the house by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), the

country generally had no conception of the magnitude to which this disaster would grow. It was bad enough at the very beginning, but, as the days have followed one after the other, the disaster has assumed staggering proportions.
I for one feel that the debate which has gone on in the house during this session in regard to flood conditions in British Columbia has had a tremendously good effect upon the country. It has brought us a sense of national unity, indicating that we are not just a few provinces set apart from each other, but are closely united. Our interests are common interests. Secondly, the people of the east, are, I know, sympathetic in their hearts. They are just as anxious that the government shall do something for the flood victims of British Columbia as we from the west are ourselves.
I want to concur in what was said by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), that we who represent interior constituencies are deeply concerned at the differentiation which has been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The commission which has been set up has been named the Fraser river rehabilitation commission. In response to a specific question, the Prime Minister gave a specific answer that the measures and the agreement entered into so far with the province referred to that particular area only.
Since I spoke last in the house on this question, another large area of my constituency has been heavily inundated. I refer to what is known as the Creston flats. Where the Kootenay river flows into and forms the Kootenay lakes, many thousands of acres have been inundated and are still inundated tonight owing to the collapse of the dikes in that area. While I agree in the main with what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), that the line will have to be drawn somewhere-certainly we do not think that when any farmer's backyard happens to be flooded he should fly to the federal government and seek aid-in areas such as this where dikes have gone, where people have lost homes and crops, where they have lost their living, even when the waters have receded many of them will be too poor to go back. They have nothing to which they can go back. Therefore I for one concur in the remarks which have been made that the time is now ripe for the government to make some statement which will bring relief and some peace to the anxious minds of the people who are homeless and who have lost their all.

Seamen's Strike
It is true that the Fraser valley area is of tremendous importance to the economy of British Columbia. When one visits the great city of Vancouver and realizes how it relies for its food, for its milk, for its butter, for its eggs, and for its poultry upon that great area of the Fraser valley, he knows that these people have received a tremendous blow from which it will take them a long time to recover. What we are chiefly concerned about is not so much what has happened but what will be done in the future to prevent at any time a repetition of this disaster, because one never knows what nature will do in the mountainous areas of British Columbia. And given conditions such as we have had this spring, unless adequate steps are taken to prevent it, we can have just such a disaster again in the course of a very few years. That is the one thing we are anxious to avoid.
If a national survey had been taken in previous years, and a policy of flood control had been put into operation, it would not have cost anything near the same amount of money that this will cost the Dominion of Canada, whether provincially or federally. Therefore we are most anxious to see, not only that the damage shall be repaired just as soon as possible and the people rehabilitated, but that the government shall take a long-range view of the needs of that whole area in British Columbia to ensure that the best engineering minds are brought into the question and that adequate steps are taken to prevent a repetition of these events.
There are several other members from British Columbia whose constituencies have suffered considerably from flood damage. They may not all feel like speaking tonight and participating in this debate, but they, too, are wondering what will happen to their people.
I want to commend once again, as I have already done in the house, the action of the government and especially the Department of National Defence in the splendid efforts that have been put forth by all branches of the service. We also appreciate to the full what the civilian population has done. They have not just sat idly by and expected someone else to do the job for them. Many of them have toiled unceasingly to save not only their own homes but the homes of others. Mention has been made in the house tonight in appreciative terms of what the civilian population has done; but we do hope that in the very near future the Prime Minister will make a statement that will bring relief to the minds of those who are so bitterly distressed while we are gathered here discussing this matter, a statement of what the government is prepared to do by way of immediate rehabilitation.
seamen's STRIKE ON INLAND WATERS-REQUEST FOR ABOLITION OF TOLLS ON VICTORLA AND JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGES


Angus MacInnis: I am not going to try to add to the excellent statements which have been made by hon. members of all parties in regard to the disaster that has befallen British Columbia. There is complete unanimity among the members as to the extent of the damage and what should be done both in the short-term and long-term program. I did not rise until now, because I want to speak on another subject. I have made sure that no other member from British Columbia is anxious to speak on the flood situation.
This morning on the orders of the day I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) in regard to a serious labour dispute which exists close to this city, and which has been going on for some considerable time. I refer to the seamen's strike in which the Minister of Labour and his department have done some very active work. He brushed my question aside in a most frivolous manner. I gather from what the Minister of Labour said this morning that if certain employers and the Minister of Labour do not like the political affiliations of members of a trade union they are not going to receive the advantages which they should receive and which are available, by the law of the land, to all other organized workers when engaged in labour disputes. Certain employers' organizations can ignore and1 defy these laws if they do it on the basis of the political affiliations of the labour organizations they are dealing with. If they do it on that basis, then it is all right as far as the Minister of Labour is concerned. I think that is a dangerous position to take. What is required in the seamen's strike is that publicity be given to the facts. Let the people know exactly what is the cause of the strike, and that is what I am going to do tonight. In doing so, I shall use government documents to show what the situation really is.
Speaking during the Ontario election campaign in the constituency of Welland, the Minister of Labour said, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star:
I am a great believer in conciliation and I don't believe you can settle labour disputes by putting people in jail.
But that is exactly the way in which this particular labour dispute is being settled.
In the matter of the dispute between the seamen's union and Colonial Steamships Limited and Sarnia Steamships Limited, the Minister of Labour appointed a conciliator. The conciliator was not able to do anything,
Seamen's Strike

because the company completely ignored him. Then a commission was appointed, consisting of J. D. McNish and Leonard W. Brockington. Mr. Brockington is a particularly outstanding conciliator who has been used by the Department of Labour on various occasions. Indeed, when the standing parliamentary committee on industrial relations wanted someone to conciliate the steel strike in 1946, Mr. Brockington was asked to do it. I have the report submitted by the commissioners to the Minister of Labour and dated April 15, 1948. I shall read from it as briefly as I can. I quote:
The conciliation board has sent a number of notices advising the parties of meetings in Toronto on the 22nd of March and on the 30th of March.
Therefore you see, Mr. Speaker, this is a long-standing dispute. I continue:
Although representatives of the employees attended the meetings so arranged, the board's invitation to the employers received neither the courtesy of an acknowledment nor the co-operation of an attendance.
In order to try to get over the objection of the owners to the officials of the union because of their alleged communist affiliation, the commissioners urged the officers of the union to allow other parties to negotiate the agreement and become responsible for the signing and the carrying out of the agreement. The union officials agreed, but, as can well be understood, with misgivings, because they wanted an agreement.
The following special negotiating committee was appointed: Percy R. Bengough, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; William Jenovese, vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and president of the Toronto district trades and labour council; John W. Buckley, secretary of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
The companies were then advised that these well known labour leaders were willing to negotiate any agreement on behalf of the seamen's union. Mr. Bengough, it was found later on, could not attend, and Mr. Russell Harvey, who, I believe, is a member of the typographical union, or some union associated with the typographical union in Toronto, took his place. The commissioners say:
Your commissioners called a meeting of the interested parties in Toronto on Monday, April 12. It was attended by representatives of the seamen's union and by Mr. Frank Wilkinson, K.C., and one of his legal associates on behalf of the companies. The companies' representatives were without instructions. At the request of the board they communicated with their clients. The chairman of the board was advised by Mr. Wilkinson that the attitude of the companies towards your commissioners was the same as their attitude towards the conciliation board.

That is, they ignored the commissioners in the same way as they ignored the conciliation board. The report then goes on:
In the year 1947 a number of disputes arose between these companies and the union.
That is, between the shipping companies.
A board of arbitration was set up in accordance with the provisions of the agreement of 1946. The award of the board was not accepted by the companies after the companies had failed to appoint an arbitrator in accordance with their agreement.
Then further on:
After the government's intervention, and as a part of the settlement publicly announced, the companies made a promise that if a vote were taken amongst their employees and found to be favourable to the Canadian seamen's union the companies would negotiate an agreement for the year 1948.
Then steps were taken to take a vote, as required by the labour laws of Canada. This is the result of the vote. The ballot read:
Do you desire the Canadian seamen's union to act as your representative for the purpose of negotiating a collective agreement with your employer for the 1948 navigation season?
This is the result of the vote for the employees of the two companies, the Sarnia Steamship company first, and Colonial Steamships second:
	Sarnia Colonial	
	Steam-	Steam-
	ships	ships
Number of eligible voters..	176	178Number of votes east 	159	169Number of voting "yes" ....	143	154Number of voting "no" ....	9	13Number of spoiled ballots ..	7	2
It will appear from this that the Canadian seamen's union was accepted by the employees on a government-supervised vote, on the part of the Sarnia Steamship company, of 143 for and 9 against, and on the part of the Colonial Steamship company, of 154 for and 13 against.
Surely a vote of that kind is sufficient indication of what the employees wanted. After that, the companies, which had promised that if the vote were taken and if it favoured the seamen's union they would accept it, as soon as the vote was taken refused to accept it. This is what the commissioners have to say in that regard:
It is apparent that the companies have ignored the meetings of the conciliation board appointed this year and have declined either to meet their men or to attempt conciliation and negotiate by using the services of the former board or of the present commissioners. Such conduct is an open breach of their agreement with the union dated September, 1946,-
Note this:
-of the provisions of P.C. 1003, and of their undertaking made with the government of Sep-

Seamen's Strike
tember, 1947. By their action and inaction the companies have also broken the admirable, long established, and beneficial practice by which Canadian employees and employers sit down together around a table in an attempt to settle their difficulties.
Surely there never was a greater condemnation of a company than you have here by two responsible commissioners [DOT]appointed by the government. Yet the Minister of Labour, when the unco-operative attitude of the employers is drawn to his attention, brushes it aside, because he happened to be heckled at a meeting, and will not have anything to do with it.
If there is anything more disgraceful than the action of the companies it is the action of the Minister of Labour. I am not quite through with what this report has to say. I quote:
Your commissioners also have reason to believe that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada would be willing to adopt the somewhat unusual procedure of entering into an agreement with 'the companies on behalf of this union, which is chartered to the trades and labour congress, it being understood of course, that if the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada did so sign an agreement on their behalf the union's bargaining rights would be specifically preserved.
While the companies admit that they have signed an agreement with a rival union-
This is the rival union, a union that has no standing whatsoever according to the labour legislation of Canada.
-no copy of such an agreement has been filed with the department, and no bargaining rights have been granted by the national labour relations board to any organization other than the Canadian seamen's union.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I
notice that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is not in the house. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) a minute ago used the word "disgraceful." I would refer him to Beauchesne, second edition-


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, might I intervene? If you object, I withdraw the word.


William Ross Macdonald: I felt that I should intervene because the minister is not here.


Angus MacInnis: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I was pointing out that the Canadian seamen's union is the bargaining agency according to the laws of the Dominion of Canada as administered by the Department of Labour.
The report goes on:
In view of the intransigeant attitude of the companies, your commissioners have not considered that any further legal procedure on their
part would serve any useful purpose. We are unanimous in stating our belief that the defiance of the existing law, the breach of the existing agreement, and the failure to fulfil the promise made by these companies to the government are a serious threat to the recognized practice of labour conciliation, and are moreover, the worst possible weapons any employer could use in a dispute with the legally constituted bargaining representatives of his employees.
We in this country are opposed to communism. I cannot conceive of anything that is more likely to breed communists than the attitude of these employers. I will finish this report with one other paragraph:
We have reason to believe also that this conduct which goes to the root of labour relations in this country, raises far wider issues than the isolated dispute with the Canadian seamen's union and that there is grave danger that the discord will not be restricted merely to relations between this union and these companies.
That is the seriousness of this situation. If hon. members would take the trouble to read the report made by the national war labour board in 1943 they would find there the opinion of Hon. C. P. McTague, chairman of the board, and Leon Lalande who signed the majority report. I should like to read just one paragraph from the finding of that labour inquiry:
The most serious question involved at the present time is that of the right of collective bargaining. It must be kept in mind that this is a right which in a practical way has been recognized in Canada for a period of half a century. By far the majority of employers have resisted it over the period.
That is, over the fifty years. To continue:
Generally speaking, the great mass of employers, until comparatively recent years have employed all weapons in their power to resist and discourage the trade union movement. There have been exceptions, of course.
When it is remembered, however, that the international trade unions represent but approximately 20 per cent of Canadian labour generally it is apparent on a comparison with other countries such as England, Sweden and Australia that Canada's trade union movement has been very, very slow indeed. Until comparatively recent years we have been in the main an agricultural country. That factor, together with resistance to the movement by reactionary industrial employers, induced by the fear motive or other even more selfish motives, has served to hold in check any widespread advance in the movement of trade unionism for quite a period of years.
That constitutes the findings of two capable men after an exhaustive inquiry. I do not intend to take the time to read it all. Hon. members who want to read it will see what those men found that certain employer attitude develops a certain kind of labour leader. The war being over, we are now getting back
Tolls on Quebec Bridges

to the same state of affairs that Mr. McTague and Mr. Lalande found in their investigations in 1943.
I will conclude by pointing out now that this is not an unimportant matter that I am raising. I know that fault will be found with me. I know that maybe this is not a particularly popular issue. But anyone who thinks he will scare me off by raising that sort of issue is wasting his time. I have taken up unpopular issues before now. If those who do not agree with me would read an editorial on this subject which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Friday, June 11, they would find that the editors agree largely with what I have pointed out in this house tonight. As a matter of fact, I am basing my case wholly on the report made by the commissioners to the Minister of Labour. The first paragraph in the Globe and Mail editorial reads as follows:
Canada is again in the throes of a lake seamen's strike. The issues are not the customary disputes over hours, wages and working conditions, but over the fact that five shipping companies have illegally refused to bargain with the accredited representatives of the Canadian seamen's union.
I can almost hear the statements that would be made in this house if-as I have heard them so many times before-if the trade unions had taken illegal action at this time. So let us now tell the people of Canada who are preventing a peaceful settlement of this dispute and who are the real culprits in the trouble and the rioting that have developed in this situation.


Mr. ALCIDE COTE (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville):: While the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is in his seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to clear up a point.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have made representations 'last year, in connection with the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, in the province of Quebec. I had the support, at that time, of the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). The government of the province of Quebec is wholly responsible for its highways and, of course, has to pay for the cost of building and maintaining the bridges that are extensions of such highways. However, the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges were built and paid for by the federal government. When the toll system was applied generally to all main bridges in the province, whether they were considered provincial or federal bridges, the whole population was being treated equally. When in 1942 the Quebec government ruled to abolish the toll system in fairness to all provincial taxpayers, it should have eliminated the toll also on

Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. Otherwise, there was this unfairness that one important region of the province kept on paying tolls whilst all others benefited from the abolition of the toll on the other bridges. That is why, as far back as 1942, the hon. Adelard Godbout, then premier of the province of Quebec, said he was ready to reimburse the federal government a reasonable amount if the toll was abolished on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, the same as on other bridges of the province. However, after the negotiations were started, a new administration came to power and they were never resumed.
We must at this time take cognizance of the injustice of which I have just spoken, which consists in imposing double taxation upon one section of the population, to the other section's benefit, an injustice which has lasted from 1942 to this day.
Since then, the union of municipalities of the province of Quebec, of which I am a director, has expressly requested Premier Duplessis to meet the federal authorities with a view to solving this problem once and for all.
I am told, on the other hand, that the Quebec government have obtained permission from the federal authorities to use one of the two railway lines across the Quebec bridge for the purpose of widening the motor thoroughfare.
Last year, following representations made by myself and by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, the Minister of Transport declared himself willing to meet the representatives of the province of Quebec at any time to study the possibility of abolishing toll charges on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. Unfortunately we are still at the same point today and this injustice has not yet been done away with.
That is why I am now asking the Minister of Transport the following questions:
First, since July 2, 1947, after my colleague and I had made representations to the hon. minister, and as a result of the latter's statement, has the government of the province of Quebec, through its premier, Mr. Duplessis, or a representative appointed by him, taken any action with a view to meeting the dominion government about the toll problem in connection with the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges?
Second, is the dominion government or the Minister of Transport always ready to meet the representatives of the Quebec government with a view to considering and eventually solv-

Seamen's Strike
ing the toll problem as regards the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges?
Finally, is it true that the provincial government has secured from the dominion authorities or the Minister of Transport permission to use one of the two railroad tracks on the Quebec bridge for the widening of the vehicular traffic lane?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member regarding toll charges on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. He asked three questions. I will reply to his last one first. He wanted to know whether it was true that the dominion government had, directly or through the C.N.R., entered into negotiations with the Quebec government with a view to building a driveway on the Quebec bridge. The answer is yes. I must say to the hon. member that although the agreement has not yet been signed between the dominion and provincial governments, negotiations are now concluded and it has been agreed that a paved highway will be built on the Quebec bridge. As the details of this matter are rather complicated, I shall not deal with them tonight. However, it is true that negotiations have been brought to a conclusion. The province of Quebec undertakes to vote the money required to open up this new lane to vehicular traffic.
In his first question, the hon. member asked whether the Quebec government or some other provincial agency had made representations to the dominion government with reference to the elimination of toll charges on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. In answer, I must say that, to my knowledge, no such representations have been made. Further, had any been put forth, I would have been aware of them. I must say that certainly no representations similar to those made by the provincial authorities in connection with the new highway on the Quebec bridge have been made with regard to the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges.
May I ask the hon. member to repeat his second question?


Alcide Côté: Is the Minister of Transport still willing to meet the representatives of the province of Quebec in order to consider their arguments and to see whether toll charges can be eliminated on these bridges?


Lionel Chevrier: It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am entirely agreeable to hearing the representations of the province of Quebec or of any one of its agencies and, if need be, even those of the minister of public works with reference to the removal of toll charges on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges.
(Text):
Mr. PAUL E. COTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made the first part of his observations respecting the particular subject he mentioned tonight. I suggest that it would have been more appropriate for him to have taken advantage of one or other of the two opportunities the house will have to discuss labour problems. I refer to the examination by committee of the whole of Bill 195, to provide for the investigation, conciliation and settlement of industrial disputes. We expect that will be submitted to this chamber very shortly. In the second place, the estimates for the Department of Labour are expected to be introduced soon.
I have not any intimate knowledge of the problem mentioned by the hon. member which would allow me to follow satisfactorily the remarks he has made tonight. I would point out, however, that on several occasions recently the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has dealt with this matter. He has expressed his views in answer to questions put by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and others, and I am sure that at the proper time he will make, on this particular matter, any further statement that he deems appropriate.


Angus MacInnis: May I, in reply to the parliamentary assistant, say that the situation is critical, and I do not think we can wait for the estimates, or for some other time. People are being shot at; people are going to jail; all kinds of things are happening. I do not think we can wait at a time like this.
I asked the Minister of Labour a question this morning. Had he made any attempt to give me a reasonable answer I would not have had to raise the matter at this time.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
SI6. Salaries of staff and other pay-list items, $93,972.
Item stands.

William Henry Golding: We were considering item 245 of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Supply-Health and Welfare

245. Departmental administration, $623,428.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, I am in almost the same position I was in last night, or the other night, in that I have an Important speech to deliver and only six minutes in which to deliver it. I shall try to make my speech in those six minutes-or even less. That is difficult for me to do; my congregations always complain because they say I am a long-winded preacher.
There are two phases of the work of the Department of National Health and Welfare I should like to dwell upon for a moment. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister these two matters. I am sure we are all glad that the present government is contemplating some advance with respect to the health services of Canada. The other day we listened to the Prime Minister's announcement, which I think has been quite acceptable, generally speaking, to the people of Canada.
But there is in Canada today one class of people who have been entirely neglected in any health legislation that has been passed either in this house or in any provincial legislature. I refer to incurable cripples, wheel-chair cases, bedridden cases. The medical profession have gone as far as they can with these cases and have pronounced them incurable. I have in mind those who have been crippled as a result of poliomyelitis or those who were born crippled or the epileptic cases. If I were a medical man I could put on Hansard the names of many other maladies which I do not now know. All these people are beyond the aid of medicine or of the medical profession. What is being done for them?
The question might be asked, what can be done for them? In a medical sense, nothing, but they must be cared for. Most of them are unable to earn a living or to engage in gainful employment. The result is that they are thrown upon the mercies of relatives or friends or charitable institutions. If they have not those to turn to, they must beg the relief authorities for a handout. This class of incurable citizen has been entirely neglected and forgotten.
They are not great in number; I do not know how many there would be in Canada. They are scattered from coast to coast and are unable to get out or send people around to organize for them as unions and other organizations have done in order to bring pressure upon the proper authorities. A little over a year ago, an organization was set up by a young woman in Calgary named Miss Eva Warden. At nineteen years of age she took poliomyelitis and is today a wheel-chair case. Her mother is a widow. You tell me what she can do.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
She started this organization and has had a flood of requests for information from all over Canada. She is doing her best to keep this organization going, in order to focus public attention upon their needs. I do not know whether the minister will suggest that this matter should come under the Department of Finance, but I do ask him to take it into consideration and, if possible, to put on the statute books, or aid the provinces in putting on their staute books some form of legislation that will prevent these unfortunate people from being cast upon public charity.
Perhaps mine is the small voice crying in the wilderness, but I think I have the unanimous support of this entire house and of the legislatures when I ask that something be done. This is not a party platform; we do not have these things pegged into our party platforms; it is a humanitarian thing. I believe all should lend their support to something of this kind. Will the minister not take this into his deepest consideration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I assure my hon. friend that I am doing that very thing.


Jean-François Pouliot: I fully agree with what the hon. member for Macleod has said in his fine speech. Once again I congratulate him wholeheartedly. Last year I took up the same question. I do not understand why there should be this gap in connection with those who suffer from infirmities. The old people have something and the needy mothers receive help from the provincial governments, but no help is given to those who suffer from infirmity, who are poor and who cannot subscribe to any form of contributory insurance.
I have made a survey which I shall speak about at another time, but tonight I appeal to the minister. I know his big heart and I know he plays no politics in connection with health. I know he places that as being of the greatest importance to the state. He understands these problems. I remember, when his predecessor sat there two or three years ago, he said, in answer to a resolution moved either by the hon. member for Compton or the hon. member for Terrebonne-I see it is eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take up the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of Justice, one being a measure to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the Judges Act and

Business oj the House
the second being a measure with respect to the Revised Statutes of Canada. Then we shall take up Bill No. 345, to amend the Tariff Board Act; Bill No. 346, being the Canadian National Railways Financial Guarantee Act, 1948; Bill No. 60, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act; Bill No. 196, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, and Bill No. 200, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act. When we are through with the war veterans bills, we shall take up Bill No. 198, to amend the Dominion Elections Act. If we complete those bills we shall go into supply and take up national health and welfare, trade and commerce, and veterans affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question with respect to the three bills in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Each of these bills has been amended in committee. Does the minister know whether reprinted copies of the bills as amended will be available to us tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know, but I shall inquire and do my best to have the bills with the amendments in the hands of the members tomorrow before we start to study them. I will do the best I can.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good. Thank you.


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