1948-06-08

Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege that concerns every member of the house.
Last summer, while this house was in session, the La Salle cadets paraded on the lawns in front of these parliament buildings. Later, during the evening, several members of parliament-if I am correctly informed, members representing all the major parties-entered the front gate and attempted to proceed to the House of Commons by the main walk, and were stopped from doing so by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They explained to him that they were members of parliament. That made no difference. An order had been issued that everyone must come to the House of Commons around by the east block. Therefore these members had to proceed to the House of Commons via the east block.
I wish at this time, Mr. Speaker, to protest strongly against the placing of members of this house in such a position that they must approach the building after the fashion of the butcher boy delivering a pound of sausage by the tradesmen's entrance.
Last Friday evening the La Salle cadets were parading again on the lawns in front of the House of Commons. I had occasion to approach the house by the central walk, and, when about half way between the front gate and the House of Commons, I was informed that the La Salle cadets were being paraded and reviewed, and that they were being reviewed by a special visitor from Rome, Italy, Brother Athanase Emile. Knowing of the record of the La Salle cadets, and being interested in this distinguished clerical visitor, I stopped about half way between the front gate and the House of Commons and watched the cadets being inspected by the visitor, followed by Colonel Purves of national defence headquarters, a member of the Canadian armoured corps. I saw these cadets very smartly give the general salute to the distinguished clerical visitor.
At that time a staff sergeant of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police approached me and informed me that the grounds for that period were reserved for the La Salle cadets, the officers of the Department of National Defence on the grounds, and the distinguished visitor, and that I would have to move.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am one of those to whom on such occasions the scroll of British history swiftly unfolds itself before mine eyes, and I am quickly moved by such events. Therefore I informed the staff sergeant that I was a member of parliament and as such I did not intend to budge, come what may. At this point the staff sergeant was most courteous, I might say almost embarrassed. He explained to me the reason for the grounds being reserved. I protested and said that this was a violation of the rights of members of the House of Commons, and no explanation from him could alter my determination to stand my ground, since I considered this order an indignity upon members of the House of Commons.
In view of the fact that the zephyrs of indignity can soon become the winds of intolerance, and the winds of intolerance the hurricane of tyranny, I wish to protest most vigorously against this transgression of the freedom of members within the precincts of the House of Commons, and against this indignity to members of parliament, to the representatives of the people, and thus indirectly to the Canadian people as a whole.



VACANCY


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Dominion of Canada	House of Commons
To wit:
To the Honourable the Speaker of the House
of Commons:
I, Walter A. Tucker, member of the House of Commons of Canada, for the electoral district of Rosthern, do hereby resign my seat in the said House of Commons, for the constituency aforesaid.
Given under my hand and seal at the town of Rosthern this 7th day of June, 1948.
Walter A. Tucker.
I have accordingly issued my warrant for a new writ for an election in the electoral district of Rosthern.
4888	COMMONS
Board of Transport Commissioners



LAND TITLES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Fisheries) moved the first reading of Bill No. 334 (from the senate) to amend the Land Titles Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance, for the Minister of Agriculture) moved the first reading of Bill No. 335 (from the senate) to amend the criminal code (race meetings).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. ISRAEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). Has the government come to a decision regarding Canada's recognition of the new state of Israel?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The matter is still under consideration.



TRANSPORT BOARD


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On May 26, I gave this house a statement of the legislation which remained to be dealt with during the present session. At that time I indicated that amendments to the Judges Act and to the Railway Act relating to the board of transport commissioners would be introduced.
The proposed legislation has reference to government plans for a reconstitution of the board of transport commissioners in view of substantially increased responsibilities which it is expected that board will have to assume over the coming years. I am now in a position to give further details regarding the proposed legislation.
A single bill will be introduced to amend the Railway Act, the Exchequer Court Act and the

Judges Act, 1946. This bill will provide that a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada shall hold the office of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners. Such judge, however, while acting as chief commissioner, will devote his full time to the work of the board.
The bill will also provide, with a consequential amendment in the Judges Act of 1946, that in the light of the foregoing change the exchequer court will be increased by one, to consist thereafter of the president and four judges, instead of the president and three judges as at present.
The bill will not in any way change the term of appointment to the post of chief commissioner from a. ten-year period. When a judge of the exchequer court has served for this term as chief commissioner he will, unless his term of office is extended, return to the exchequer court; his successor will then be appointed from that body.
Colonel J. A. Cross, C.M.G., D.S.O., K.C., whose term of office expires in February, 1950, having been advised of the intention of the government to reconstitute the board as indicated and of the heavy additional duties and responsibilities which the board will be expected to perform over the coming years, has informed me that, in the circumstances, taking into consideration the fact that he is not far from completing his term of office as chairman, it would be in the best interests of all concerned for the government to make immediate arrangements for a new appointment to the post of chief commissioner and has accenting ly tendered his resignation as chief commissioner of the board, to take effect at the pleasure of the government.
The government shares the view expressed by Colonel Cross, and intends to accept his resignation, as soon as the bill I have referred to is enacted. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Hon. Maynard Brown Archibald, a member of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, has agreed, when the necessary legislation has been passed, to accept the appointment of chief commissioner of the board1 of transport commissioners. Mr. Justice Archibald will then be first appointed to the Exchequer Court of Canada and immediately thereafter be named as chief commissioner of the board.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to extend to Colonel Cross the thanks of the government for the valuable services performed by him during the years he has been holding the very responsible position of chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners. A former attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan,

Customs Tariff
Colonel Cross brought with him to Ottawa years of experience at the bar which have been of great service to him in his capacity of chief commissioner, and which, in turn, have enabled him to perform many years of devoted public service to Canada.



S. S. &quot;ABEGWEIT&quot; INQUIRY AS TO STRUCTURAL CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. MacNAUGHT (Prince):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any decision been made concerning the planking of the railway car deck of Q.S.M.V. Abegweit to permit trucks to drive on and off that deck under their own power?


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Yes, a decision has been arrived at. For some time consideration has been given to the planking of the lower deck of the Abegweit. After weighing all the arguments for and against, the government has decided that a steel floor over the entire deck should be laid at the earliest possible opportunity. At the present time the Abegweit is in dry dock in Montreal, and should be ready to proceed to Northumberland strait on the tenth of this month. Before the necessary steel becomes available and is installed, a period of seven or eight weeks would elapse, which is far too long a time to immobilize a vessel costing upwards of $7,000,000. Furthermore, the Abegweit will be needed shortly to take care of the tourist traffic to Prince Edward Island.
As an alternative, it has been decided to cover half the lower deck with wooden planks specially treated with fire-resistant paint. Instructions were given to make a start on this work yesterday, and I am advised that to complete this job wall require twelve days at the most. The Abegweit would, therefore, be ready to proceed to Borden at the latest on the twentieth of this month, in sufficient time to take care of the heavy summer traffic.



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRICE OF EASTERN SOFT WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CHARLTON (Brant):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is he prepared to make - a statement as to the price of eastern soft wheat for the coming crop year?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It is difficult to make a statement for the reason that it is not customary 5849-310
to announce a change in price in advance of making the change. However, I will make a statement before many weeks go by.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 333, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Before the motion for third reading is put, Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a brief amendment. It relates to a provision that was introduced into this legislation last Wednesday evening, June 2. Prior to that time the only announcement that had been made with respect to the suspension of certain British preferential tariffs from May 19, 1949 to June 30. 1949, was to the effect that these tariffs would definitely be off for that period of time. However, last Wednesday evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in what I felt to be only a plausible defence of his action, announced that the government had decided to introduce a proviso. That proviso took the form of an amendment to the resolution which was before the house, and it is now in the bill before us. The proviso suggested by the government would give to the governor in council the power to suspend any of those suspensions during the period in question. If I may get away from the use of the double negative which is inevitable in discussing this matter, it amounts to this. Tariffs on certain British goods are now off, and will be off until June 30, 1949. But this new clause, which has been put in, gives the government power by order in council to put any or all of those tariffs, which have thus been taken off, back on during that period.
I have two strenuous objections to this clause. In the first place, we of this group regarded the action of the government in taking off these tariffs as good, as the proverbial step in the right direction. Now that this step has been taken we do not like the idea of a few doors and windows being left open for some of these tariffs to be reimposed. I am sure those on the government side, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), who voted with us when we tried to strike this clause out of the legislation during the resolution stage, will share our view that the removal of certain tariffs on British goods was a step in the right direction and should stand.
But in addition to my own support of the proposal to remove these tariffs, I strongly object to the government asking parliament to give it yet another power to take action by
Customs Tariff

order in council. I know the government has multitudinous powers by order in council now. I know the very bill which is before us has in other respects powers given to the government to make changes by order in council. But that does not justify giving yet another such power.
I was most interested in the support given my suggestion the other night by the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and others of the group to my right. They took the view that whatever their stand was on the tariff question, they simply could not support this further addition to the order in council powers of the present government; and I was impressed by the way in which a number of my hon. friends to the right took that stand and stood up to be counted with us when the vote was taken in committee.
In fact it would seem that the issue is quite clear. It is not only the issue of the tariff question itself; there is this overriding issue of the request of the government for this additional power to take action by order in council. The other evening when I moved a subamendment to strike out this power, at the resolution stage, I noted that the Minister of Finance said he welcomed the subamendment and was quite prepared to leave it to the house to make a decision. I wondered whether the members of his own party caught the full import of his statement that he would leave it to the house. I thought he was making it clear that the government was not going to stand or fall by his proposal; that in effect it was a free vote, and I thought that many Liberals would vote in a liberal manner when the vote was called. Today, when I move the same amendment at this third reading stage, I hope a free vote will be offered, and that the government will permit the house to decide on this important question.
The reasons given by the minister the other evening for introducing this order in council power related to what he described as uncertain conditions in the world and particularly in world trade at the present time. As I say, that defence struck me as only plausible; for we have all been conscious of the fact that there are in Canada certain interests which did not welcome the removal of these British preferential tariffs for even the short period of thirteen and a half months. We are conscious of the fact that strong recommendations have been made to the government to reimpose all or at least some of these tariffs immediately. Frankly, I do not think the government should leave itself open to the temptation to yield to those representations, by having in this legislation

the power by order in council to put any or all these tariffs on once more.
There is the situation, Mr. Speaker. It is not necessary for me to take any more of the time of the house in presenting it. I hope the Minister of Finance will again say that it is up to the house to decide. I hope my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party, led by the hon. member for Stanstead, the hon. member for Nanaimo and others who voted for us the other evening, will succeed in persuading others of their number today to vote with us against this wide order in council power. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg South will be joined today by other Liberals who will vote against this open door and these open windows which would make possible the reimposition of tariffs on British goods during the period of time between now and June 30, 1949.
To bring the matter to a head, Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis):
That Bill No. 333 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of amending section 4 thereof by deleting subsection (c), namely lines 26, 27 and 28 on page 7 of the bill.
If I may read those three lines, they are as follows:
_ (c) The governor in council may at any time withdraw, in whole or in part, the suspensions in duty provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b).
The effect of my amendment would be to delete that subparagraph from the bill.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I should like to make one point before this amendment is voted upon. We are now well into the middle of June. It will be at least the end of June, I presume, before we leave here, and in the ordinary course of events we shall be back in a little more than six months. There will be only a short period during which parliament will not be in session. I cannot believe that for the sake of this short period it is necessary to contravene a principle which has been so stoutly maintained here in the past.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I have just a word in reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
This amendment, of course, is the amendment the hon. member moved wThen we were in committee. Since he has stated his reasons for supporting the amendment, however, I think I should state why the proposed section is contained in the bill.

As I informed the house when the budget resolutions were brought down, suspension of the tariffs on cotton and rayon goods was primarily for the purpose of giving some price relief to the Canadian consumer and assuring adequate supplies of needed textiles. Before taking that action I received assurances from the representatives of the British government, the board of trade, that, in the event of the duty being removed, advantage would not be taken of that by British exporters, to add the amount of the duty to the price. I can see no particular reason for giving the British exporter the benefit of the removal of such duties. I have no doubt that the assurances which I received will be lived up to, but I do not want to give away all my ammunition until I am sure that they have been. The removal of the duty is not to benefit anyone outside this country; it is to benefit people inside the country.
The second point I wish to make is this. Because of the provisional application of the Geneva agreements, we are obliged to extend this removal or suspension of duties to a very large number of other countries-mostfavoured-nation countries-which include the majority of the trading countries of the world. I have not received any such assurance from those countries, and it is pretty difficult for me to say what conditions might develop there.
For these reasons it seems prudent to take power, as is done in the bill, to withdraw this suspension if conditions do not work out as we believe they will. As I said when the bill was in committee stage, I do not consider this is a great or vital issue on which the government need stand or fall. All hon. members are free to vote on it as they wish. Personally I shall vote against the amendment, as I did when it was proposed in committee, for the reasons which I have mentioned. I believe it is prudent good business to maintain this reserve.


Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put there is a statement the minister has just made which I think should be clarified. He said that owing to the provisional application of Geneva agreements the government was bound, or felt itself bound, to extend to all other countries the tariff treatment given to Great Britain under this bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The most-favoured-nation countries.


Edmund Davie Fulton: To the most-favoured-nation countries, and to the seventeen countries which have signed the provisional agreement. My 5849-3104
Customs Tariff
understanding is that although we have provisionally applied the tariff changes agreed to at Geneva, we have not yet applied the agreement. We have not yet agreed to it, and therefore we are not bound, if we make further tariff changes now in favour of certain countries, to apply those changes to all other countries.
With respect I say to the minister that he is slightly confused. I do not think his argument applies to this tariff adjustment. It seems to me the only country with which we have to deal in this respect is Great Britain. If he has had the assurance from that country which he says he had, then surely we can take their word at its face value and believe that they will not take advantage of this adjustment by changing their prices to undersell us. I do not think the minister has advanced any good reason why the amendment should not be accepted.


Mr ABBOTT:: We are not in committee, and I know I closed the debate when I
spoke-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was my amendment, not yours.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is right.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: The rules were
spoken about yesterday.


Douglas Charles Abbott: May I be allowed to reply? -because the hon. member is completely wrong. He is completely wrong when he says this does not apply to the most-favourednation countries.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister spoke about rules yesterday.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I will abide by the rules, if you will.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It seems to me there is a contradiction in the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He said that he has had assurances from exporters in Great Britain that they would not take advantage of this tariff concession so as to raise prices. He went on to say that he had no doubt that that assurance would be lived up to. The minister then introduced a provision to meet a situation which he has no doubt will not arise. It seems to me that that is not very complimentary to the people who gave him the assurance.
Customs Tariff


Douglas Charles Abbott: They might not be able to do anything about it.
Mr. MaoINNIS: But there is another factor which enters into the matter. Our customs tariff provides protection for certain industries. It is not an unknown thing for these industries to take advantage of the tariff to raise their prices. Is there any provision in the customs tariff act whereby, should a protected industry use the tariff to enhance prices, the government by order in council may withdraw the protection? Surely if it is to operate in this narrow application, it should operate in the wider field, where there is so much opportunity for abusing the protection given.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think there is a section like that in the customs tariff.


Angus MacInnis: The minister has made a weak case for this departure from the normal procedure.


Mr. GILLIS:: I was paired with the
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted. I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MARQUIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Do-rion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Baker
Beaudoin
Beaudry
Belzile
Benidickson
Bertrand (Prescott)
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Blaekmore
Boivin
Bourget
Bradette
Brown
Chevrier
Claxton
Cloutier Cockeram Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Cote (Verdun)
Denis
Dickey
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Dionne (Beauee)
Douglas
Drope
Emmerson
Fair


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruick-shank). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Abbott) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.



INCOME TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to revise and consolidate the law respecting the levying of income tax and the administration thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, this is the formal resolution to precede the introduction of what was known last year as Bill No. 454, to revise and consolidate the income tax law.
I would hope	that	the	resolution might	beadopted with,	shall	I	say, a	minimum	ofdiscussion in	order	that the	bill may	be
introduced and distributed to members.
It is a technical and complicated and very lengthy bill.	A great	many	changes have
been made since the original bill was introduced last year, following representations received from groups throughout the country, boards of trade, the bar association, the chartered accountants association, and so on, and also as a result of further study by our own staffs. It would be my intention, as I indicated a short time ago, to refer the bill to the banking and commerce committee for detailed study after it receives second reading. I think the bill could be more effectively dealt with there, where taxation experts and the draftsmen could appear and explain the various provisions. A tremendous amount of work has been done on the bill since it was introduced almost a year ago, and I believe it represents a forward step in the revision and consolidation of our income tax law.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Is there any change in tax rates or exemptions, or are the changes with respect to administration only?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are no such changes as my hon. friend mentions. Appropriate amendments were made to the Income War Tax Act, which was passed yesterday, with respect to any changes of policy included in the bill. There is nothing in the bill which changes tax rates or exemptions or anything of the sort. It is simply a revision and consolidation, with certain policy changes with respect to administrative detail rather than income tax rates.
As I indicated in my budget speech, the bill will not be given retroactive effect but will become effective from the first of January next, that is for the next calendar year. As the committee will appreciate, that will afford
Income Tax Act
opportunity for further changes at the next session of parliament should others be found necessary between now and then.


Mr. HOMUTH:: This bill is lengthy and will require a great deal of consideration. If the minister hopes to get it through the house this session, I suggest that the banking and commerce committee sit as often as possible.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am in the hands of this committee, but if it could be arranged, I would like to have the banking and commerce committee take up the bill early next week and work on it steadily. Many sections wall not be controversial, and will simply interest lawyers. The heart of the bill is contained in fifteen or twenty sections, which will require particular attention. They deal with such things as the rules for depreciation and valuation of inventories. They are very important from the point of view of the amount of tax collected, and will require careful consideration by the committee.
The provisions of the bill have already received much study by such representative bodies as boards of trade, the chartered accountants association, the bar association, and others with specialized knowledge. I think the committee will find that the officials who have, worked long and hard on the bill will be in a position to explain it thoroughly before the committee. I would hope that we could get it through this year, and I think we should make every effort to do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have one comment to make. Ever since parliament assembled in the autumn of 1945 we have had this bill dangled before our eyes, and the Minister of Finance the first time said he hoped to introduce it the next year. We all know what the task has been. There is no use crying over spilt milk, but it is most unfortunate that it comes down almost within a fortnight of the time we are told the house will adjourn. I appreciate the work that has been done, the fact that various competent people have been consulted with regard to the bill, and that there will be a great deal of expert evidence available. Nevertheless the responsibility will rest with this house, and I feel that to ask the house, in the short time available, to do the job that should be done, is to propose what is almost impossible. It is in the highest degree unfortunate that it was not brought before us many weeks ago.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I want to ask the minister one question, the purpose of which is to help me in something that I should do by telegram. Are there any changes with respect
to depletion in coal mines? I ask that ques-
Income Tax Act

tion because certain people in the coal mining industry in Alberta are anxious to appear before the committee. This is Tuesday, and I should like to let them know whether they should come or just stay at home.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The language of the bill with respect to coal mines is, I believe, as it was. Representations have been made by the coal mining industry of Alberta particularly with reference to the ten cents per ton depletion allowance which they have been allowed for a period of years. There is no intention of changing that, and the bill has not that effect. Whether the people to whom my hon. friend refers should come or not I cannot say, but I do not think it will be the intention of the banking and commerce committee to hear evidence on the bill. I am afraid that if that were so we would have no hope of getting it through this year. There has been full opportunity for making representations, and I do not think that would be necessary'. There is no intention of making any change, nor will there be any change in the method of allowing depletion as it has prevailed, going back as far as 1917, so far as coal mines are concerned.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then there is no occasion for them to come?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not think really that there is any.


Arthur Leroy Smith: In the bill as presented last year there was a change, because it was limited to certain initial costs which really did not mean anything.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will see when he looks at the bill that the language of that section has been changed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I can telegraph them not to come.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You had better wait until you see the bill, but I think you will find the language of the bill satisfactory.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thanks for the information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of what the minister has said, that it is not expected that further evidence will be heard before the banking and commerce committee, may I ask whether he can make any' comment on the extent to which representations by the Co-operative Union of Canada have been accepted in the bill in its present form?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is no change in the bill in its present form so far as matters of policy' are concerned. As I said in answer to the leader of the opposition, the job of this

bill is not primarily to change existing tax policy. It is to consolidate, simplify and improve the arrangement of the bill rather than to make a wholesale revision of the taxing provisions. Any' change that is to be made with respect to taxation of co-operatives or any other enterprise in this country should be made here in the house as a matter of budget presentation and not in a revision of a bill of this kind. I would not undertake to do that.


Clarence Gillis: The minister says he is in a great hurry to get this bill before the banking and commerce committee, and he would like to have it put through the house at this session if possible. On the other hand he tells us that the committee will have no power to make any changes whatever in the bill. The bill is merely going to the committee so as to give experts an opportunity of explaining it to the lawy'ers and those who may be administering it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say' they would not have power to make changes in the bill.


Clarence Gillis: I understood the minister to say that a few moments ago.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No committee of this house can change taxation provisions, but it may' change administrative provisions.


Clarence Gillis: And that does not change anything. The taxes remain the same. The co-operatives are still taxed, and the depletion allowance for coal mines is not changed. Nothing is changed, but the mechanics are simplified for those who will administer the bill. It must be a pretty complicated bill. My object in rising is simply to make this point. If we are not going to change any'-thing in the banking and commerce committee, so far as policy is concerned, why waste time sending it to the committee? Why should we not go to work on it right here where we may make changes, and after we have studied the basic laws contained in the bill, then, if it is desired to send it to another committee to have the mechanics clarified, that can be done. Would that not be the quicker way of doing it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had thought of that. There are two alternatives-to have it considered in committee of the whole or to refer it to the banking and commerce committee. The banking and commerce committee can make any' amendments that we can make in committee of the whole. There is no difference so far as amendments are concerned. The banking and commerce committee would be free to recommend amendments just as the com-

mittee here can; but my main purpose in sending it to the banking and commerce committee was to enable interested members to get explanations of the various sections direct from the tax officials of my department and officers of the ministry of justice, rather than having the information relaj'ed through me in the house. It seemed to me to be the more efficient way of dealing with this rather technical bill-because it is technical. Any income tax statute, I do not care in what country, where there is a system of progressive income tax, is bound to be complicated, and the reason it is complicated is that you try to allow for deductions and exemptions and all that sort of thing so that the tax will be in relation to ability to pay. \ou could make a very simple income tax law if you did not have exemptions and deductions for medical expenses, depletion, depreciation and all these other things, which are intended to make the law more equitable. That is why it is complicated. I speak whereof I know because I have had occasion in the practice of my profession to look these acts over, and I really think that the work of considering this consolidation and revision, which was intended to be primarily a simplifying job, to make it more easily understood and applied by the general public, could be better undertaken in the banking and commerce committee than in the house. I have no objection, but I really think that it would be better if we sent it to the banking and commerce committee.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue the point with the minister. He has not convinced me that it would not be more expeditious to deal with it in committee here, the only place where we can change the basic setup. However, I wish to ask him a question in connection with the depletion allowance for coal mines. I have had something to do with that. Large corporations across the country get hold of leases-the Hudson's Bay company in the west, Dosco in the east. Canadian Collieries in British Columbia-and they have large coal deposits which they do not. operate. They sublease the coal to a small operator who then invests the capital and carries on the operation, but the large concern, which has nothing to do with the development, is allowed that ten-cent depletion on each ton of coal. I have made representations to the finance department during the war and at other times on that very point. We are trying to have that situation changed so that the actual operator should get this allowance, not the lessor or the man who leases or subleases that section of his mining set-up to a smaller operator. It is completely unfair and unjust that the lessor should get the depletion
Income Tax Act
allowance; it should go to the one who is actually carrying on the operation. Has the minister given any thought to the matter? He was not in that department at the time. The present Minister of Justice was -then Minister of Finance. But we did not get anywhere with the suggestion. It should be given some thought.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not too familiar with the manner in which depletion is handled. I know that for a great many years a certain allowance has been paid out for depletion of coal mines. It now falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the Department of National Revenue, although policy matters of course would be settled in the Department of Finance. No doubt I shall be more familiar with it before the bill gets through the committee.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I think we are all glad to see some codification of the Income Tax Act of 1917 and subsequent amendments. Would any serious inconvenience or embarrassment be caused to the country or the taxpayers generally if we left this bill over until the next session of parliament? We are about to have three sittings a day, starting this Wednesday. The estimates are going through, and some of us would like to pay a little attention to them on behalf of our constituents. Other committees are still sitting, including the prices committee, the personnel of which includes members who would be interested in this bill, and they cannot- be in two places at the same time. I believe we could go into the bill much more thoroughly and get a much better idea of its complicated technical provisions if the minister would put it over until the next session, unless there are strong and pertinent reasons why we should deal with it now.
We have had the bill in its original form before us for some time-sufficient time, I might say. But briefs have been received by the government from a great many associations, and some of their ideas have been incorporated in the bill which shortly we are to see for the first time. If that revised bill had been brought down a month or so ago. we might have been able to do some ground work on the revisions. But the government has not seen fit to do that. I think wre should enter more than a mild protest against the government's listening to representations of those who are not representatives of the people at all, accepting their suggestions where they proved to be acceptable, incorporating then, in the measure and then flashing the bill on the house in the last two weeks of the session. I think that is unfair. The bill should be given a hoist until the next session.
4S96
Income Tax Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not pressing it. I think it is desirable that we get this bill on the statute book. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has chided me for delay. The hon. member for Rosedale has just said that we ought to have brought this bill down a month earlier. I want to remind the committee that there are only twenty-four hours in a day; that applies to me and perhaps even more so to the members of my staff. Work has been going on in connection with this bill day after day and month after month. I myself have had meeting after meeting, interlarded between budget meetings, to go over the provisions of the bill. I can assure my hon. friend, who has never practised law but who, I know, is trained in law, that it is a long and tedious business. It was not possible to bring this bill in earlier. I am not suggesting at all that we should force the bill through at this session, but I think it is possible to put it through. Just about as many calls are made on my time as on the time of most members of the house, but I intend to try to devote a good deal of time to attendance at meetings of the banking and commerce committee when the bill is under consideration.
If it proves unwise or undesirable to try to pass the bill this session, of course, as I say, we will not force it through. But I think we ought to make a start. If we do not make a start on these things, we never finish them. The bill has alreadj' been put over for a year. I brought it in last session so that its main provisions could be studied during the year. Study has been given to the bill, and I think it is in fairly good shape now. I should like to see it. considered in detail by the banking and commerce committee. I should like to see it made effective as of January 1, 1949. People will know what the law is to be from that time on. If it is not possible to do that, well and good. But I think we ought to buckle down and try to get it through.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I agree with the minister in one thing, namely, that this bill should go to the banking and commerce committee. That seems to me to be the most sensible idea. I agree wholly with most of what the hon. member for Rosedale said, with this exception. I cannot quite follow him when he suggests that- the bill be held over. However, I most fully agree with him on what is happening now.
I realize how busy the minister has been.
I know he has not been idling. Nevertheless the fact is that we are almost in the dying days of the session, and this bill, which has

been foreshadowed for three years, and which last year was brought forward with the idea that this year we would have plenty of time to consider it, is brought dow'n at this moment. \Y hat does that mean? I do not want to press the point, but if this bill goes through, it really means that we have just rubber-stamped it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course not. I will answer that now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not as it should be. What really happens is that the minister's officials-and I have great respect for them-are going to give us a synopsis of what other people have said, and we shall have to take it. I know they are competent; nevertheless we shall have to take all this at second hand. The minister says the committee cannot take evidence. I suppose if consideration of the bill is to be completed within the next three weeks, it is almost physically impossible that much evidence should be heard. As has already been pointed out, with all the multitudinous duties that press in on us in these last few weeks, it is almost physically impossible to give it the necessary time. It is like crying over spilt milk, but it is just another case of the house being an automatic rubber stamp for the will of the government; and that is not wise.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is no rubber-stamping about this at all. There is nothing really new in this bill. It has been primarily a drafting job by experts. I do not want to offend any hon. member of the committee, but let me say that only a relatively small number of members here, by training or experience, are competent to give this bill analysis. That is the truth. The ones who are competent to give it that critical analysis might go over the hundred odd sections, of which perhaps fifteen or twenty are really vital, and do it in a relatively short time. But the hard job in connection with this bill has been to weigh the various arguments.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what we should do.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We should, yes. But a great deal of it is so specialized that, with deference to every member of the committee, the consideration which they can give, let us say, to the specialized clauses relating to depreciation and depletion may be questionable. Some can be helpful, of course; others are not at all interested. There is no particularly new principle in the bill. It is primarily a rearrangement, a redrafting and a simplification. It seems to me that the most valuable assistance we can get on that phase of it in the banking



194S

[Stage Direction]
Income Tux Act
4S97
and commerce committee will be from the trained lawyers, because it is their business to try to draft laws and interpret them. This is a statute. We have tried to simplify it. We have tried to eliminate the discretions and so forth. But we are not enacting a new income tax law. Broadly speaking there are no great new principles being established. That is something that must be done in the House of Commons as a result of budget proposals. This is like consolidating the statutes. If we cannot do the job in committee, all right; but I think we can.
Angus MacInnis: I am one of the members to whom the Minister of Finance referred as not qualified to give expert and understandable study to this bill.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: Me, too.


Angus MacInnis: However, the more I heard him explain that, the more disturbed I was about the desirability of the bill going through at this time. He rather suggested that the most valuable contribution to the discussion of this bill must come from lawyers. But lawyers are usually hired to protect the people who are to be taxed; and evidently the minister feels-that having been his profession before he became full-time Minister of Finance-we should be satisfied now if the lawyers who are protecting the big income tax payers approve the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no; I did not say that. Don't make a political speech.


Angus MacInnis: That is the inference which I must draw from what the minister said.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I tried to make the revision of this bill an extremely non-party matter. It is not a question of protecting anybody.


Angus MacInnis: It is definitely a nonparty question as far as I am concerned.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is as far as I am concerned ; and I spent long hours trying to draw up a decent bill.


Angus MacInnis: I am not objecting to that. I am talking about the minister's explanation of the bill. If he had not made that explanation, probably I should not be saying anything at all. I may not be able to appraise the technicalities of the bill, but I am able to appraise fairly quickly what a man says, and to understand what he is talking about.
There is another point. It is said that we could put this bill through the house in a very short time. When the hon. member for Rosedale spoke a minute ago I learned for the first time that we were to begin 5840-311
morning sittings tomorrow. Well, we can put anything through if we have not time to examine it. We could take any number of bills and put them through the house in the same way that you put wheat through a thresher. But that is not the purpose of bringing legislation before the house. You do not bring legislation before the house in order only that it may go through the formal procedure which makes it law. The purpose of bringing a bill before the house is to have it examined here, to satisfy the various interests concerned that it is proper legislation.
I am not so sure that this is the proper time to bring a bill of this kind before us. It cannot, at one and the same time, be an intricate bill and a simple bill. From the minister's explanation it is so intricate that we have not the ability to understand it; and because it is so intricate that we cannot understand it, it is so simple that we should let it go through the house with no examination at all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sorry if I conveyed the impression that it was so intricate we could not understand or appreciate it. I did not intend to suggest that. Anyone who has read the bill will realize that it is a long, technical measure. Actually the bill has been available to every hon. member of the house for almost a year. While it is true that substantial amendments have been made, the broad arrangement and the great majority of the sections are completely unchanged. Anyone who is interested in the bill, whether he is a lawyer or a businessman, a school teacher, or anyone else, has had something like a year to give it detailed and careful study. As I said last year when I introduced the bill. I did so for the purpose of enabling members of parliament and others who were interested to give it study. That is what we have done.
Let me make this second point. I am not attempting to force this or any other bill through the house; but I say we will never get it through the house until we start to consider it. If we embark upon this long discussion at the resolution stage, before having seen the amended version of the bill I introduced a year ago, it seems to me we might as well give up any attempt 'to get one of these revisions or consolidations of the income tax law through the house. That is all I am asking-that I be allowed to introduce this bill. Members of the house can look at it. read it over, study every section, and be prepared to discuss*it either in the banking and commerce committee, if they are members of
Income Tax Act

that committee, or here in committee of the whole. The committee may rest assured that I am not trying to jam this bill through. It is not needed this year, but I believe it is a forward step in improving our legislation. That is all.


Mr. SHAW:: In my opinion. Mr. Chairman, this is one measure that should not be forced through the house quickly because time is limited. Apart from the actual tax rates themselves, probably there is nothing which affects the people of Canada more directly than the administration of the Income Tax Act.
The minister indicated that we have had this measure before us for about a year, and implied that we have had ample opportunity to consider it. Later he asserted that, based upon representations made to the government, a great many changes have been made, which of course in effect would nullify his previous assertion that we have had ample opportunity to consider the bill. Moreover, it is one thing to take a bill and study it, and another thing to take a bill when we have an opportunity of asking exactly what certain clauses, phrases and sections mean.
The minister has said that the bill is to go to the banking and commerce committee. I am happy to learn this. If my memory serves me correctly, the minister indicated some months ago, or perhaps it was some weeks ago, that it was not his intention to have this bill referred to a committee of the house. I was disappointed when that announcement was made; therefore I welcome his suggestion that it should go to a committee.
The minister also indicated that it was not desirable to accept representations from organizations and bodies throughout the country which might wish to appear before that committee. That, of course, depends upon the opportunity which those organizations have been given to make their representations; and I understood the minister to say that they have been given ample opportunity to make their submissions.
One thing I think is particularly significant with respect to any income tax law-that is, the actual administration. No doubt the law officers of the crown and other experts will appear before the banking and commerce committee; but will that committee have an opportunity to examine those actually charged with the responsibility of administration? I think a great deal of dissatisfaction has arisen among Canadians during the last number of years because of the indefiniteness of the act, and because of the fact that so many discretions have been exercised under it that actually we have had almost identical cases dealt with 
in different ways in different parts of the country. The minister has said that one purpose of the proposed legislation is to remove many of these discretions. Personally I think it high time this was done, because, as I said a moment ago, we have had a great variety of interpretations and much variation in dealing with almost similar cases in different parts of Canada. In fact it comes to my mind at the moment that in two almost identical cases affecting farmers, one in the Calgary district office and the other in the Edmonton district office, completely opposite interpretations were placed upon the act, and entirely different decisions given.
I appreciate the fact that there may be a great deal of difficulty in drafting an act which would remove all or nearly all those objections, but I do feel that it is desirable to have an act more definite than the legislation under which the people of this country have been labouring for so long. I am more particularly concerned about uniformity of interpretation and application throughout the length and breadth of this country. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, my question is this. Will this committee-of which, incidentally, I am not a member-have an opportunity to call before it those actually engaged in the work of administering the act?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Unquestionably I would hope that the deputy minister of taxation would be among those who would appear before the committee and explain in detail the administrative sections proposed, as well as the method of administering the act. That is one reason for having the bill considered by the committee on banking and commerce rather than the committee of the whole house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister would answer another question along somewhat similar lines. It has to do with calling other interested bodies before the committee to give evidence. The strongest argument in favour of that suggestion is the one advanced by the minister himself as to the desirability of getting the bill through as quickly as possible. He used that argument against calling other bodies before the committee. The minister himself states-and his point has a great deal of merit-that this is the type of bill that the average person has difficulty in understanding or discussing with intelligence. The chief advantage of referring it to the committee on banking and commerce would be to have a full explanation from the experts who will be in charge of administration of the measure. That is important. But the very fact that the members who will constitute the banking and commerce committee are not experts seems

Income Tax Act
to indicate that they should have the benefit of hearing such opposing views as may exist, views in opposition to this, that or the other provision of the bill. If we are to hear from the officials of the department, surely we would wish to hear the views of any who are opposed to the bill. It would not be proper for departmental officials to appear before the committee and say that they believe this is a bad bill.
I know there are some organizations which would wish to have certain provisions modified. And because members of the committee on banking and commerce are to hear the arguments put forward by experts from the department. if the bill is to be considered fairly, we should be allowed to ask other interested organizations throughout the country to appear before the committee and, through their experts, submit their views as to changes or new provisions they might wish to incorporate in the act. This might involve some further time, but the very importance of the bill indicates that we should take the time to hear the evidence of those who may be opposed or who may wish to suggest amendments. I would ask the minister to give us the assurance that that opportunity will be accorded to the committee on banking and commerce.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Of course that would be a matter for the committee on banking and commerce to consider. The committee will be master of its own procedure.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But a recommendation from the minister would carry weight.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should think it would be impracticable to hear very much evidence at this time. It will be remembered that within the last year many briefs have been filed by a large number of groups. The subject has been well canvassed. If the committee feels that further evidenced should be heard from outside sources, that will be done. But I cannot tell my hon. friend now whether the committee would be prepared to do that, or whether I as a member of the committee- and I do not know whether I am or not; I think I am-would be prepared to make that recommendation. In any event the committee will have to make the decision.
The resolution asks for leave to introduce a bill. All I am asking at this stage is that the committee allow me to present the bill so that they may see what they have to study. I hope that hon. members have already given the bill a great deal of study. Apparently some have not, but I am hoping they will get to work now and study the bill. Then they can decide whether further evidence should be called.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I support the minister and join with him in his appeal that the bill be advanced as quickly as possible. I understand it is complicated, and, if we are to carry our full responsibilities, hon. members should study it from every point of view and secure evidence which may be available.
For years this taxation legislation has been complicated. We have been told that an effort has been made by the officials to simplify it, but I have not yet seen evidence of very much simplification. I believe the bill should be advanced another stage, and that it should be passed. Even if it is not perfect, we can attempt to perfect it in another year. Any change, particularly after the measure has been studied by the officials and by qualified bodies responsible for its administration, will be an improvement over what we now have. Therefore I join with the minister in appealing to the committee of the whole to have the measure advanced so that it may be dealt with and passed at this session. Even though it may not be perfect, we should deal with it.


Mr. HAZEX:: I support the hon. member for Cumberland in what he has just said. I trust that in the preparation of the bill great care has been taken to prevent any taxpayer from avoiding payment of all the taxes he should pay. The ingenuity of some accountants is amazing. It is extraordinary to find, if one employs the proper accountant, how very well one can get along when, it comes to the payment of income tax. It is nothing short of wonderful how some people can avoid the payment of income tax and still remain within the law. I would mention as an illustration the case of two young men who, we will say, go into the garage business. After they have been in business for a little while they obtain ant exclusive agency for some make of motorcar. They sell a great many cars, with the result that they make a good profit and a good net income. In consequence they have to pay a high tax to the government. That is not quite satisfactory to them, and an expert accountant comes along and says, "You should incorporate, and become a joint stock company." They proceed to form a joint stock company and become incorporated. Then they proceed to sell their exclusive franchise to that joint stock company. In payment they accept a certain number of debentures. When they make their profit the next- year, instead of declaring the net profit they have made they pay off so many of the debentures they hold, with the result that they get out of paying the tax they should pay.
That is only one example. Some of these experts seem to find it easy to get around the law. It is not fair, and it docs not do justice

National Battlefields at Quebec
to the government or to those who are anxious to pay their full amount of taxation. It seems to me it would be of great assistance to us in going over this bill if we could have before us some of those expert accountants who are so ingenious in getting around the law; but I doubt very much whether that would be possible.
I believe we should go ahead with the bill, do the best Ave can with it, and if we find it imperfect, it can be amended in future sessions.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 338, respecting income taxes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether the house would agree to give it second reading and have it referred to the committee, or whether it should stand over.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Banking and commerce committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would move the second reading now by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec, to authorize payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of the sum of $1,000,000 over a period of ten years from the first of April, 1048, to the commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the act and to authorize the commission to acquire and hold a certain parcel and tract of land therein described.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Mr. BELZILE:: 
Mr. MacNICOL:: Does that include both battlefields?


Gleason Belzile: They are both joined together in a piece of land in the shape of the letter "L".


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is west of Quebec?


Gleason Belzile: That is northwest of the St. Lawrence river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it include anything east of Quebec out as far as Montmorency falls?


Gleason Belzile: Nothing along the Montmorency river; it does not go that far. In 1912 some construction work was started. Up to and including 1927 the amounts required by the commission were voted annually by parliament. In 192S section 8 of the act of 190S was repealed, and in substitution therefor the Minister of Finance was authorized to pay to the commission $75,000, a year, for a period not exceeding ten years. In 1938 these annual payments were extended for a further period of ten years, which expired on March 31, 1948.
Section 10 of the act of 190S provides:
No land or immovable property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous authority of parliament.
It is deemed expedient, because of the building of a road by the municipality of Sillery alongside the park, to acquire a piece of property of approximately 135.000 square feet. The old Champlain road bounded the park along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. The road has a bad curve which it has been decided to straighten out. The commission will acquire the piece of land between the old road and the new Champlain road. No expense is involved in this transaction, except the payment of legal fees in connection with deeds and other documents. I have more detailed information which I can give in committee on the bill.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the parliamentary assistant inform the committee what appropriations are made for the battlefields in the maritime provinces, at Beausejour, Louisbourg and Ste. Anns.


Gleason Belzile: The historic sites come
under the jurisdiction of an entirely different body. The national battlefields commission was set up especially to take care of the national battlefields at Quebec City, and its functions do not extend to any other part of Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Chairman, I do not see any objection to supporting the resolution. I think it is most important that such an historic place as the Plains of Abraham and the site of the battle of Ste. Foy be properly preserved. I never go to Quebec City without going out Grande Allee to look over the battleground. It was a remarkable achievement for Wolfe's army to ascend the heights from the St. Lawrence river to the Plains of Abraham during the night and be ready to engage next morning in a conflict which had such momentous results. I think the battlefields commission is doing an excellent job in looking after these sites. It is well laid out; the roads are well taken care of, and every effort is made to beautify the surroundings, which, of course, is what the nation should do.
When the hon. member was speaking to the resolution I asked if any area east of Quebec City was included in the plans, and I understood him to say no. I think the whole of that land where the Montmorency river flows into the St. Lawrence, at which point severe fighting took place between Montcalm and Wolfe and where Wolfe made his first strong attempt to take the city, should be preserved for posterity. I went there, but I do not remember whether the land had been laid out and beautified. Part of the island of Orleans also figured prominently in the fighting, and I should like to know if there is some program for preserving the works established on the island of Orleans, where many of Wolfe's troops were stationed. The same would apply to Point Levis, from where Wolfe made his last ascent up the river. I think it is to the credit of any country that it should preserve and take care of its historic sites, and undoubtedly the Plains of Abraham and the site of the battle of Ste. Foy constitute one of the most historic sites in Canada.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that this bill is for the purpose of continuing the procedure which was commenced by statute in 1908 and which the parliamentary assistant has described. I agree with the hon. member for Davenport that we do well to commemorate the occasions and preserve the sites of the national battlefields, and particularly this one in which both great races can take pride, and which the parliamentary assistant has described so well. I take it that questions of relative expenditure can be gone into when we have the bill before us?


Gleason Belzile: Yes.
Northwest

Territories Power Commission
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Belzile thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 339, respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. NORTHWEST TERRITORIES



ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS-PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF POWER COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to facilitate the construction and operation of electric power plants in the Northwest Territories and the supplying of power thereby generated to mining and other interests. The bill provides for the establishment of a power commission as the authority to carry out the construction and operation of the projects referred to in the bill. Provision is made for advances of moneys from the consolidated revenue fund to the commission to enable it, if and when required, to carry out its undertakings with provision also for the remuneration to be paid the commissioners.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister give some outline of what is proposed, after which I wish to say a word or two.


Mr. MacKINNON:: The resolution is selfexplanatory. As the members of the house will recall, items were included in the estimates for 1946-47 and 1947-48 for the Snare river power development in the Yellowknife district in the Northwest Territories.
It is expected that the first unit will be completed by the fall of this year, and it is therefore, necessary to provide for an organization to take over the management of the project. The bill to be introduced will authorize the establishment of a power commission for this purpose, to be called the "Northwest Territories Power Commission."
Powers are to be given to the commission to operate the project and to sell electrical power, and as well to construct and operate other electrical power developments in the territories as and when needed. A full explanation accompanies the bill, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to say more at this stage.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the vote was
passing through the house last year for the commencement of the Snare river project I supported it because I knew that the whole area around the Yellowknife required power.

The minister has not told us the capacity of the first unit or how many units will be established on the Snare river.


James Angus MacKinnon: I will give that information on second reading.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is some information that I wish to get.


James Angus MacKinnon: I would rather do it at that time.


Mr. CHURCH:: The resolution provides for a national policy for electric power only so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned. It does not include the existing provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but only the territories that have no provincial status.


James Angus MacKinnon: That is correct.


Thomas Langton Church: They are under the control of the federal authorities. The policy involved is one of bonus, subvention and subsidy to certain districts, while other districts are not taken care of. Perhaps this is due to the technical consideration that these districts constitute a territory and not a province. I submit that the government should lay down a general national policy for the development of electric power throughout Canada. This is one of the richest countries in the world, with an abundance of natural resources for cheap light and power, and as I have contended for many years past, it should be the policy of this government to undertake something along the lines of this resolution on a national scale. If there are any districts that are not able to pay for the service rendered, the federal authority should step in and give some assistance. If these districts are hard up, if they have no funds, the government might broaden out its present policy into a national one, so that those who are financially unable to get supplies of power may have the joy and the blessing, not only on farms and mines but in all the villages, of this wonderful gift of cheap light and power with which Canada is so richly endowed.


Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Broadview. I think it is high time we did have a national set-up for the development of power, and when the bill is brought in I shall have more to say on this subject. Will this proposed project be self-liquidating? In other words, will it be necessary for the government to take money out of the consolidated revenue fund to defray the cost of construction if it is found that the project will not pay for itself?

Yukon Act


James Angus MacKinnon: The project is based upon the principle of self-liquidation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacKinnon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 340. respecting the supplying of electrical power in the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YUKON ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Acting Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Yukon Act to re-establish the posh tions of commissioner and of administrator of the Yukon territory, to increase the indemnity of members of the Yukon council and provide for their travelling and living expenses, and for other purposes relating to the government of the Yukon territory.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
James Angus MacKinnon: The purpose of the bill to be is to make a number of amendments to the Yukon Act. One is to re-establish the positions of commissioner and administrator. The duties originally attached to these positions had been assigned some years ago to other officers in the territory. Another amendment is to grant authority to the Yukon council to increase their indemnities from the present rate of $400 to a maximum of $1,000. A number of other and minor amendments are being made, which I need not mention at this time. On second reading I shall be prepared to give full details.


Thomas Langton Church: How many men will be on the commission?


James Angus MacKinnon: Not exceeding three.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: The proposed resolution is quite necessary and, as explained by the minister, it will, I am sure, have the support of the house. I should like to know from him, when the bill is before us, why the names "commissioner" and "administrator" were ever dropped. They were included in the original Yukon Act; but someone in the department, for some reason, if there was a reason, known only to himself, dropped the word "commissioner" and substituted the silly word "comptroller". That word having been used for many years, they then changed it to "controller" and now they are going back to "commissioner". Can the minister give us the history of that?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am not familiar with the reasons, but evidently it has been considered advisable to go back to the former system of naming the officers.
In answer to the hon. member for Davenport, I may tell him that the bill proposes, although I would rather not go into details, the appointment of a commission of one and not exceeding three.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. MacKinnon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 341, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION-PENSIONS FOR WARTIME DISABILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice a grievance and to request redress. The subject of my grievance is certain forgotten victims among Canadian veterans of world wars I and II. As cases in point, I propose to refer to veteran Sholto B. McClellan, No. 77732, now living at 361 Osborne road, North Vancouver, British Columbia, of world war I. and veteran Frank W. Connorton, V52017 (R.C.N.V.R.), now living in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Evidence strongly indicates that each of these veterans is the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice in the matter of pension for wartime disability. My limited experience fills me with anxiety that each of these two men is a representative of a class of victim veterans, the numbers of which are more than disturbing for all Canadians. May I give some particulars about McClellan? In a letter dated May 31, 1948, he writes as follows:
What we are complaining about is that our records have been mishandled, or, in real truth, falsified, to make it look as if we were not entitled to pensions.
My evidence clearly shorvs that the charges are true.
Concerning McClellan. Walter H. Kirehner, secretary of the Canadian combat veterans' association, in a letter dated April 5, 1948, had this to say:
What has taken place in respect to the McClellan ease (since the commissioners under P.C. 4980 made their findings) is what will
Veterans A flairs

take place within the claims of all those I represent-as their legal adviser-until such time as the actual, recorded evidence given before the inquiry by my witnesses receives scrutiny by a properly-qualified judicial body familiar with the implications of the military pensions legislation statutes of Canada.
And again I quote from the same document:
My witnesses were those I produced to back up the charges of definite infringements of the military pension statutes or what is termed "maladministration" illustrated in bureaucratic violation of the statutes, by the use of improper or false reports read into the records-and the rights of ex-service men and women and their dependents so outlawed.
McClellan contends that he was given only a 50 per cent pension for a 100 per cent multiple war disability condition. He says that, as a disability pensioner, he took up fruit ranching and invested $5,000 in a ranch under the soldier settlement board, and was evicted from the ranch on account of temporary arrears during the depression period, when such arrears could have been waived under the provisions of the Soldier 'Settlement Act owing to McClellan's disabilities. Subsequently he sought damages in the exchequer court for wrongful eviction and recovery of his $5,000 equity, but without result.
Again, at seventy-two years of age-and it must be remembered that we are speaking of a man who went and risked his life for Canada in world war I-in order to keep a roof over his head and that of his wife, he is forced to wash dishes in an hotel. He received an injury to his leg while working, but the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia refuse to honour the claim as they state that, while the injury prevents McClellan from carrying on his employment, the injury would be only a superficial one to a young or middle-aged man: but the arthritic condition and allied disabilities arising from war service, coupled with McClellan's age, make the outcome of this injury a responsibility of the Canadian pension commission.
This helps us to see how some of these splendid men are getting what is popularly called "the run-around".
Again, unless McClellan is given his proper pension assessment of 100 per cent instead of the present 50 per cent, he will be compelled to sell the equity they have in their home and endeavour to make both ends meet by living on the proceeds, because he is definitely out of the labour market, as his private physician's report makes clear.
May I turn now from the McClellan case and consider briefly matters pertaining to Frank W. Connorton, who is just a boy. This man enlisted on January 5, 1943. He was well, strong, sound in body and mind and full of

hope for a future of abundant living. He was discharged on March 18, 1946, as medically unfit, broken in mind and body, with no hope for a future of any kind or degree of abundant living. After months of striving for justice, he became the subject of a Canadian pension ruling signed at Ottawa, May 10, 1947. In this ruling appear the following words:
The commission rules:
"Prespomlylolisthesis-pre-enlistment	condition, aggravated three-fifths during service in Canada. Effective June 1, 1946, as the aggravation did not arise out of nor was it directly connected with military service."
After months more of struggle, he was again the victim, receiving in a letter dated January 29, 1948, the following message:
I have to inform you that the reports of the examination recently held on you show that your pensionable disability from prespondylolisthesis is 18 per cent in extent.
That letter, dated January 29, 1948, is signed by W. E. Dexter, secretary of the Canadian pension commission.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that this young man receives no more than $20 a month, if I interpret it aright, to recompense him for practically total wreckage in war service to Canada. How did it come about that such a gruesome state of affairs developed in Canada as is illustrated in the case of this young man?
Reviewing Connorton's case, I find myself impelled to ask the minister to find the answer for me to four main pertinent questions. First, did this man's condition partly result from an appendix operation in June, 1943? In this operation, I might say, the man was given a local anaesthetic through a needle thrust into the spine. But the man administering the anaesthetic was apparently practising on Connorton; he had to make eight attempts before he was able to get the needle into the right place in the spine, the whole process being accompanied by excruciating pain and what later developed to be permanent injury to the young man.
The second question: Did his tragic final condition partly result from his effort to do work for which surgical bungling had unfitted him?
Third: Did his condition result in any considerable measure from a spinal fusion operation on November 15, 1945, apparently unsuccessful, and subsequent mismanagement on the part of government officials in the army?
Fourth:	Was his misfortune partly the
result of a second unsuccessful spinal fusion operation on or about September 18, 1946?
I become more suspicious and inquisitive in regard to this case when I review again Frank W. Connorton's history of hospitalization. As given to me it is as follows:

Veterans Affairs
1.	Local spinal anaesthetic given the latter part of June, 1943, when the needle was driven eight times into the spine by a Doctor Palmer, followed by an appendix operation.
2.	Hospitalized for gland trouble in the spring of 1944.
3.	Given a one-man medical board by Doctor Whitelaw, July, 1944. X-rays taken of his back; then the report coming back- and I draw the attention of hon. members of the committee particularly to this finding, which has an important bearing on the finding of the commission on May 10, 1947- "Nothing wrong with the spine". Then he was classified by this board as A-l.
4.	He was examined by Doctor Mackenzie at the Givenchy barracks, August, 1944, who reported also, "Nothing wrong with the spine".
5.	He was admitted to Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, B.C., August, 1944, with a condition diagnosed as bronchitis and laryngitis. This condition diagnosed by Doctor Harold and an operation for tonsilitis performed by Doctor Jackson.
6.	Examined by Doctor Ross Robertson, neurosurgeon, on complaints of Connorton regarding the condition of his spine. This physician told the man he had an unmatured spine. He was given a first spinal fusion on November 15, 1945, by this surgeon.
7.	On April 2, 1946. he was boarded by the neurosurgeons Boucher, Naden, Starr, Thompson and Black, on complaints of the man that he was still suffering from pain in his back.
8.	He was turned over by the neurosurgeons to the departmental psychiatrist, Doctor Stanley, who stated in his board: "Nothing wrong with the man except in his imagination".
9.	X-rays taken of the man's spine at the Nanaimo hospital about the middle of September, 1946, on complaints of the man that his back was bothering him.
10.	He was examined by Doctor Frank Lehman, neurosurgeon, Shaughnessy hospital, about the middle of September, 1946.
11.	He was boarded by the neurosurgeons Boucher, Naden, Starr, Thompson and Chip-suik. Exploratory operation of opening up the spine followed and discovered bone-graft fusion did not take. The second spinal fusion operation followed.
I think almost every member of the committee must be astonished by the history of this man's hospitalization. Note particularly that on July 4 Doctor Whitelaw declared there was nothing wrong with the spine, and that in August. 1944, Doctor Mackenzie also declared there was nothing wrong with the
spine. Let us bear in mind that the commission found that the man suffered from pre-enlistment disability; yet these two doctors declared there was nothing wrong with the spine in 1944! This ought to be enough to show that there should be some effort at consistency among those employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Then Doctor Ross Robertson found an unmatured spine, right after these other two doctors had declared there was nothing wrong with the spine! Then a spinal fusion operation took place, a major operation which, I understand, is most painful and most dangerous. Then Doctor Stanley, psychiatrist, declared there was nothing wrong with the man except in his imagination.
I wonder how many of these pestilential psychiatrists we have in the employ of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In a general, sweeping way I would stop here to advise the veterans affairs department to clear out these people as one would clear vermin out of a house. I do not think we have any use for psychiatrists to deal with our soldiers in this dominion; and I do not care who the psychiatrists are. If what they do is indicated lay what was done in this case I believe everyone will agree that I have not spoken immoderately. Here is a man who, in the face of a spinal fusion operation, declares that the soldier has nothing wrong with his back except in his imagination! Hon. members will recall that there was an exploratory operation opening the spine, which disclosed that the bone-graft fusion had not taken; and this immediately followed the declaration of our psychiatrist that the only thing wrong with the man's spine was in his mind! If we should have another war, and if any of us should have a boy going to that war, I think we should offer a silent prayer that he will never fall into the hands of a psychiatrist.
Then, on May 10, 1947, after all this, the pension commission found there was nothing to indicate that his condition was caused by military service! Probably there was a play on "military service" as a pair of weasel words, so that what the commission said was technically accurate but in spirit monstrously wrong. If this man's ills did not result from service in His Majesty's forces, I do not know how in the world one would proceed to prove that fact. While all this is going on, the boy called Connorton, who might be your boy or mine, Mr. Speaker, a lad in whom our whole faith and hope are reposed, is wrecked. One of God's noble youth in Canada is destroyed.
*1906
Veterans Affairs

The question we ask-and I speak for all members of the house-is this: What is to be done about this boy? This house, with one voice, asks the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) to tell us what is to be done about this boy? He was taken away from home-healthy, gloriously strong, able to do heavy work. I have evidence in abundance to prove that. He was taken into the army, and was turned out of it a wreck. And it was at that time it was declared that his disability was the result of pre-enlistment deficiency. He was turned out, thrown on the scrap heap, with a miserable $20 a month-not enough to provide him with a room.
What is to be done with the others in his class? This boy is not the only one. Where one has suffered, there are plenty of others. Who is going out to find them in all their various theatres of suffering? Who is going to do something to see that their injustices are remedied?
The suffering of each of these two boys, these two servicemen Connorton and McClellan, is extreme now. The veteran Con-noiton, for example, has a disablement from spinal fusion, an exceedingly serious and painful malady.
I received today this letter dated June 8, 1948, which deals with spinal fusion cases:
John Blaekmore, Esq., H P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa
Dear Mr. Blaekmore:
re Spinal Elision cases
In my conversation during the 1947 parliamentary session with Brig. Gen. W. P. Warner, M.D., director general of the treatment services of the D.V.A., in discussing the plight of the spinal-fusion cases, he admitted that "once a man received a spinal fusion," as he expressed himself, "God Almighty could not cure him"; or, in other words, restore the man to a physical condition where he could again render ablebodied service in industry or the professions, such as civil engineering, where men are subject to physical strains.
General Warner further stated that while he considered the treatment services of the department "the finest in the dominion" yet, as he expressed himself, "the spinalfusion cases were the great nightmare of the treatment services."
If you will refer to General Warner's report, incorporated in the findings of the public inquiry, held under P.C. 4986, and embodied in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the select committee on veterans affairs, April 15, 1948, it will be observed he is quite frank in acknowledging the gravity of the situation confronting men who have received one, two or more spinal fusions with resultant near-total disability.
Yours sincerely,
Walter H. Kirchner, Secretary,
Canadian Combat Veterans' Assn.

Here is this boy expected to make his own living, turned out roughly and provided with $20 a month, which is not enough to supply him with his medical needs. What is to be done about him? Is there any ear in the Dominion of Canada; are there any ears in the House of Commons, which will attune themselves to his pleading voice, and resolve that something shall be done to make right this monstrous wrong?
I would ask the minister to prepare at an early day detailed answers to the questions I have asked, and to give them to the house either before or when his estimates come up for discussion. I would ask the minister to have the most exacting investigation made of the various decisions which have been made, bearing upon each of these twro cases, and to explain to the house fully at an early day the justification for the decisions of May 10, 1947, and January 29, 1948, in respect of the Connorton case and the corresponding decisions in the McClellan case.
I would ask the minister, further, to tell the house at an early day what he proposes to do (1) to remedy the injustices in each of these two cases; (2) to seek out and remedy the injustices in each of the cases in that class of injustices of which Connorton and McClellan are examples and (3) to safeguard other cases throughout this land against similar injustices.
May I assure the minister I intend to follow these cases through, in the hope of my being of some assistance to the minister in his efforts to detect and to remedy certain abuses in the administration of veterans affairs which have left many results deeply regrettable to all Canadians.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blaekmore) has read into the record a serious indictment with regard to the administration of veterans affairs. He has put some pretty specific evidence on the record in respect of these two cases.
It is unfortunate that the minister is not now in the house, because I believe the grievances the hon. member has aired require some answers from the minister.


Mr. GOLDING:: The minister is not in the house. The answers can. be made when the estimates are being considered, and when the officials are here.


Clarence Gillis: It is all right to have it done on the estimates; but the fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Lethbridge has put on the record detailed evidence with regard to two cases. This goes out to the public, and I suggest that some answer should

Supply-Secretary oj State
be made now. There are always two sides to every question. I do not know anything about the merits or demerits of the two cases discussed; but in the interests of the department as a whole, and of the minister, I suggest that some answer should be made now. so that hon. members may have a reasonable picture of what the problem is in respect of these two men.
After listening to what the hon. member for Lethbridge has said, I would say there has been a callous disregard for suffering and for the things to which these veterans were entitled. Dealing with the department from time to time and with the pension commission. I have found them fair and reasonable, working within the limits of the legislation under which they operate. I should like to hear an answer now. or at least some assurance from the minister that he will give a detailed statement respecting these two cases when his estimates are under consideration. There is now on the record a full statement of the other side of the picture, and I should like to have some clarification of it.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Veterans .Affairs (Mr. Gregg) is in the committee on veterans affairs.
We never thought that these two particular cases would be brought up today. I shall call the attention of the minister to these cases, so that he may answer them.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
GS. Departmental administration, $997,990.
Item stands.	.

[Stage Direction]
1-51. General administration, $283,433.
Stanley Howard Knowles: How many departments will this leave?


Alphonse Fournier: There will be one department left, but I undertook that every week we would make a formal motion to go into supply, so that hon. members could bring
up any grievance they might have.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
1/28. Departmental administration, $141,048.
John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what expansion there has been this year in his department?


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: In numbers?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Colin William George Gibson: That would be difficult, because the department includes many branches such as the printing bureau, the patent office, the translations bureau and others. I could give them for each branch as we go along.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
429. Citizenship iegistration branch, $165,105.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know the number of applications that have been made for citizenship certificates by native-born Canadians since the new act came into effect. When the act was first established there were, in different parts of the country, ceremonies which had a profound effect upon the attitude of our citizens who had come from other lands. There were public functions, and an endeavour was made to educate our people in the meaning of citizenship, not only from the point of view of its benefits and rights but also as to its responsibilities. Much was made of the fact that many Canadians would desire to have certificates in order to show that they were in fact citizens of this country, without regard to hyphenate considerations. That was most commendable. I think the citizenship act has had a most salutary effect upon our people as a whole.
However, I feel that the department, since the act came into effect, has not been as enthusiastic about it as it was at the time it originally became law. I should like to have from the minister the number of native-born Canadians who have applied for citizenship certificates in the years 1947 and 1948 to date. Second, I should like to know the number of those who were naturalized as Canadian citizens prior to the act coming into effect, who have since asked for and secured citizenship certificates.


Colin William George Gibson: I have
the figures for the previous year, but for the year 1947-48 natural-born Canadians who were entitled to certificates in proof of citizenship applied to a total number of 11,972. That is the number actually issued in the past year. Those who had previously been naturalized under the Naturalization Act applied for certificates in proof of citizenship to the number of 2,102.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister
satisfied with the degree to which applications have been made, particularly by naturalized citizens? What has been done to encourage applications for these certificates?
Supply-Secretary of State

Could the minister advise the committee as to the extent to which the enthusiasm that existed in January, 1947, in his department, has waned in the intervening months?


Colin William George Gibson: I would not say that it has waned in the slightest degree. A person who has a naturalization certificate has no need of a certificate in proof of citizenship. If he turns in his naturalization certificate, wTe issue the other certificate if he wishes it, but his naturalization certificate is of equal value. Some people may ask, what is the value of having a certificate in proof of citizenship? If you . are travelling abroad it is of value as proof of citizenship, and it can be of use when returning to this country.
There has been a great increase in the number applying for citizenship in this country. During the last year we issued 25,691 certificates. This is about ninety certificates for each working day, which is quite a creditable performance considering the investigation that is required. These certificates are not sold like postage stamps, because the application must be carefully examined. I feel that the citizenship registration office is doing a good' work and has been most efficient during the past year.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not want to delay the passage of the minister's estimates, but last year I happened to be absent temporarily from the house when they were up and when I wanted1 to ask a couple of questions. One has to do with the patent office and the other with regard to the citizenship registration branch. Many young people find it quite difficult, under the Patent Act as amended, to secure a patent for their useful invention, owing to the cost of the patent and their not having cash to pay for it. A great many young people have to go to the United States for those very good reasons because they find it less, difficult to secure a patent and sell their patent there, and Canada thus loses their talent.
Second, how is the citizenship registration plan working out? A great many people have the idea, and it is generally understood in the old country, that we are no longer British subjects but Canadian citizens only. I remember when the Athenia was sunk in the early days of the last war. There were 130 Canadians on board, and someone suggested that they were British subjects, which meant a lot on the seas. I think the minister should state that Canadian citizens are still British subjects. Remember civis romanus sum and
[Jlr. Diefenbaker.]
what it meant, as being a British subject did on the seven seas.


Colin William George Gibson: The act still provides that a Canadian citizen is a British subject. It is true that an act has been introduced at Westminster, framed somewhat along the lines of our own citizenship act, which provides that residents of the United Kingdom and the colonies will be known as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The fact remains that in Canada we are not only Canadian citizens but also British subjects.
The hon. member asked how the citizenship program is working out. We have had the greatest co-operation from judges across the country. There was a time when applicants for naturalization were called before a court, answered a few perfunctory questions, the application was approved, and the certificate issued. There was little formality about the proceedings. Now throughout the country we have formalities which are designed to impress the new Canadians when they receive their citizenship certificates. The judges have taken great interest in this work, and have received the co-operation of service clubs and particularly from the Daughters of the Empire, who come to these ceremonies and assist in making the new Canadians feel they are welcome in this country. I have attended a large number of these ceremonies, and consider that they help to give the new Canadian a realization of the importance of the step he is taking and make him realize that he is assuming obligations as well as the privileges of citizenship.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was bom in Canada, as were my parents, and I have not taken out any citizenship papers for the reason that I could not see why I, born a Canadian, needed to take out citizenship papers. But if I wanted to go to England and then to the continent of Europe, after I obtain my passport as a Canadian born in this country, do I have to take out any more papers than I did before?


Colin William George Gibson: No; the passport is sufficient.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to clear up a misunderstanding created as a result of a question regarding citizenship that I asked in this house on May 19. I asked a question as to one Dimitri Dontzow, now a resident of Montreal. My question was to the effect, where was he during the first world war; was he now engaged in work for the government, and had he taken any steps toward

Criminal Code
securing Canadian citizenship? The answer given was that he entered Canada on January 7. 1948, and was granted non-immigrant status. The manner in which my question was drafted was designed to prevent any harm or hurt from being done to that man. I was totally unaware of the fact that a controversy was going on among some groups as to whether he should be entitled to remain in Canada and become a citizen. I have always followed the course of not doing anything to injure any person through the protection granted to me by my parliamentary privilege, and I feel that, in asking that question. I have done some harm to that man. While I have not undertaken to say this, I want to say that, so far as I am concerned, this man would make a good Canadian citizen, that he was and has been a consistent enemy of communism in the Ukraine, where he operated since the war, and that those who today in this country are endeavouring to secure his deportation are doing so because they resent the work he did on behalf of democracy during the war and following. I think it is only fair, sir, to mention that, because a lot has been said on this question, indicating, as it might, that I was endeavouring to do harm to a man who, according to information I have gained, not only from members of his organization but from independent Canadians of undoubtedly first-rate reputation, would in my opinion make a good prospective citizen and is a man who ought to be given honourable sanctuary in Canada.
May I ask the minister whether the British government has communicated with him as Secretary of State with a view to ascertaining whether or not a new form of citizenship should be established to be known as commonwealth citizenship rather than as British or empire citizenship?


Colin William George Gibson: The British government does not communicate with my department; it communicates through the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe there have been some communications discussing the form of title that should be applied to a subject of the British commonwealth, but I do not know what reply, if any, the Department of External Affairs might have sent.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister obtain that information?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes, I shall be glad to do so.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved the second reading of Bill No. 207, to amend the criminal code (pistols, motor vehicles, level crossings and the payment of fines).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house for more than a few minutes in discussing this bill. I would point out, however, that this is the 101st day of the session, and I think we should have devoted an hour to the discussion of the questions involved in the bill. The loss of life in Canada is simply appalling. We find that in one instance eighteen persons are killed in the space of a week end, and in every newspaper that one picks up its pages are figuratively coloured red with the blood of men, women and children who have been ruthlessly slaughtered by motor vehicles.
This bill does not conflict with the bill which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) introduced on Monday, since it deals with different subject matters in every section. The bill now before the house is No. 207, copies of which are on the table.
I shall not speak for more than twelve minutes, and in that time I wish to refer to three or four important principles that are involved in the bill. In 1935 there was a learned discussion in this house, lasting the whole of one day and the day following, and I might say that a committee consisting of both houses of parliament was appointed in England to investigate this entire subject.
Coming to this particular bill, I think the object at which it aims is quite clear. On almost every highway in Canada there has been slaughter of innocent people, men, women and children, and that is true right across the country; yet little or nothing is done about it.
Speaking in this house on March 9, 1937, I stated that if any devastating disease were to take the toll the motorcar is taking by night and by day, science and medicine would know no rest until they had found a cure. The death toll by the motorcar constitutes Canada's greatest scandal. The slaughter goes on all over the country, and the economic losses are appalling. The worst thing about it is, I think, the indifference of the public.
In that discussion a great many other matters were referred to. On that occasion I
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
quoted the observations of Chief Justice Rose at the winter assizes in 1937. in his address to the grand jury. Chief Justice Rose is reported as follows:
"The toll of life by motors is appalling and the number of people injured is infinitely greater," declared Chief Justice Rose in his address to the grand jury this afternoon.
"Careless driving will stop just as soon as the people of Ontario make up their minds that it is to stop," he continued.
It is the part of juries to see that there are convictions. If lawbreakers get the idea there will not be convictions they will continue.
His lordship said there appeared to be something illogical in the fact that a motorist who kills gets a term in prison, while another who is merely fortunate enough to injure his victim gets off easily.
As I have said, five years before that time, in the old country, a committee of both houses of parliament was set up to go into this question and it got something done. On February 13, 1935, there was a non-political debate on the subject in the Canadian house on a resolution of mine in which some twenty-seven members took part. In that debate I emphasized the fact that one of the commandments is, "Thou shalt not kill", but many men of real worth have violated the laws not only of God but of man.
No invention has contributed more to the education, pleasure and enjoyment of the people than the motorcar; but its use is one thing, its abuse another. As with every great invention, use and abuse are two distinct things. During the past century scientific discoveries in medicine, chemistry and physics have resulted in untold good to humanity, but the abuse of some of these discoveries in chemistry, biochemistry and physics has in war proved a curse to mankind. In Jike manner today the abuse of the motorcar is a curse to humanity.
On looking into this question, one finds involved in it tremendous annual losses in deaths, accidents, injuries and money. Untold sorrow and suffering are caused, intense pain and grief exceeding anything that the human imagination can conceive. The only evils which have equalled it are plague, pestilence and famine, battle, murder and sudden death. It would be misleading and mischievous to attribute all the blame for these ghastly horrors on our highways to all who drive and use motorcars. Ninety-five per cent of the drivers want to obey the law; it is the five percent about whom I am complaining.
One has to study the records to know the facts, and as I study the records of thousands of cases I am driven to the conclusion that, beyond dispute, this small minority must take

the major part of the blame. They appear to have exploited for their own pleasure or profit the generous tolerance of others by using their cars in an irresponsible, careless, cruel and un-Christian way. The fault is grievous, and they can have no ground for complaint if they are put under restraint as far as the criminal code is concerned. Ignorance and thoughtlessness are no palliatives. Obedience is the only reparation they can make and it is long overdue.
I should like to quote something that was said by the late Chief Justice Meredith, who so ably presided on circuit for nearly forty-six years. At the last assizes over which he presided in Toronto he addressed the grand jury on the amendments that were made in 1930. He said:
And as now nearly everyone is a car owner and car driver, young and old, of all sorts and conditions, it is difficult to get justice in even a civil action.
Car-driver-jurors have nearly all the speed fever; and self-preservation instincts are so strong that they will not be persuaded to decide against drivers who have been no more unlawful than they themselves often, if not commonly, are.
What then is the remedy? I think it should be:	Make the laws plain and reasonably
severe and enforce them; and cancel licences freely.
And at the other end of the matter: Give no licence to anyone who is not proved to be mentally and physically, and from experience and a knowledge of the highway laws, thoroughly capable.
A situation such as this calls for a united effort from the church, the press, parliament, the legislatures, boards of trade, chambers of commerce and all other public bodies. The privation and sorrow, the broken lives and shattered homes, resulting from such a holocaust are just as real as at the time of the nation's supreme trial in the war. It is hidden, and it is suffered in silence; but how long will that continue to be?
Three features dominate the conduct of motor traffic: a domineering indifference to the convenience of others, excessive speed, and congestion. Ever since man learned to direct a machine more powerful than himself, he has asserted his superiority of force over his neighbours. "Make way or take the consequences" has been his cry. Yet this indifference to others is limited to a small number of motor drivers. The motor leagues of the provinces make the same complaint. It is a small number out of the large body of drivers who transgress; ninety-nine per cent of them respect and obey the law. The majority of motorcar drivers have only a hazy knowledge of the mechanism of their machine, and for absolute control the only condition in which a car is fit to be driven at thirty miles an hour

Criminal Code
is perfect adjustment. Even so, the machine is potentially as dangerous as a loaded gun and must be handled with equal care and vigilance. A moment's inattention may be fraught with dire results. Every motor vehicle is a dangerous implement, even when controlled by the most expert, and requires incessant vigilance in all circumstances, especially at speeds above thirty miles an hour.
Transportation should be a means to an end, not an end in itself. I could go on further, but I will not do so.
I come now to the bill itself. The first section deals with the use of pistols or air-guns, loaded or unloaded. Pistols can be purchased at many places. I know of an industry on Spadina avenue that sends out pictures and pamphlets describing its manufacture. They come over the border from Connecticut, in the United States, and it is easy to buy one.
Another section provides that "pistol" shall include anything of the shape or form or size of a pistol. Many of these fatal accidents have been caused as a result of the ease with which a pistol may be secured, especially by some of the younger people. The pistol, added to the abuse of the motorcar, is a menace to the people of this country.
My time is about up, but I may say that another section deals with those who drive motorcars under the influence of alcohol. That is a practice which has been condemned at many sittings of the courts by the Ontario government's expert, Doctor Rogers. He says that liquor is killing five people and injuring eighty-four every week on the highways of Ontario alone. I think the opposition members should look into this matter. This is referred to in Hansard of April 22, 1947. I propose an amendment under one section of this bill.
Every section deals with a different principle. Subsection 4 of section 55 of the criminal code as enacted uses the word "narcotic". I propose to substitute "under the influence of alcohol", so that the section will then read:
Everyone who, while under the influence of alcohol or any narcotic, drives any motor vehicle or automobile is guilty of an offence and liable to . . .
And the punishment is set out.
The next matter dealt with is the hit-and-run drivers, the most cowardly type of all. I have seen instances on the main streets of our city where a hit-and-run driver comes along and injures someone. I was on Danforth avenue yesterday and I saw a small child on the road. Several cars passed her, and the last one came along at an outrageous rate of speed and knocked her down. Nobody could stop him. In fact a special policeman would be
necessary for each car for that purpose. But these hit-and-run drivers get away with it. No one got that man's number. Yet the child was injured. Many children have been killed and injured in this way. In our city, in the riding which I represent, and it is an industrial riding at the south end, there are some poor people whose children have been knocked down and killed by hit-and-run drivers, and no penalty is meted out. It is a form of murder and there should be further legislation dealing with it.
Another matter dealt with in the bill is the failure to stop at level crossings. Several people were killed on Monday at one of these. I should like to have put in the code a section which would read:
The operator of a motor vehicle on street, road, highway or other public place who neglects to come to a full stop before reaching a level crossing where a railway crosses such street, road, highway or other public place, and who does not look and listen for an approaching train before passing a level crossing, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50.
The loss of life at level crossings is appalling, and some remedy should be found.
Another section provides that those who cause death are not to drive for two years. It deals with culpable negligence. Under the law of New York state it is for the jury to say. It takes two people to make any accident that I know of on the highway. You cannot have any accident unless two people are involved, one going one way and one another. The cause of death is for the junto say. In some cases they assess the negligence at 20 per cent or 25 per cent on one side and 75 or SO per cent on the other. If the jury brings in a verdict like that, the accused person is not to drive for a period of two years.
Another matter dealt with in the bill is the trial of a young person. The other day in county court in the county of Peel, we had an instance of the trial of a young offender. I believe the parents should be notified in these cases. I do not see why, when one is in Montreal or in another place, the parents should not be notified of their being held in custody for some offence.
The late Chief Justice Rose referred to the present law at the assizes in Toronto; I quoted him a moment ago. He said that the jury was to blame in some cases for not having the courage to enforce the law. The function of a judge is to explain the law to the jury, and the jury is bound to take what the judge says is the law. But in a charge to a jury I believe that, in these cases of manslaughter arising out of the operation of motor vehicles,
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
the question of fact whether the accused is guilty or not guilty should be left to the jury. On the trial with a jury of persons who cause death or serious injury, it is desirable that the functions of the jury should not be curtailed or abolished. There has been much criticism of many cases of gross, negligence having been taken from the jury. The jury is required to take the law to be what the judge says it is. In many cases trial by junis almost negatived; there are so many loopholes, and many persons guilty of gross negligence get off. I contend that the law should be brought up to date to meet changed conditions. The remainder of this particular Bill No. 207, and some of the members have not read it or seen it, probably, refers to the summary convictions act in England, whereby time is given to pay the fine. This is the 101st day of the session and this is the first opportunity we have had of bringing the bill up for second reading. We are almost back in the days of "Little Dorritt" in Dickens, having regard to the number of people who have been sent to jail under the present system for not paying their fines. Many of them are minor offenders who have never been in jail before in their lives or appeared in court. I believe this is a good provision. The bill provides for time to pay, as is the case under the law of England, where half the prisons have been closed by this wise method of law reform there.
That is all I have to say about the bill. I believe the house should have given more attention to this bill in the early days of the session. There is no reason why we should not have more time to discuss these important matters of life and death to our citizens. It is only necessary to read the newspapers to learn daily about all these deaths which have taken place, not only from level crossing accidents but from motorcar accidents, drown-ings, fires in homes, children left alone and many other causes, floods and fires. This is one of the matters that should be looked into by parliament.
Clarence Gillis: I have not much to say on this bill, Mr. Speaker, except to comment on one or two things the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) had to say as he went along. The bill is a lengthy one, and one would almost need to be a lawyer to follow through all its ramifications and understand it. Some of the penalties proposed in the bill are somewhat drastic.
When the hon. member was commenting on the bill. I was interested in the observations he had to make with regard to accidents at

level crossings. His argument was that certain penalties should be applied where a driver fails to stop, look and listen at a level crossing. I do not think an amendment to the criminal code is the solution of that particular problem. I think level crossings should first be eliminated as far as possible. That is the responsibility of both federal and provincial governments, in the protection of the public. However, until such time as we can get around to the elimination of level crossings, I think the railroads, both short and main lines, should be compelled to place signals at level crossings. In driving through this country, I see hundreds of these level crossings which you come upon suddenly; you do not know a crossing is there until you are on top of it.
I remember being in New Brunswick a year ago, driving along behind a small car. An electric train came out of the woods suddenly and smashed the little car ahead of us, killing an old man who had been riding in it and badly injuring the driver. I was sufficiently intex-ested to go back to that little town that night and listen to the inquest, for I was reasonably sure that if the little car had not been ahead of us we would have been on the crossing and would have been struck by the train coming out of the woods, since there was no warning and no signal. It is the responsibility of the railroads to erect signals of some kind at crossings like that. I heard the jury bring in a verdict in that case, and in their verdict no blame was attached to the railroad, despite the fact that there was no signal and no warning of any kind.
I wanted to make just this comment because of the argument by the sponsor of this bill that the criminal code should be amended to make it an offence, carrying pretty heavy penalties, for anyone on the highway failing to stop, look and listen at a level crossing. In some of the provinces of Canada you may cross the main line of the railway a dozen times in a hundred miles, where you criss-cross back and forth. All these crossings are bad and dangerous; but that is not a condition which can be remedied by legislation. In my opinion it is the responsibility of federal and provincial governments to eliminate such crossings where possible, and to compel the operators of short lines, particularly, to erect warning signals where they cross heavily travelled main highways.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport): In the first place, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) deserves credit for his indefatigable energy in endeavouring to protect the public in one way and another, and I for one congratulate him.

Criminal Code
I want to add a word or two to what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), with much of which I agree. The problem is to have someone eliminate level crossings. The responsibility is that of the railways and the provinces and, I presume, also the federal authorities. We have an act on our books, and we vote a good deal of money for the elimination of level crossings; but, even so,
I do not think any of us will live long enough to see all level crossings eliminated.
There are some very bad crossings of this kind. I have in mind one between Brampton and Georgetown, on No. 7 highway, where many cars pass daily. I was almost run into by a train there, because you do not see the train coming from the left, and you are on the track almost before you know it. So anything this house, the legislatures and the railways can do to eliminate level crossings should be done.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) :: I should like to say a few words on this bill, Mr. Speaker, which is very much like the bill introduced with the same subject matter last year by the hon. member. At that time I had not introduced the annual amendments to the criminal code, and I intimated that some of the ideas contained in the bill would be incorporated in those amendments. Apart from one of those ideas, however, I do not think there was any such incorporation in the amendments to the criminal code last year. That one related to the first two sections of the bill, having reference to the use of firearms and imitation firearms. In the criminal code amendments of last year, which are found in chapter 55 of the statutes of 1947, section 15 provides:
Paragraph (e) of section four hundred and forty-six of the said act is repealed and the following substitued therefor:-
"(c) being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument or imitation thereof robs, or assaults with intent to rob, any person."
I suspect that my hon. friend's objective was to prevent robbery brought about by the use either of a weapon or an imitation weapon, though the amendments proposed in the bill which he introduced last year, and which he has reintroduced this year, do not attain that objective. As far as it is possible to do anything effectively by legislation, I think it was done by the amendment to the criminal code introduced in 1947, which I have cited.
The matter of the use of imitation weapons is only one of a large number of unrelated provisions contained in the bill before the house. It is not possible to discuss the principle of the bill without discussing some of
these unrelated subjects dealt with in the bill. Part of the bill is devoted to a stiffening of the penalties and a change in the law with respect to the driving of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons. Undoubtedly there is a large loss of life on account of the driving of automobiles by persons who are intoxicated. Last year, when the amendments to the criminal code were being considered, the government gave some thought and spent some time in trying to decide whether it would be possible to make the law more effective in that regard. The conclusions we came to were that it would hardly be defensible to adopt the principle my hon. friend has argued for tonight; that is, that it should be an offence to drive an automobile while under the influence of alcohol only.
The reasons for that were stated in some remarks I made on criminal code amendments on July 3, 1947, which are to be found in Hansard of that date at page 5034. The passage is not very long, and I am going to ask the house to be indulgent enough to let me read it, because this is an important subject, and upon reading over these remarks, as I have recently, I find that they represent my views today:
The hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) referred to an important subject, namely the question of driving motor ears by persons who are intoxicated. This is a matter of increasing importance. With the increasing amount of liquor being consumed in Canada, the increasing drink bill of the Canadian people, the increasing numbers of motorcars on the highways and the increasing number of accidents, parliament should take any steps it can which would be effective to prevent the causing of accidents or deaths on the highways.
Much thought has been given to the matter without. I must admit, very great results in the bill. The penalties for hit-and-run drivers have been increased.
And, may I interject, those penalties were increased by our criminal code amendments last year. They are not as severe as those proposed by the hon. member in his bill tonight; but, as I have had occasion to point out to the house before, penalties may be so severe that convictions cannot be obtained. That is a consideration which I would call to the hon. member's attention. Then, on that occasion I continued:
That is a peculiarly unpleasant sort of offence. We thought we would be justified in recommending an increase in the penalty. On the other hand, we did not think we would accomplish anything by increasing penalties for drunken driving. At the present time th.=- penalties for drunken driving are seven days or thirty days, as the case may be. I. personally, do not think that raising it to fourteen days or sixty days would act as a deterrent.
Criminal Code

There again, I believe Chat many of those persons convicted of drunken driving dread the seven days or the thirty days in jail just as much as they would the -longer periods. If we make the detention longer magistrates and courts become increasingly reluctant to make convictions. In some cases they are reluctant no\c to convict. So we turned our attention from penalties to definitions, and considered how best we could define intoxication. The present definitions could possibly be made more satisfactory. The ordinary definition of intoxication in relation to drivers is that degree of intoxication or of being under the influence of liquor which renders the driving of a car dangerous to the public. This means that if the person were permitted to drive the ear it would be a danger to the public.
That is accepted by most of the eourts. Therefore there did not seem to be much to be gained by trying to extend that definition. It is almost impossible to say that a man is intoxicated if he has had a drink we will say, within one hour, two hours, three hours or four hours, because the variation is so great. It would be extremely severe to make it an offence to drive am automobile while under the influent'- of liquor. Tile courts have ruled that a person is under the influence of liquor -after he has had a drink. The influence may be quite slight, and it hardly seems sufficient to make a criminal out of a man who has had a drink.
I think I should have said that it hardly seems appropriate to make a criminal out of a man who has a drink. Then I continued:
So we abandoned that.
We gave consideration to the reversal of the onus in some cases. The best section that I could evolve, and which I want to put on record for the consideration of members, is this:
"Provided that whenever a motor vehicle is involved in an accident, evidence that the person driving the said motor vehicle acted at or about the time of the accident in a manner indicating that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, shall be prima facie evidence that -the said person was intoxicated."
I am not recommending it at this session, but if in the course of time it is found that we have to do something, from what consideration I have been able to give the matter, this is the most practical amendment I ea-n suggest if an amendment is to be made to stiffen the section. The proposed amendment has much to commend itself, but it also has much against it. I should like those who are interested in the subject to give it some consideration between this and the next session. I may say that we have bail strong representations to the effect that we ought to go quite far in amending the section. I have not gone very far. as will be seen when the section is reached; what I have done is to try to offset the decision of the courts with regard to one particular phase of the matter which will be explained when the section is reached.
May I say that the proviso, which was so carefully drafted and upon which I invited comment, elicited no comment whatever either in the house or out of it. Therefore I am unable to suggest any better improvement of the section in question. I really am of the
rilr. Ilsley.]
opinion that to go as far as my hon. friend seeks to go in his bill would be going too far, and would move the criminal law of the country out beyond the proper realm of criminal law; and perhaps would do more harm than good.
As I said, in the bill there are a number of other sections dealing with a variety of subjects. I could take them up one at a time, but I doubt whether my hon. friend expects the house to pass the bill tonight. The discussion has served some useful purpose. He has brought these important matters before the house and the public, and has given hon. members an opportunity to express themselves with respect to them. I cannot accept the bill. At the same time, perhaps when the criminal code amendments come up, and a general discussion of the sections takes place, it may be that something can be done by returning to this bill at that time.
Therefore I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Thomas Langton Church: If there are no other speakers I should like to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the debate was adjourned.



SUPREME -COURT ACT AMENDMENT AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH APPEALS TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jaenicke for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Thomas Langton Church: I would move the adjournment of the debate. I had risen the last time the bill was before the house. On that occasion it was three minutes to nine. I move the adjournment of the debate tonight again.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: I thought the adjournment was moved by the Minister of Justice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member for Broadview to the fact that if he adjourned the debate he would close the debate. The hon. member for Lake St. John-Roberval (Mr. Dion) may proceed.
(Translation):


Mr. J. A. DION (Lake St, John-Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks concerning the matter which is now up for discussion, namely the abolition of appeals to the privy council. It may be that I shall repeat, under some form or other,

Supreme Court Act
certain arguments which have already been submitted during the debate, but there is no harm in that. Some truths are like nails: one must hammer at them repeatedly in order to drive them in well.


Mr. DECHENE:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Today the great majority of Canadians are in favour of abolishing appeals to the privy council. In fact, since the Statute of Westminster, it is admitted that the dominions are independent states within the commonwealth, bound solely by their common allegiance to the Crown. However, from a practical point of view, it must be admitted that Canada still lacks certain prerogatives which would ensure her the maturity of a free nation. I now repeat what I said last year: in order to attain the status guaranteed by the Statute of Westminster, our country still lacks three things: first, the right to amend her own constitution; second, a distinctive national flag; third, the abolition of appeals to the privy council. I shall deal only with this third proposal, because it is the one we are discussing today.
We must abolish appeals to the privy council first because our status of sovereign state calls for it; second, we have in Canada all that is required to create a judicial body complete in itself and capable of settling all our disputes; third, present conditions do not lend themselves to the prompt administration of justice for all amenable to law.
First, our status of free nation compels us to abolish appeals to the privy council.
When our country was still a crown colony, it was only logical that the final court of appeal be in the old country. As long as we were not fully autonomous in the matter of legislation, it was only logical that we should not be so in matters of law. But we reached our full constitutional development with the Statute of Westminster. Since then, nothing should prevent our abolishing appeals to a judicial body in another country.
This step has been put off since 1931, when the Statute of Westminster was enacted, and this for reasons of expediency rather than procedure. Inasmuch as last year, the privy council stated the Canadian parliament could, of its own authority, abolish such appeals, there should be no more obstacles to our doing so.
It can be said that since 1931, the country at large has been educated in this matter and public opinion now insists that appeals to the privy council be abolished. It is unworthy of a sovereign state to have its citizens subject in any way whatsoever to court decisions rendered in another state.
We exercise our sovereignty in almost every sphere. In the legislative field, for instance, we are absolutely free to enact whatever laws we choose, and this legislation no outside power can either change or disallow. In matters of international trade, it is entirely up to us to enter into any trade agreement we like, and the same applies to our external policy since we appoint our own ambassadors and diplomatic representatives. In 1939, war was declared by the Canadian parliament and duly accredited Canadian representatives sign peace treaties on Canada's behalf. Why then try to preserve an obsolete link, a state of things that is incompatible with our status of sovereign state?
A sovereign state must control its legislation, manage its external and internal policy and submit to no decisions other than those rendered by tribunals within its own boundaries. That is the main reason why we must do away with appeals to the privy council.
A second reason in support of this bill is the fact that Canada has the required and properly qualified court to pass final judgment on all disputes, whether they relate to the criminal code, the civil code or constitutional law.
In criminal cases, the matter is finalized, and our supreme court has been, for many years, the last tribunal to deal with them. In civil matters, nobody will challenge the fact that our supreme court judges are more conversant with our laws, legislation, jurisprudence, customs and traditions than the lords of the privy council.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Be it said with due respect to those honourable gentlemen. Why then submit such cases to a British court, if our Canadian court is better able to pass judgment on them?


Mr. HARTT:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Then there are cases of constitutional law, especially litigation relating
Supreme Court Act

to the respective rights and prerogatives of the dominion and provincial governments.
Here it is claimed by advocates by privy council appeals that we should cling to its jurisdiction as a greater protection for the rights of provinces and minorities. To my mind, this claim is groundless. A comparison of supreme court judgments since it was first established with those of the privy council in such matters, will show that the rights of provinces and minorities were no more protected by the privy council than by the supreme court itself. The privy council jurisprudence is like a pendulum which is skillfully made to swing at times in the direction of dominion authority, and at other times toward provincial rights, and it would be quite difficult to ascertain the real trend of that changing jurisprudence.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Moreover, to hold that, because they owe their appointment and jurisdiction to the dominion government, the judges would be prejudiced in its favour, would be casting reflections on the impartiality and the quality of our supreme court.
In the United States, the supreme court is called upon to pass final judgments on litigations arising between the states and the federal government. Justices of the United States supreme court are appointed by the central power, yet no one would pretend that their judgments are biased.
I might follow the comparison into another field. It might also be held that our sessions of the peace judges or our district magistrates, in the province of Quebec, are not competent to pass judgment on matters pertaining to federal legislation, because they owe their appointment to the provincial government. Such a statement would be most unfair and ridiculous. If that is so, why challenge the fair-mindedness of our supreme court judges because they were appointed by the dominion government? I believe I need not stress further the weakness of such an argument.
But even if we were to admit that assertion for the sake of the discussion, it does not follow that we should submit litigations of a constitutional nature to the judgment of a court which is not our own. All we have to do, if necessary, is to amend our judicial system, but I cannot agree that a sovereign federal state is unable to settle its own constitutional . Or judicial problems, that it must submit them to the court of another country.

Lastly, there is a practical problem which we cannot ignore when dealing with the question of abolishing appeals to the privy council. Justice in this democratic country must be prompt and, as far as possible, within the reach of all who come under it. Now, when a case is to go to the privy council, it necessarily takes a long time before the matter is submitted to the final authority. In the province of Quebec, the case is tried first by the superior court, then by the court of king's bench sitting on appeal. Then another appeal is lodged with the supreme court sitting in Ottawa and, at long last, the case is taken to the privy council.
How about the high cost of canwing a case to the privy council? Men of wealth and power can manage it rather easily but those of small means, who cannot meet the cost, often prefer to drop the case or settle out of court on more or less satisfactory terms. To such may be applied the famous lines of fabulist de La Fontaine:
According as to whether thou art mighty or penniless
Court judgments shall make thee white or black.
I do not wish to labour the point. Mr. Speaker, but I do think I have made it sufficiently clear that appeals to the privy council are unworthy of a sovereign state, that they do not conform to our present status, that we have here in our own country, courts of law which are perfectly competent to pass judgment on all our cases, and that such a tribunal-i.e. the privy council-does not suit the needs of those who require the expeditious justice within the means of all.
For these reasons I support the bill before us at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!
(Text):


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to this bill, because last year I was opposed to the principle of a similar bill. As the house knows, there are two classes of appeals involved in appeals to the privy council. One class relates to statutory appeals from the dominion or the provinces, the other class to appeals as a matter of grace, which no legislature in the empire can change. It is the right of any British subject to petition His Majesty in his privy council. I have here the very learned opinion of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, who was not only one of the most honoured members of the legal profession but chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and at other times solicitor general, minister of justice, and afterwards lieutenant governor of a great province of this dominion. In an

Supply-Justice
address to the Canadian Bar Association in 1914, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick gave his opinion on appeals to the privy council. He said:
In no part of the king's dominions has greater service been rendered by the judicial committee than in Canada, particularly since confederation.
Since 1867, the judicial committee has been called upon in scores of cases to trace out the line of demarcation between federal and provincial jurisdiction, and it must be truthfully said that the result has been eminently satisfactory. Removed, as the majority of judges are, from all local strifes, desirous as they are to distribute the most impartial justice, it is not surprising that the right of appeal to the king in his privy council is one of the privileges most highly prized by the people of the dominion. I do not mean to say that there has not been exception taken to the freedom with which appeals may be carried to the privy council in ordinary civil matters, but whatever view may obtain in other parts of the empire, so far as Canada is concerned, I think I may safely say that, amongst lawyers and judges competent to speak on the subject, there is but one opinion, that where constitutional questions are concerned an appeal to the judicial committee must always be retained.
I am offering that opinion to balance to some extent the opposite opinions which have been offered. I rather think the judicial committee of the privy council has rendered a real service to Canada. Their decisions have been one judgment, no dissenting judgments.
Mr. Conant, when attorney general of Ontario, gave opinions which almost coincide with those of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. I quote:
Yesterday Attorney General Conant redirected public attention to one of the most contentious questions with which the forthcoming session of parliament will have to deal. It is the age-old proposal to abolish appeals to the privy council, formally introduced at the last session by Hon. C. H. Cahan. Then, as always, opinion was found to be strongly divided, and the bill was held over when the minister of justice suggested that it was too important a matter for summary decision.
_ It is important, vitally important, to the future of Canada and the commonwealth, and the considered opinion of Ontario's attorney general should be a valuable guide to the House of Commons debate. His opinion is based on both domestic and imperial considerations, none of which can or should be left out of unbiased deliberations. "With greatest respect for this (the appeal court) and all other Canadian courts," he said. "I incline to the view that in matters and cases involving constitutional questions, particularly in issues between the dominion and a province or between provinces, the right of appeal to the privy council should be continued."
This, emphatically, is not the view of some who are perhaps, quite as competent to judge. It is not the view of the sponsor of the bill. Whatever Mr. Cahan may think, there are many experts who cannot share his judgment.
In addition we have the opinion of probably the greatest lawyer which this country ever
produced, namely, Sir Allen Aylesworth. I remember going into the court of appeal and seeing him handling the whole docket by himself. Three or four years ago Sir Allen Aylesworth said:
Now, when it becomes at least an academic question, if not a practical one, whether this parliament should do anything to limit or cut down that right of appeal, I desire to question, and to question strongly, the competence of any Canadian parliament to do anything of the sort. Of course, no one would argue that a mere resolution of one house of parliament would have any such effect.


James Horace King: The hour for private bills having expired, the house will revert to its business before six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

The CHAIRMAN:: We were considering item 429 in the Department of Secretary of State.


Mr. FLEMING:: I wanted to say something on item 428, Mr. Chairman.


William Henry Golding: Item 428 was carried before six o'clock, and we had been considering item 429 for quite a while.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand it is the desire that item 429 stand.
Item 429 stands.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
l°o. Combines investigation branch, $1S1,G83.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister something about the prosecution of the dental corporations and what has been done in consequence of the direction of Mr. Justice Barlow to the jury that the evidence which was submitted by the crown was of such a nature that their verdict should be one of not guilty. I brought this matter up at the time the case was tried; for I found it very difficult to understand, having regard to the direct statements made in the volume issued by the commissioner of combines, that the judge under the circumstances should find that there was no evidence.
As I remember it, for I have not the notes before me, the judge directed the jury to bring in an acquittal because of the failure of the prosecution to make out a ease: first, because of failure to prorre that the documents which were taken from the possession of the
Supply-Justice

nineteen defendants were in fact documents signed by the representatives of those defendants; and, secondly, because of the failure of the prosecution to prove that these companies were in fact incorporated companies and that the individuals in question, who had signed the letters upon which the prosecutions were based, were in fact officials of the corporations.
The answer given by the minister at the time was that the course followed by the prosecution in failing to prove these obvious matters was an intentional course. Well, if that be so, I should like the minister to explain this. If it was an intentional course, why did the crown counsel, upon the judge indicating the position he would take in regard to the prosecution, and the direction he would give to the jury, then ask for leave to introduce further evidence, which would be admissible, under the rules of court, only provided that the failure to prove these necessary elements was the result of inadvertence or mistake? That is the first question I raise in regard to the combines investigation branch.
The second question I will now state. I can quite realize that one of the arguments which might be advanced for the publication of reports on the part of the commissioner investigating combines is that publicity is a valuable deterrent. But I return to the matter which I dealt with the other day, or to which at any rate, I casually referred. Is there any justification for trying an individual by reports from government departments, before the bar of public opinion, which reports indicate the guilt of those mentioned, when subsequently prosecutions may take place?
I have no sympathy for those who exploit. Indeed, the minister will remember that it was an amendment which I suggested two years ago, accepted by his predecessor in office, that restored to private individuals anywhere in this country the right to take proceedings against combines designed to exploit the public. On the other hand. I think fairness demands that when an official such as the commissioner in charge of the Combines Investigation Act makes an examination of individuals allegedly guilty of infractions of the act, the conclusions at which he has arrived, as a result of the questions asked the individuals involved, or following investigation in general, should not be embodied in a public report until after prosecution has taken place.
I am not in any way considering at the moment the merits of the case against the optical companies. I have no interest in them either directly or indirectly, nor indeed has any one of them communicated with me. But I have an abiding sense of what is fair, and

I believe the people as a whole have the same sense. I do not think it can be justified that individuals shall be found, as it were, guilty, by public authority in a public document, until the courts determine the question in the affirmative.
I should like to hear from the minister on these two questions, both of which I consider important.
We have had a committee sitting on prices for the past four months, and I suppose, as well, the commissioner has been investigating alleged profiteering in this country. What has been done by him in that connection? How many members has he on his staff investigating profiteering? To what degree has consideration been given to prosecutions, and how many prosecutions have in fact taken place against alleged profiteers who are exploiting the public?
A statement from the minister on the general set-up of the combines investigation branch today would be timely, for I remember the former minister of justice stating two years ago that up to that time there were no teeth in the legislation nor was there a sufficient force to act with dispatch, but that with the amendments, a new era would have dawned and action would be the result wherever wrongdoing was ascertained.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has asked1 me two or three questions in connection with the administration of the Combines Investigation Act. The first question related to the prosecution of the alleged dental combine.
As the committee knows, proceedings against members of the Canadian dental trade association were instituted on the direction of the Attorney General of Canada, on indictment by a grand jury. Eighteen corporate members of the association were charged with offences against section 498 of the criminal code and tried before Mr. Justice F. H. Barlow of the Supreme Court of Ontario sitting with a jury. The trial began on February 23. 1948, and ended on March 18, 1948, when the judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the crown had not been adequately authenticated.
The crown is appealing from this decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal has decided to hear the appeal in September. Now, since the ease is on appeal, it would hardly be appropriate for me to argue the points of law, even if I were briefed, as I am not. But my understanding is that counsel for the prosecution gave consideration to this question as to whether it was necessary to prove the

Supply-Justice
authority of those who signed these documents to act for the defendants, the companies, and relying on certain cases he decided it was not necessary. I presume it would have been an enormous job. The case took a long time as it was. Whether that had anything to do with it or not, I do not know. It is true that, after a long argument, counsel for the crown did make application at the last moment to be allowed to call evidence to prove that those who signed the documents did so on behalf of the defendants in the action. That application was denied. My hon. friend asks me, if it was not inadvertence, why that application was made. I am not in a position to answer that, but I think I- have been in cases myself where at a late date I decided that, in view of the reaction of the presiding judge or something of the kind, perhaps I had better do something I had not planned to do at the outset of the case.


John George Diefenbaker: But not after your case was closed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. At any rate that is a matter which I cannot answer. Mr. D. L. McCarthy was senior counsel and Mr. Peter Wright was junior counsel; there was a large number of counsel. But Mr. McCarthy had a great deal of experience. All we can do is to get the best counsel we can, place the case in their hands and be guided by their advice. As I say, the case is on appeal.
The second question the hon. gentleman asked me is an important and interesting one; that is, whether this act is fair in the provision that it makes. It must be borne in mind that we are on the estimates here tonight, and I do not know whether we should1 be considering the principle of the Combines Investigation Act. The act is not before the house for amendment. The relevant sections are first, section 12, which reads as follows:
The commissioner shall, on application made under section 11 of this act, or whenever he has reason to believe that a combine exists or is being formed, or on direction by the minister, cause an inquiry to be made into all such matters as he considers necessary to inquire into with the view of determining whether a combine exists or is being formed.
And then later, section 27, paragraph 5, is to this effect;
Any report of the commissioner or of a special commissioner, other than an interim report or a report of a preliminary inquiry under section 13 of this act, shall within fifteen days after its receipt by the minister be made public unless the commissioner states in writing to the minister that he believes the public interest would be better served by withholding publication, in which case the minister may decide whether the report, either in whole or in part, shall be made public.
As I said the other day when the hon. member raised this question on the orders of the day, that section or a similar section has been in the act from 1910 down to the present time. Of course, from 1923 until 1935, I think, the registrar was the important man; the general course was that the registrar made an investigation and a report, and the act was silent as to whether that report should be published or not. But if he reported that there was a prima facie evidence of a combine, a special commissioner was appointed ; and the special commissioner's report was subject to exactly these provisions. From 1937 on, those provisions have been in the act.
I submit that it is necessary that there be publicity. At least, it is my contention or submission that there should be publicity. This offence is not at all like an offence that speaks for itself. It is all a mystery. The public has no way of knowing whether there is any combine or not. It is not like theft, bank robbery or any of those other overt or open acts where it is clear that there has been an offence. Here there is just a dark surmise and that is all. If the public is to know anything at all about this, it must be explained to them by the report of somebody who has made an investigation. If you have no provision that that report is to be made public, there is no possibility of an opportunity for public opinion to operate on governments, attorneys general or ministers of justice. There is no possibility of that; and you have to make a strong assumption that public officials will be fully alive to their responsibilities.
My hon. friend is not fond of delegating these great responsibilities to the ministers of the crown. I know that from what he has said in the house. In a matter of this kind I think the operation of public opinion is something to be encouraged. That does not mean that the commissioner should put in anything he feels like putting in that report. It does not mean that he should build up a brief there for the prosecution. It does not mean that he should seek to influence public opinion in a one-sided way. I think it is open to argument that there ought to be some safeguards of what is the purpose in the report. But after all, there is not much difference between the publication of a report by the commissioner and a preliminary inquiry into a criminal action. The commissioner has no judicial power; that is, he cannot himself determine the guilt of the accused. All he can do is express an
Supply-Justice

opinion. The question is how far he should go in expressing an opinion, and whether he should not confine himself fairly well to facts.
I agree with my hon. friend that that matter is open to argument, as to how far the commissioner should go in that report. But I think there must be a report, and that as soon as he makes it, it should be made public in the normal case. I thoroughly understand the difficulty that my hon. friend points out. It is not usually done. It is done in a preliminary inquiry. People everywhere read all the evidence against the accused. They read that he is committed for trial, and that there is a prima facie case against him. Yet that is not deemed to be contrary to the principles of ratural justice and to be poisoning the minds of the public against the accused, because they understand that it is to be followed by a trial, that then they will hear the other side, and that there may be another side. The trial is deemed to be a fair one. So long as it is understood that this is the result of an inquiry which necessarily precedes a trial, and so long as restraint is exercised by the commissioner in making a report, I doubt whether there is any serious infringement of the principle of natural justice.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. It occurred to me that a number of other members intended to refer to the dental supply case. The Minister of Justice has now informed the committee that notice of appeal has been filed and the appeal will be heard shortly before the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Ontario.
Mr. ILSLEA': That is right.


William Ross Macdonald: In view of that fact. I thought I should remind hon. members of the rule respecting reference to cases which are sub judice. I would refer hon. members to citation 293 (c) of Beauchesne, second edition, which reads as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order-
That is standing order 41.
-it has been sanctioned by usage botli in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a salutary rule, Mr. Chairman, and one with which every lawyer would certainly agree.
I come back to the optical case. It is interesting to follow the reasoning of the minister. He placed the publication of the evidence as analogous to the proceedings in a preliminary hearing, as far as influencing public opinion is concerned. The statute provides that publication shall be made within fifteen days.

The report of the commissioner in this case is a strong condemnation of these companies, and goes farther than any mere indication of guilt. It suggests an absolute state of guilty mind, according to the opinion of the commissioner.
I was impressed with one statement made by the minister, that one of the reasons for the publication of this report was to ensure that public officials would discharge their responsibilities under the act, as a result of one public official issuing a report and arousing public opinion, which in turn would impel action to be taken. In view of the fact that action can be taken by the Attorney General of Canada, to whom was directed the report containing such comprehensive findings, I should like to ask the minister why, under those circumstances, action was not taken within the fifteen days, and why action has not yet been taken. The situation used to be that, before action of this kind could be taken, it was necessary to obtain the consent of the Attorney General of Canada and of the attorneys general of the respective provinces in which the offences were committed. Under the amendment I moved two years ago, that prerequisite was removed, and now action can be taken by anyone. In view of that fact, I should like to ascertain from the minister whether, having in mind what has been said and found by the commissioner, he as Attorney General of Canada intends to take proceedings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no provision that
proceedings have to be taken within fifteen days. Proceedings are taken when the attorney general is satisfied that there is a case The report of the commissioner is very recent. It was sent to the attorneys general of the provinces, and the attorney general of the province in which most of the activities complained of took place has been asked whether he wishes to take action or whether he desires it to be instituted or conducted by the Attorney General of Canada. It takes a little time for that matter to be straightened out. There is no undue delay. There was a little longer delay than this, I think, in the case of the dental combine; but opportunity has to be given for the study of a long, complicated and involved report of this kind before a course of action is decided upon.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to pursue the subject further, except to say that apparently the Attorney General of Canada, on receiving a report from one of the officials under the Minister of Justice, in which definite findings are made of a combine, still has to be satisfied that the report which

Supply-Justice
so indicates has a foundation for the conclusion reached by the commissioner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Absolutely; certainly he
does. The Attorney General of Canada is not bound to do what the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act tells him. He is not obliged to take his facts, and he is not obliged to take his law. Presumably he will take his facts.


John George Diefenbaker: That is going quite a long way, because it means that the official responsible to the Minister of Justice, who makes the findings, may be able to convince the people of Canada as a whole that there is a combine and still may not be able to convince the Attorney General of Canada or Minister of Justice without the minister making further investigation, which is just one more reason-[DOT]


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, not further investigation; just giving consideration. My hon. friend would act in exactly the same way. That is the only responsible way to act, to give consideration to it. You have the report; you have the facts which are reported upon; you assume the facts are correct, and then there is a finding that there is a combine. You go over the whole thing with a fine tooth comb to see whether you could win a prosecution before you launch one.


John George Diefenbaker: That is laudable, though the record has not been very good in the matter of wins in the courts after findings by the commissioner. I am not going to labour the point further, but I was most impressed with the statement by the minister that one reason for the publication was the creation of public opinion, which in turn would cause public officials to act.


Edward George McCullough: I should like to say a few words on this item. Following the ruling of the Chairman, I shall not mention the optical case, which I understand is sub judice at the present time. However, from the statement of the minister I would say that, as the Combines Investigation Act is operating at present, it does not do what it was primarily set up to do; that is, it does not protect the people of this dominion against undue costs.
I believe a number of items could be mentioned which might very well be brought to the attention of the commissioner for consideration. One example is the dental case, in which I understand there is an appeal. Another example is the optical case. I say these are proof that the public are not protected under the act as it is constituted 5849-312
at present. Then, since the government has taken off price controls, we have had unreasonable increases in the cost of various commodities. As an example I could mention fertilizer, where we have a "virtual monopoly, and where only last spring the government saw fit to force those who produce and distribute fertilizer to set their prices back somewhat.
The minister said it was very difficult under the act to find out all the ramifications in connection with these various matters. I admit that. He also said it was not a case of straight theft. I agree with that also, but certainly it is nothing short of legalized robbery. We in this group have tried to present cases to prove to the government that price control should have been retained in order to protect the people from these drastic increases in cost. I understand that the growth of monopolies in this country is nothing more than a stage of capitalism, and I am convinced that, under present conditions, we cannot stop that growth, that the Combines Investigation Act will never suffice to protect the people against unfair costs. I intend to have more to say when the act itself is up for revision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like again to raise the question I brought up on two earlier occasions this session. I mentioned it first when an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act was before the house and again when the estimates of the Post Office Department were being considered. I refer to the question of the prevention of circulation of certain pulp magazines which come under the general description of crime comics.
I wrote the minister in this connection on June 2, and it may be that he has not yet had time to consider my representations and to give a reply. I enclosed in my letter a sample of the type of magazine to which I was referring. Then, too, I have a question on the order paper to which the minister may not yet have had time to reply, in which I ask the following:
How many offences under the criminal code, Which might be classed as crimes of violence, have been committed by offenders eighteen years of age and under in each of the years, 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 to date?
This question was brought to my attention by way of a letter from the parent-teachers' association-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, is my hon. friend going to mention crime comics on every item? We are discussing the Combines Investigation Act.
Supply-R.C.M.P.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understood that we had passed the first part of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. We are discussing the Combines Investigation Act item. It may be that there will be some item under which the hon. member can ask his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was under the impression we were discussing the general item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
its. General administration, $276,326.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the recent increase in salaries has been very much appreciated by the force as a whole, and was a step in the right direction. At the present moment I am not going to advocate any further increases, although I believe that at a very early day, certainly within the next few months, consideration will have to be given to further increases in certain specific ranks within the R.C.M.P.
I have a number of questions to ask in this connection. I would ask, first, the degree to which the mounted police is being maintained at strength. During the war their work on behalf of the war effort was effective and magnificent. Since the war they have been engaged in the enforcement of law, in the enforcement of dominion statutes and they have also been used in various municipalities as a municipal force.
On the last occasion the estimates were discussed I brought up the question as to whether sufficient recruits were being secured to meet the wastages apparent immediately following the war, when quite a large number of trained men ceased to serve at the conclusion of their period of service, and did not seek re-enlistment. The answer I then received was that sufficient men were available. Recently a campaign was started, and it still continues, to secure recruits, such applicants to be single, and between the ages of eighteen and thirty years. I should like to know the degree to which this campaign has been successful.
The second point I wish to raise has to do with investigation into the activities of communism in this country. On many occasions mention has been made of the report of the royal commission. In that report a significant finding was made, namely, that there exists in Canada a fifth column organized and directed by Russian agents in Canada and in Russia.
The second finding as it appears at page 685 of the report states:
Within the fifth column there are several spy rings.

The next finding was:
We have been able to identify many of the members of one of these rings, namely, that of which Colonel Zabotin was the head in Canada. . . . Without documents such as Gouzenko placed before us we cannot identify any nonRussian members of the other rings.
What evidence is there or was there to support that finding? What evidence is there now that there exists in Canada a number of rings designed to undermine the state from within? That was a finding definite in its effect. The royal commission acted only in respect of one of these rings. I am asking the minister to let the Canadian people know what I asked him to let them know recently, at which time he replied that when the mounted police estimates came up the matter could be discussed. I am asking him to give to the people of this country some idea of the degree to which various organizations under Russian domination are in fac-t operating today in this country to the detriment of the country, and designed to sabotage our system and our form of government.
The finding is made by the commission. I ask the minister, without disclosing in detail matters which might be necessary to keep within the confines of the reports of the mounted police, the degree to which there was reason -for this finding, and some indication of the amplitude of the government operating under communistic auspices.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it would be in the public interest to discuss fully the knowledge the police have.


John George Diefenbaker: Just the general indications.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I must say I have not that knowledge myself. I could not give it to the committee. I could- .get it, I presume, by going into the matter carefully with the police. But to talk about these rings, how far they have been pursued, where they are and what they are, would not be a proper thing to do.


John George Diefenbaker: I could not hear the last of what the minister said.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I just said what I said at the outset, that it would be improper, I believe, for me to give information in the House of Commons of Canada to the public about police activities and the detecting of communistic activities, where it is going on, what is going on, who is doing it, and so on.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, Mr. Chairman, no one ever suggested that, and I made that clear. A finding has been made by a commission that there are several spy rings operating

Supply-R .C M P.
in this country, and I am asking the minister whether or not such spy rings are operating.
I am not asking anything about the proceedings that are being taken by the R.C.M.P., but I want to know and I think the Canadian people have a right to know whether there is a spy ring or several spy rings operating here according to a finding made by a royal commission. I am not asking for any particulars of the investigation that may be going on. I had something to do with prosecutions in connection with this very matter long years ago, and I know something of the reports made by the mounted police and their activities. I think the Canadian people have a right to be apprised whether or not such rings in fact exist.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If my hon. friend presses for an answer I shall have to give the matter careful consideration and leave it over until another time to see what I feel I can say. I certainly do not think I can or should say much about that matter.


Mr. PEARKES:: Earlier in the session I asked the minister whether overseas service could be counted for pension purposes where a member of the force served in some branch of the service other than the No. 1 provost company and the marine and aviation sections of the force. The minister advised me that the question was receiving the consideration of his department. Could the minister give the committee the result of the deliberations of his department on this score?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That matter was covered by the amendment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which was introduced earlier in the session. I do not know whether it goes as far as what my hon. friend has in mind, but if he has not familiarized himself with that amendment I think he should, because it is an extremely important one. That amendment provides:
Time served on active service during the war that commenced in September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, may be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of pension under this part.
And also:
Time served on active service during the war that commenced in September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, may be included in the term of service for the purpose of pension under this part.
Does my hon. friend have something different in mind?


George Randolph Pearkes: That includes all men in all branches of the force who served in any service overseas?
5849-312J


James Lorimer Ilsley: If they went into the force when they returned; it does not cover them if they are out.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has not said anything about the degree of success there has been in the recruiting campaign.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The estimates for 1947-48, the year just ended, provided for an establishment of 3,481 persons in the force; that is, in administration, land services, marine services and aviation, but not including any civilian establishment. The estimates for 1948-49 provide for an establishment of 3,329, or somewhat smaller. The breakdown is as follows:
Administration	 63
Land services	 3,015
Marine services	 230
Aviation	 21
3,329
The actual strength on May 31, 1948, was
as follows:
Administration	 61
Land services	 2,798
Marine services	 216
Aviation	 17
3,092:
This means that the force as a whole is 237 under strength, with the land services being 217 under strength. The recruiting was not proceeding satisfactorily, because it was difficult to get the right type of men, but recently it has improved to a marked extent and is proceeding satisfactorily at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: A number of young men, well educated and physically fit, have communicated with me. At least two of them made application to the mounted police and were turned down. I should like to know the basis of the qualifications. I understand that within the last year the mounted police have again begun to train men for the musical ride. That is a fine thing. Now that the force has ceased to use horses, it has lost some of its traditional attraction, but bringing back the musical ride will regain some of the romantic past as well as carrying with it an incentive to many young men to join the force. Aside altogether from the physical, what are the educational requirements of a young man who comes within the age limits of eighteen ancL thirty years?


James Lorimer Ilsley: As is shown by the figures, the standards are high. Since January 1, 1946,. 12,200 have applied for admission to the force, of whom 803 have been engaged.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give the engagements by provinces?
Supply-R.C.M.P.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not a succinct statement as to the standards, but there are physical and other standards which have to be met. Occasionally I have to write a letter, and I get information from the commissioner that a young man is immature in his outlook or something like that. The applicant must answer questions and his general type is taken into account. These standards are not tangible, because they include maturity of outlook and that sort of thing.
Engagements by provinces, for the regular force, are as follows from January 1, 1946: Prince Edward Island, 4; Nova Scotia, 3S; New Brunswick, 30; Quebec, 50; Ontario, 228; Manitoba, 84; Saskatchewan, 101; Alberta, 136; British Columbia, 73; making a total of 744. In the marine section the engagements are as follows: Prince Edward Island, 1; Nova Scotia, 16; New Brunswick, 3; Quebec, 2; Ontario, 17; Manitoba, 1; Saskatchewan, 4; Alberta, 10; British Columbia, 5; making a total of 59. Those two together make up the :803 I mentioned. They were selected out of something over 12,000 applicants.


John George Diefenbaker: To what degree are veterans given an opportunity to join?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are given every opportunity.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister figures showing how many of that 803 are veterans?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I should not think the preference would count for much in a situation like that where you are trying so hard to get men who are suitable.


Mr. TIMMINS:: Is there at the present time an auxiliary force connected with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police consisting of civilians who have volunteered to do much the same sort of work they were doing in wartime, having regard to recent subversive activities? If such an auxiliary force is in existence, how many are there in that force, and do they receive any pay or allowances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are auxiliary forces in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto, and they get the pay of the regular members of the force when they serve.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: What is the total strength of the auxiliary force? Are they issued with uniforms which they wear when serving? Do they drill or take part in any activities of a police nature?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are 326 in this
R.C.M.P. reserve. They are issued uniforms and wear them when on duty.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Do they have to pay for the uniforms, or are they issued free by the R.C.M.P.?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a free issue by the R.C.M.P.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Last week there came into my hands a periodical sent out by someone connected with the R.C.M.P. It is a magazine issued to members of the R.C.M.P. and the auxiliary force, to which all members of the regular and auxiliary forces are expected to subscribe. A very poor plea was being made that this magazine was not getting along very well, that it was losing ground and needed more members. It seems to me that when we have a force like the R.C.M.P. it is a matter of concern to the public at large that such a publication should succeed and play some part in building up esprit de corps, particularly of the auxiliary force. Does the minister know of this publication and of the struggle it is apparently having to exist? Does he not think it is in the interests of the people of Canada that the publication should receive some assistance so that it shall not fall by the wayside but shall serve the purpose for which it was intended?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This publication ran into a small deficit recently.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The minister probably saw the letter that went out about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I did not see it, but the commissioner informs me that the former practice is being reverted to, of making a charge for the magazine. It was being distributed free. The government makes a grant to it.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I notice that the price charged was $1 per member, and that was not enough to keep the publication going.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was a government grant of $1,500, and nothing was charged for the magazine for a while. It ran into a deficit, not very large, but that situation is being corrected and the magazine will be on a satisfactory basis from now on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the magazine for the purpose of inducing enlistment or to inform members of the force of what is going on?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is instructional. They have these publications in the defence forces. They are supposed to be a good thing in maintaining morale.


Mr. WRIGHT:: During the war, applications were made to the mounted police by

Supply-R.C.M.P.
towns in western Canada to police their towns. I had one such case, and the reply was that the mounted police did not have the personnel necessary to give that service. Are they now in a position to give it and are they giving that type of service to different towns? How many towns in the west are being policed by the mounted police, and how many applications have been made in the past year? Are the mounted police now able to carry on this work as required by different towns in western Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Rightly or wrongly, I have taken the position that it is not the business of the R.C.M.P. to act as a reservoir for municipal police. The R.C.M.P. needs certain reserves; they have peaks of demand and so forth, and therefore it is desirable that the R.C.M.P. should do some municipal policing, but not all that is asked of them, because this policing is being supplied at about half its cost to the municipalities, and the R.C.M.P. should not be maintained as a sort of source of subsidized policing for municipalities. For that reason we have never felt that we were under an obligation to load up our force with policemen to be used by towns wherever they wanted them; but, as I say, some towns are being policed. That is desirable in the interests of the force itself because, while they are operating as municipal police, they are available in an emergency for federal service. But it is a federal force, and the policy should be based upon federal requirements, including the requirements of policing the provinces, which is done by agreement with the provinces.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just how does the minister decide which towns shall be policed and which not? Are there certain regulations that it must be towns of a certain size or something of that kind? What is the determining factor?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Nothing over 5,000 population and under 1,000, and if we have not enough personnel we turn down new applicants. That is all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee is the pay of tradesmen attached to the R.C.M.P., not in the force personnel, but the administrative branch. When certain increases for the civil sendee -were being put through not long ago such increases as were allowed tradesmen attached to the R.C.M.P., were, by any modern standard, entirely inadequate. One such case was brought to my attention within the last day or two. This
was a carpenter; the increase he received was twenty-five cents a day, and when it came into effect the result was that the carpenter was earning 828 a week. That, I submit, is, by any standard, entirely inadequate for an artisan, and that is not the sort of thing that reflects credit either on the government of Canada or on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of which the country is so justly proud. I urge the minister to take steps to review the wages and salaries paid to the tradesmen who are in the employ of the R.C.M.P., and to see that they are put on a basis of decency and adequacy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If we are going into the question of pay and allowances, the first thing my hon. friend ought to do is to look at the pay and allowances for the R.C.M.P., and to see what they get in addition to actual pay, before he forms a judgment as to whether they are adequately paid or not. There is hospitalization; there is medical attention, dental attention; there are pension privileges and so on. I feel myself that the pay is adequate. It may be that there is some ragged edge somewhere there. I do not think $28 begins to tell the story. There are all sorts of things, in addition to that, of which that man is in receipt.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand something about the part played by tradesmen in military units. I am not clear as to the part they play in police affairs. Can the minister say a word about that?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is the maintenance of barracks, and some tradesmen are required.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have they farrier sergeants?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, farriers, not sergeants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jt21. Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $1,374,094.
Mr. PEARIvES: Would the minister outline the duties of this section and say whether they have any responsibility in connection with rescue work?
James Lorimer Ilsley: Their primary responsibility is the protection of revenue. That is the duty of the marine services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but they have done a great deal in salvage and rescue work as well.


George Randolph Pearkes: During the last twelve months we have had a tremendous number of accidents on the Pacific coast, in which vessels both large and small have been
Supply-R.C.M.P.

[DOT]wrecked and there has been loss of life. The suggestion has been made that a life-saving service might 'be established, 'but it was pointed out that the marine section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were available in part to assist in that service. What facilities have they? How many vessels are there on the Pacific coast, and what type of vessels are they?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are two patrol boats on the Pacific coast and a considerably larger number on the Atlantic. The protection of revenue does not seem to require quite as extensive facilities on the Pacific coast as on the Atlantic.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am more concerned with the protection of lives than with the protection of revenue. I want to know how many vessels there are on the Pacific coast.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Two.


George Randolph Pearkes: What type of vessels are those? Are they capable of going into heavy seas?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. They are coastal patrol boats.


George Randolph Pearkes: Purely for inside waters?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: They cannot go up the west coast of Vancouver island?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: I see there is a reduction in this item. In view of the loss of life and in view of the fact that it is recognized, as the minister indicated a few moments ago by nodding his head, that the R.C.M.P. marine section was prepared to assist in rescue work, I feel that, with only two vessels incapable of going out in rough weather or doing anything but coastal patrol in inside waters, there is not very much protection as far as rescue work on the Pacific coast is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
422. Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $177,254.
Edmund Davie Fulton: What aviation services have the R.C.M.P. and where are they used?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Aeroplanes are used in the Northwest Territories, flying personnel in and out, and they are used to some extent for patrolling the boundary line for protection of revenue, and also patrolling the seaboard for the same purpose. There are five aircraft in operation. There is a trainer in addition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do they do rescue work?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the Northwest Territories, yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: None available on the Pacific coast?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
42S. Grant to the chief constables' association of Canada, $50i0.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to say just one word on this. This is a grant of $500 to the chief constables' association. Some years ago I had considerable contact with the association, through the former chief of police of Toronto, General Draper, and from him I obtained much information regarding the splendid work done by the association. A few minutes ago, or perhaps an hour ago, I had to be out attending another committee, and a number of items passed through the committee about which I should have liked to make some inquiry. Perhaps the minister discussed them. If he did, it is all right. What progress is his department making in the reclamation of prisoners turned out by these penitentiaries?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not yet reached that item.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are not yet on the penitentiary item. We are discussing the R.C.M.P.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought that item had been passed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You have not come to that yet?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


William Henry Golding: Item 424.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister wish to say a word with regard to the helpfulness of the chief constables' association to the department in the reclamation of prisoners? That is their special work.


Mr. McLURE:: On vote 424-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Item 424 is not yet passed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is an old item that has been in year after year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know it has been. I thought maybe the minister had some record of the helpfulness of the association to the department.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This vote helps the chief constables to pay the expenses of their annual convention and to carry on their proceedings.

Supply-R.C.M.P.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the department not get from them a report of what they do?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We get a copy of the report, yes. It is co-operation between the R.C.M.P. and the other police forces. This is a little grant that the dominion government gives them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am sure that these chief constables would be of great benefit to the department in the administration of justice-


James Lorimer Ilsley: The R.C.M.P., yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -because they are trained in that respect. Nearly every city association has a committee which looks after assistance to and reclamation of prisoners released from penitentiaries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefitsjf2Jh To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty, $13,844.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Is this an annual pension to those who are injured, or is it a lump sum paid for injuries that occur from year to year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is made up of a number of pensions.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Annual pensions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have a long list of names of former members of the forces who are getting pensions for one thing and another, such as tuberculosis, loss of leg, injury to foot, injury to right arm, partial paralysis, loss of memory and so on. Those pensions granted to them under the provisions of the R.C.M.P. Act must be provided for every year, and this lump sum of money covers those pensions.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The minister mentioned a man who lost an arm. What pension did that man get? I am referring to a case that I brought up two years ago. Has the minister one there from Prince Edward Island?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the addresses here What is the name of the man?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Seymour Farquharson.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I have that name here: amputation of arm, $377.17.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That pension was granted two years ago or increased to that amount. This young man, some forty-four years ago, lost his arm in the service and he was an excellent officer up to that time. Then he was discharged, sent home and had to eke out a living under a small pension that was
paid to him, eventually amounting to about $23 a month. Two years ago, as a result of this matter being brought up before the committee and the department, this was increased, and I think it is now around $33 a month. This man has struggled for forty-five years to make a living. Now, when he has reached the age of about sixty-five or sixty-six, with this small pension, I think it is really a disgrace to the great R.C.M.P. that an officer who had the misfortune of losing an arm should be asked at that age to live on this pension of $375 a year. He has struggled hard all his life, trying to farm. That is about the only thing he knew when he came back. He raised a family. He is not now in a position to work hard at the age of sixty-five or sixty-six. I am certainly of the opinion that, when increases have been granted in connection with all pensions-and while this is not under the regular Pension Act, at the same time there is always a way by which this man could be properly compensated-he should not be getting any less than $50 to $60 a month. I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister, so that he can look into it and give the man a reasonable pension for the rest of his days.


William Henry Golding: Shall the item carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman-


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Wait a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I will.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Canadian pension commission fixes the amount of disability.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: A little louder, please.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Canadian pension commission fixes the degree or the amount of disability in this case and, I believe, _ the amount of pension. I will make inquiries, but I believe that, with the increase in the disability pensions that has been granted lately for members of the forces, persons here would have an opportunity of applying for increases. But I will look into that. I am not quite clear on it. It is not covered by this vote, which means that there would have to be some other provision.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I would thank the minister, then, if he would look into the matter. I am sure from the human point of view he would judge that the compensation given for the loss of a right arm incurred years ago should be increased at the present time, with the cost of living so much higher.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister or the officials in front of him are sufficiently
Supply-R.C.M.P.

familiar with the ease of Doctor E. A. Braith-waite of Edmonton for me to ask a question or two and in particular for the minister to make a comment. As I assume the minister knows, from the way he nodded his head, Doctor Braithwaite is now eighty-six years of age. His connection with the mounted police extended over a good many years. I am told that his total service in the Northwest Mounted Police, the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police amounted to forty-seven years and eight months, beginning away back in 1884. Of that period I understand that some twenty-eight years were spent in the ranks and as an honorary surgeon of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The problem of Doctor Braithwaite is that of a pension. I understand that the matter has been taken up with the officers of the department a good many times by a good many friends who have been interested in this case. Doctor Braithwaite feels that he has claim to a pension; and many of those who know him and know of the long service he rendered to the force are surprised that he is not in receipt of a pension. However, I must be realistic in discussing this matter and admit that the minister has pointed out to me by letter that in his view Doctor Braithwaite does not have a legal claim to a pension. Nevertheless, I judge from a letter the minister wrote me on June 19, 1947, that the department has recognized a considerable moral claim on the part of Doctor Braithwaite, and considerable merit in the claim he has put forward. I base that statement on the fact that apparently the matter has gone to treasury board on at least one occasion, with the suggestion that a special vote by parliament might be asked, or even a special act passed.
If the Department of Justice has made a request of that kind to treasury board it would seem to indicate, I say, that there is merit in Doctor Braithwaite's claim for some kind of pension. In the letter to which I referred, the minister said treasury board had turned down this request, at least when it was made by one of his predecessors. I wonder whether a further request has been made to treasury board. If not, in view of the continued representations by Doctor Braithwaite and his friends, I wonder whether the minister would look into the matter further and see if something cannot be done for this man who gave so much service to the mounted police and who is now such an honoured elder citizen of the province of Alberta.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, Mr. Chairman, this case has been up quite often. My hon. friend
fMr. Knowles.]
says there is a presumption that if a request was made it was justified. I do not know that there is any such presumption. The presumption might be that treasury board was right about it rather than the minister who made the request. I do not know; I do not think I have made a request since I have been in the department. There has been a difference of opinion in the service, perhaps, about this case; but one thing is sure, and that is that there is no legal claim to pension. I am informed that this gentleman was a part-time doctor for a long time; that he never contributed to any pension fund; that he is not pensionable, and that it is just a question whether it is desirable to vote him a pension. It is not a legal question at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether he has looked into the case since he has taken over this department? I realize that he must have a great many matters to which he must attend personally; but the correspondence I have had concerning this case makes me feel that it would merit the personal attention of the minister. There does seem to be some dispute as to the kind of connection he had with the force. Certainly the doctor is of the opinion that he was in the force in every possible way. The minister tells me the doctor did not have a commission from the crown and therefore, he does not have the kind of claim he puts forth. On the other hand, let me quote from the minister's letter to me, to which I have already referred:
As Doctor Braithwaite was an honorary surgeon in the force, and still is, he was awarded the long service medal in 1928 in recognition of his long connection with the force.
The very fact that this matter has been considered to such an extent, and that a former minister of justice sent it to treasury board does, I submit, establish some presumption as to the moral and humanitarian claim, at any rate, of this old gentleman. So I hope the ease may yet be given the kind of personal attention that seems to be necessary if anything is to be done for him.


Thomas Langton Church: As a former chairman of the Toronto police commission I have seen something of the good work done by the mounted police. They carried on through a long war, when they were enforcing tens of thousands of orders in council; and this is a very small amount of money to provide for those who have been injured while on duty. Following every war, as you know, there is a great deal of disorder throughout the country. As a result, these officers have to go out by night and by day and meet desperadoes and

Supply-R.C.M.P.
all kinds of people on the street; and they may lose their lives. Here we are voting only $13,000 to compensate members of this force for injuries received in- the discharge of their duties. That is a very small amount, and I can tell you that the sum required in our city, where there are over a thousand policemen, is much larger. I understand that provision is being made for the future, in many cases by an insurance, scheme which recently passed the house, but I urge that there should be increases, not only in this item but in those dealing with the pensions paid to the dependents of those members of the force who gave their lives in the discharge of their duty. Peace has its heroes as well as war, and we would not consider giving such a small pension as is provided in the next item to a soldier injured in battle.
I want to commend the minister for the improvement he has made in his department. He has been hard working, conscientious and moderate in what he asks; but I urge that there should be a better deal for all ranks of the mounted police. On many occasions they have come to the support of the civil authorities, and they are doing excellent work. If you want to get good men for the force from now on you will have to increase the provision to look after them when they are injured, and to look after their wives and children if they should be killed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speak of a very old friend of mine, Doctor Braithwaite. Perhaps I can agree with the hon. member, in the event we want to pension everybody, whether they contribute toward that pension or not. I know Doctor Braithwaite very well. He was with the mounted police, and now he is the chief coroner. I will go back a year; he may have died in the meantime. But up to a year ago he was chief coroner in the province of Alberta.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is definitely alive. I had a letter from him less than a week ago.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Frankly, I think he is infinitely more alive than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. But, still, that is merely my opinion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Probably right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is neither here nor there.


Mr. HACKETT:: That is a presumption.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us not talk about presumption. I know the doctor very well, and he has not done badly. It is a very rude expression, I know, but a great 5849-313
many people in Canada who have been feeding out of the public trough have not done badly. And now we, great fellows, all say that they must have pensions.
I am one of those people who do not believe in that. Certainly, with respect to our ill, our incompetent and our crippled, I believe in that sort of thing. I do not know this, but I am inclined to think that if we do not give Doctor Braithwaite a pension under the mounted police estimates the dear old fellow will not suffer very much.
But I know the socialists! They think everybody should have a pension. As a matter of fact, I imagine tomorrow they will introduce into the house in some manner or another, under some subterfuge, a suggestion as to a pension for the two people who have been recently elected to parliament-and I congratulate them upon that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Arthur Leroy Smith: And my guess is that tonight in Vancouver Centre they will have another fellow. And so they will have a special bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is leading at the halfway mark.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You must be wrong about that. After all, I know something about time zones in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was quoting a Canadian Press report.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Canadian Press says he is leading at the half-way mark?
I will go farther with you: He will be elected. That is my judgment. I was there, you see. I do not think there is any doubt about it, that he will be elected in Vancouver Centre. And, having met the gentleman, when he comes here with you delightful gentlemen I say you have a problem on your hands; because he is a radical, to the extent of being a communist. So now, all that you have sown will be reaped within your own party. You will have difficulty with that young man.


Mr. MOORE:: He will be a bigger problem to you fellows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I have absolutely no objection to the hon. member for Calgary West making his political remarks at the proper time. But I do object to this sort of thing being dragged in, in connection with the case of this old gentleman, Doctor Braithwaite. Surely it is clear that I am not appealing for votes in the city of Edmonton; there is no by-election on there, and Doctor Braithwaite is only one old gentleman, eight-six years of age. I have raised this
Supply-R .C.M.P.

case with some reluctance. I have had some correspondence with him for several years, but until now I have not raised the matter on the floor of the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am surprised he ever wrote to you. But go on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Progress has been too slow. Hence I raised the matter tonight in all earnestness and in good faith, and I am sorry the hon. member for Calgary West has used the terms he has in connection with this case. He can say all these things about me or about the party any time he wishes, when we have a field day on that sort of thing. It is sheer nonsense, but we shall be glad to deal with it at the proper time. But we are now discussing an item respecting pensions for members of the mounted police force, and I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary West get back to that phase of the matter and give us a hand in this plea for Doctor Braithwaite.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, let me agree with everything my very good friend has said. But he will probably remember that I was turned aside twice because of interruptions from persons who sit behind him. I agree that we should stay within the rails; and if he would but control his own irrepressible youth who are sitting behind him, then of course I would have stayed within the rails and gone along with the discussion as we have had it.
Now that he tells me that he is a great pal of my friend Doctor Braithwaite, who is eighty-six years of age, I am inclined to think he should be very proud that my very good friend Doctor Braithwaite wrote him a letter at all. That is the greatest compliment I can pay to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because, after all, the doctor is an old gentleman.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am certainly glad to hear that. I have been with him on many inquests. The doctor is not a lawyer. He has been our chief coroner; and if he could take care of some of the cadavers who are immediately to my left he could come to some excellent conclusions, which I think would do great credit to the doctor and to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Have I
apologized to you sufficiently?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Quite.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then that is fine. I am so happy to have the hon. 
member for Winnipeg North Centre agree with me; because, of all the people in the House of Commons, of all the members I have seen in the house in the short time I have been here, he is the most generous with other people's money. I am very fond of him. I like his wit. At times it is incisive and, at other times, it is difficult to find. And when I meet him in the corridor and he explains his smart remarks to me, dumb as I am, after plenty of explanation, I finally find out exactly what he means-or perhaps the word "exactly" is badly used. Perhaps I should say I get a glimmering of the idea he had in his head before he destroyed it by talking. So we are getting along beautifully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Beautifully!


Arthur Leroy Smith: At the
present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And we are all enjoying it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: "Enjoying it"?-that word "enjoying" is a wonderful word. I have enjoyed what has happened in the last few days. I enjoy punishment, if it is delicate; but I admit I am not very happy about it-about what has happened in the last few days. I will not say I enjoyed it, because I can see the future. I will admit I am not happy.
But may I congratulate my very good friend upon his being so happy because of joining with the communists. They are now the big shots in politics in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am trying to-*


Mr. PROBE:: Very nicely put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But completely false.


Clarence Gillis: As he knows.


Arthur Leroy Smith: "Very nicely put"; "but completely false". The fellow who said, "as he knows" is, of course, just a partisan who will say anything. There is no truth in what he said. "Very nicely put"-I accept that. And somebody else says, "Completely false"-I do not mind that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You accept that, too.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not mind anyone saying that what I have said is completely false. That is a matter of opinion, so I cannot object to the statement by the hon. member for Regina City. You see, he has not been there very long. I was born there, and I know all about that place. I know about the decent pioneers who made

Supply-R.C.M.P.
that part of the country. So now we are in the position, because people have children-


John Oliver Probe: You are not the only pioneer there, either.


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, I am not the only pioneer. My people came up in 1882, ahead of the railway, which got through in February of 1883. I was born only in 1886. The hon. member for Regina City is a great friend of my older brother and has been trying to beat him at golf, for the last fifty years. He has failed in that as in anything else against the Smith family.
To come back to my very good friend, Doctor Braithwaite, I will not oppose any pension to Doctor Braithwaite whether he needs it or not. Is that a fair answer to what my hon. friend has said? The only reason he said this is to show how he is looking after our old people, but Doctor Braithwaite does not need looking after. But let me join my hon. friend in the broad position that we must look after our old people. I shall be delighted if Doctor Braithwaite gets $2.50, or $250, or $2,500. That would be nothing to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, as I remember so well.


An hon. MEMBER:: And by-elections.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I had forgotten about that election back there. I remember so well that in New York there was once a man named Gates. He was quite busy in the stock market, and in the early days when railroads were being built he became known as "Bet You A Million Gates." I have often wondered what dire circumstances would ensue if "Bet You A Million Gates" had ever met "What's a Million Howe."


Mr. LOW:: I have been trying to brush up on the correspondence mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I have not had time to digest all of it. I should like to repeat what has been so well said to the minister by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If there is any way by which this technicality could be overcome, I appeal to the minister to take the appropriate action.
This old gentleman has a long record of distinguished service, I believe going back as far as 1885. He is a friend of mine, because I worked with him in the government of Alberta for a number of years. A better chief coroner I have never seen anywhere. He used to tell me about his experiences while he was with the R.C.M.P. The minister has pointed out quite rightly that he was an honorary surgeon, but in whatever capacity he may have 5849-3134
served, I am sure that he did it to the best of his ability, and his ability was great. If there is any way by which this technicality can be removed and Doctor Braithwaite given some consideration I would be happy to see it done.


Clarence Gillis: Is it a matter of general policy of the department to grant pensions to the R.C.M.P.?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We discussed a pension system in the bill which I had before the house earlier this session and which instituted a new pension system. There have been pension systems in the past, but this gentleman did not come under any of them. He has made no contribution. For a long period of time he was a part-time doctor-


Solon Earl Low: An honorary surgeon.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -with the R.C.M.P., and he continued to carry on his private practice. There was a time back in the days of the Riel rebellion when he was in the R.C.M.P. as a surgeon but not long enough to qualify for a pension.


Clarence Gillis: I remember the contributory pensions provided for by the bill referred to by the minister. I was just wondering where all this reference to by-elections, communists and so forth came into the picture. I think we are wasting a lot of time. If a member of the R.C.M.P. served in the years before there was a pension scheme and did not have an opportunity of contributing, then I think there should be some administrative latitude to take care of extenuating circumstances. If a scheme had not been inaugurated at that time, that was not the fault of the service; it was the fault of those who administered the act.
This is not something peculiar to the R.C.M.P. We find it in many other industries across the country. Doctor Braithwaite was one of the pioneers in this service, and in our industrial set-up there are many old pioneers who are receiving no pensions and who are being relegated to the streets. They cannot come under the pension schemes that are being established.
The hon. member for Calgary West has assured us that this particular gentleman will suffer no hardship, but there may be other cases where hardships exist. I think, where anyone has made a contribution, as this gentleman has, to his country in tt: past and will in the future, the Department of Justice should be able to look after him in the event of circumstances arising over which he has no control and which cause extreme hardship.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Supply-Justice

[Stage Direction]
116. Departmental administration, $235,350.
James Lorimer Ilsley: It occurred to me that some of the items might be non-controversial. Ordinarily the penitentiary item takes a long time, and I would prefer not to consider it tonight.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to say a few words about the question of crime comics. What I have to say will not take so very long, but I want to ask the minister a number of questions. If he prefers to leave this item until tomorrow it will be acceptable to me.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the questions are relevant to the item I think the hon. member had better ask them, so that I can read them in Hansard in the morning and perhaps be in a better position to answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I brought this matter up under the general item, so that I might suggest to the minister certain measures to combat the increasing number of crimes by juveniles and to halt the increase of juvenile delinquency. Recently I have had brought to my attention a number of so-called crime comics which are widely circulated throughout Canada. This fact, coupled with the evidence of increasing juvenile delinquency, seems to me to demand that this House of Commons should request the minister to take certain steps to lessen the tendencies and to combat the causes. This is one of the active causes of juvenile delinquency. Unfortunately I have not yet got an answer to the question I put on the order paper asking how many offences under the criminal code, which might be classed as crimes of violence, have been committed by offenders eighteen years and under in each of the years 1946, 1947 and 1948. The minister will remember that quite a number of shocking crimes have been committed by juveniles in recent months. One of the most shocking was in Montreal recently, where a boy twelve years of age beat his mother to death with a baseball bat. He simply found her sleeping, lying there defenceless, picked up a bat and beat in her head for no apparent reason, except that, when being tried, he said he had seen that sort of thing in the comics.
This question has also been raised by the council of women who met recently in Ottawa. I have not seen all their resolutions, but I have been in discussion with some of the members of the council from my own part of the country and they said this question was vexing their minds to a great extent.

I have no official figures on the circulation of these magazines, but an estimate made by a responsible authority in Kamloops, a city of only 12,000 people, is that 15,000 of these magazines are sold on the newsstands there every month. They are sold as an article for profit. They are, I will not say attractively, but gaudily got up, so that they appeal to juveniles by their colours as they lie on the magazine racks. As if that were not bad enough, I have studied three of these magazines recently. I have one in my hand, "Green Hornet Fights Crime". Others I have seen, under a general title, which go on to say, "Crime Does Not Pay". That is the sort of cynical approach they make on the front cover. They are printed in Canada. The one I have in my hand is published bi-monthly in Toronto; Lou Ruby, publisher. It goes on to say "Second-class mailing rates approved by post office, Toronto. Any similarity between the characters contained in the comic section and any person either living or dead is coincidental. Printed in Canada by the Globe Printing Company, Toronto." This magazine sells on the newsstands for ten cents a copy.
I have spoken to people who have had experience in this type of thing and in dealing with juvenile delinquents in magistrates courts and so on, and they say that, without any doubt, this type of magazine is printed in a form which is calculated to make the maximum impression on juvenile minds. They portray crimes of violence, in pictures, with a few words as a caption which are easily understood.
I just want to give an example from the one I have in my hand. It starts off on the inside cover with the picture of a man striking a match and staring at it. The caption over the next picture is, "Tonight I dreamed of a blazing moon like a fiery wheel in the sky-burning trees were crashing about me," and the caption is illustrated. The next picture portrays him walking to a slum tenement, and he says, "I saw an old condemned building. Nobody would care if it burned down." The next picture shows this man holding a burning match, and the caption says, "Tonight I stole into the cellar of the condemned building and set my first fire." That is a fine thing to put before a youngster of twelve or so, who perhaps has just struck his first match.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, he would strike it before that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says, "Oh". Is he shaking his head in disagreement? As I say, it is difficult to prove that these magazines do actually increase juvenile delinquency, but one can say at least that two coincidences

Supply-R.C.MP.
go together, that there is an increase in juvenile delinquency and an increase in the circulation of this type of magazine in Canada.
I want to suggest certain specific remedies which might be taken to prevent the circulation of this type of magazine. The first one is direct censorship. I know the answer to that may be that since this comes under the heading of property and civil rights, it falls under provincial jurisdiction, and I suppose that to some extent that argument must be conceded to be valid. But certainly, in so far as the federal Department of Justice has any jurisdiction, it can, I think, directly order that the publication of these magazines be banned in Canada and, is so far as it has federal jurisdiction, prosecute anyone who publishes such magazines. Questions of the freedom of the press do not, I think, enter, because freedom has never yet meant license, and this type of thing is not freedom but license. It is abusing liberty to make a profit practically out of the advocacy of crime.


William Ross Macdonald: It is eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Ritchie MacNicol: What will be the business tomorrow?


Lionel Chevrier: The first item we shall take will be the committee stage of Bill No. 220, to amend the Loan Companies Act; second reading of Bill No. 339, to amend an act respecting the national battlefields. Then we shall move to go into supply, taking first the estimates of justice, then transport, trade and commerce and veterans affairs. Tomorrow we sit at eleven o'clock in the forenoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether consideration has been given to proceeding soon with the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under government notices of motion, having to do with the international wheat agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to bring that to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
125. Combines investigation branch, $151,683.

[Stage Direction]
419.	General administration, $276,326.
420.	Land services arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $10,408,635.41.
421.	Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $1,374,094.
422.	Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses, $177,254.
423.	Grant to the Chief Constables Association of Canada, $500.
Pensions and other benefits-
424.	To compensate members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for injuries received in the performance of duty, $13,844.
425.	Pensions to families of members of the Mounted Police who have lost their lives while on duty:
Mrs. Mary Emma Bossange, $456.25
Mrs. Margaret Johnson Brooke, $821.25.
Mrs. Margaret Cox, $410.63.
Mrs. Victoria Desjardins, $411.
Mrs. Georgina Harrison, $676.50.
Mrs. Letitia Kennedy, $423.50.
Mrs. Nora Jean Massan, $300.
Mrs. Margaret Nicholson, $547.50.
Mrs. Catherine Mildred Ralls, $675.25.
Mrs. Vera M. Ryder, $47.42.
Mrs. Doris Freda Sampson, $816.
Mrs. Amy Lillian Searle, $406.98.
Mrs. Madelaine Mary Shoebotham, $810.
Mrs. Eunice Wainwright, $602.50.
426.	Pension to Basil Burke Currie, $684.20.
427.	Pension to Annie A. Greer, $253.61.

[Stage Direction]
428.	Departmental administration, $141,048.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 9, 1948