1950-06-22

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on public accounts.-Mr. Picard.
Sixth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Winkler.
Third and final report of special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.-Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont).


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as members of the house are aware, the department and the fisheries prices support board have been studying the current market situation for salted cod, particularly that produced in Newfoundland. The fisheries prices support board dealt with the problem at its meetings on June 16 and 17 and have made their report to me. As soon as certain additional information is available, I shall be able to make a complete report to the house. However, since there has been considerable interest aroused, and since some of the stories which I have seen in the press have been written without access to all the facts, perhaps I should make a preliminary statement at this time. In the first place, I want to make it clear that the total quantities of salted fish in store in Newfoundland, including stocks in fishermen's hands, are substantially less than some have been led to believe. Many statements have been based on the stock figures as at April 20. Considerable quantities of those stocks have since been sold and are moving regularly to the markets. Sales are continuing to be made and the fish is going forward from Newfoundland ports in volume. Contracts are currently being negotiated by the exporters which may well result in further substantial commercial sales.
In some areas of Newfoundland the fishermen were unable to cure the fish caught late in 1949 until this spring, and this fish remains in the fishermen's hands. The quantities are not great, and we have them in mind in our considerations.
Other important negotiations now being carried out by the Department of Trade and Commerce could ease some of the restrictions now affecting our markets. While these negotiations are pending, any statement of policy would be premature. Meanwhile I see good reasons for being more optimistic about the outlook for disposal of the remaining stocks and for the marketing of the new production in 1950. I will make a more complete statement to the house shortly.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries arising out of his recent statement. I would thank him for the statement he has made, which we appreciate, and I would impress upon him the urgency of making a further statement. I understand .there is a possibility that the session may close next week. Will the statement be made before that time?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am hoping it will be made before that time. I shall do my best.



BANKRUPTCY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce that proclamation has now been issued to bring the Bankruptcy Act, 1949, into force on July 1, 1950. At the same time I should like to table a copy of the general rules made by the governor in council under the Bankruptcy Act, 1949, which will come into force on July 1, when the act comes into force.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I beg leave to table the annual report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the calendar year 1949. The French version of the report is not yet available. As soon as it is available it will be tabled. I would also like to table the fourth annual report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950;

Indian Act
also the annual report of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950; also the fourth annual report of the atomic energy control board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1950.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when I took over the administration of Indian affairs early in this year I found there were three important matters to be dealt with. The first was whether the Indians might be entitled to vote in federal elections; the second was whether there might be further assistance, particularly to aged Indians; and the third was the implementation of promises which had been made that the Indian Act would be revised.
I am happy to state that the government has announced the solution of the first two problems, namely that in certain circumstances the Indian is now entitled to vote at federal elections, and that aged Indians will receive allowances of $25 instead of $8.
I had hoped that we might carry out the promise made with respect to the revision of the Indian Act. When the bill was introduced two weeks ago I had already set up elaborate machinery whereby the bill would be placed in the hands of the Indians at the earliest possible moment, and I think that in a great many of the reserves in Canada it was in their hands ten days ago.
In the meantime I have received representation by telegram and letter from quite a few bands and individual Indian organizations showing that they have made a serious study of the bill. They have criticized it in some respects and praised it in others. However, it has been represented that in other areas the bill had not reached the Indians in time for consideration. In view of all that it has been suggested that we might not proceed with the bill at this session.
A great many Indians have come to Ottawa in person to discuss the bill with me, and some favour action at this session. I would hope that those among them who would like to have the bill passed at this session might agree with me that perhaps it would be better to delay it in order to give the greatest opportunity to all concerned to make representations to me. I would not like any Indian, or, for that matter, any other Canadian citizen, to think that I am not as conscious of the needs of the Indian and his wishes as any others who in the past have held the high office of superintendent-general

of Indian affairs. For that reason, as I said,
I would hope that those who would have liked the bill to go through at this session, because it contains provisions which give many advantages to Indian bands and individual Indians, would join with me in allowing it to stand for further consideration.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister give the house the assurance that a bill will be brought in early in the next session?


Walter Edward Harris: I think it must be obvious that I have allowed this bill to stand only with reluctance, and that I will certainly bring one in as early as I can at the next session.



TAX AGREEMENTS


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the first reading of Bill 314 (from the Senate) to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943, and the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1944.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. White (Hasiings-Peterborough):: 1.	What firms or individuals received contracts for supplying gas, oil, grease, coal, fuel oil, bread, meat and milk for the R.C.A.F. airport at Trenton, Ontario, in each of the years 1948, 1949 and 1950?
2.	Were tenders called for these contracts?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the firms or individuals who submitted tenders?
4.	What was the contract price for each of the commodities mentioned in paragraph 1 above?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, when this question was called on May 31, I pointed out that the answering of it would require a good deal of time and work and would be very costly. Since that time I have been able to get part of the information for the hon. member who asked the question, and I have given to him all the information readily available pertaining to the subject matter of his question.
In those circumstances he has agreed that the question be dropped, and with the permission of the house I would ask that that procedure be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.


HOUSING
Mr. Green:: 1.	Did the government have approximately twenty-five houses built at Fort St. John, British Columbia?
2.	If so, by what firm were such houses built?
3.	What was the average cost thereof?
4.	Were tenders called for the construction of these houses?
5.	If so, from what firms were tenders received, and what were the amounts thereof?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Poole Construction Company Limited, 10503-109th street, Edmonton, Alberta.
3.	$15,500 (approximately).
4.	No. This was a negotiated contract. Due to the urgency with which this military housing accommodation was required, and in view of the inaccessibility of the site, negotiations were carried on with Poole Construction Company Limited, considered to be the only firm in the vicinity with the necessary organization, personnel and experience to carry out this work expeditiously and economically.
5.	Not applicable.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the national film board, to define more clearly the purposes and powers of the board; and to provide, inter alia, that the board may acquire personal property, patents and copyrights, and enter into contracts for personal services for any purpose necessary for the production, distribution, projection or exhibition of films pursuant to this act; to authorize the governor in council to appoint and determine the salary of a government film commissioner, to be the chief executive officer of the board; to provide for the appointment, promotion and salaries of persons to fill positions under the board; and to provide further for the establishment of an account to be known as the national film board operating account and that expenditures made by the board from moneys in the consolidated revenue fund shall not at any time exceed the amount of receipts shown in the account by more than seven hundred thousand dollars or such lesser amount as may be fixed by the treasury board.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, I am prepared to do so.
This resolution deals with the proposals designed to clarify the functions of the national film board and simplify its administrative machinery with a view to increasing the efficiency of its operations.
National Film Act
Perhaps I should refer briefly to the history
of the board's growth. Prior to 1939 the need of the government for motion and still pictures was met in two ways. The government film bureau, which was then in the Department of Trade and Commerce, produced both motion pictures and still photographs for other departments out of moneys appropriated for its operations. Other departments also contracted with outside producers for production of films and photographs which were paid for out of their own appropriations.
In 1939 the present act establishing the national film board as a co-ordinating board was enacted. Under the board the office of the government film commissioner was set up. The commissioner was authorized to act as a co-ordinator, adviser and general supervisor of government film activities. Government production of films, however, remained with the motion picture bureau, the director of which had production and distribution powers.
In 1941 it was decided to increase the production and distribution of government films. The motion picture bureau was transferred from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to operate under the national film board. Subsequently the office of director of the bureau became vacant and the government film commissioner, under the board, took over the production of films and photographs.
This method of operation was not contemplated when the National Film Act was enacted in 1939, and various expedients have been adopted to meet the new situation. The powers of the director of the motion picture bureau to employ temporary staff were used to employ the staff needed for the board. Working capital was provided for by annual appropriation and by advances from the Department of Finance recoverable at the end of each fiscal year. Operations have been carried on in this manner up to the present time.
This situation has given rise to difficulties in the operation of the board and to certain weaknesses in its structure. The purpose of the legislation proposed by the resolution now before the house is the removal of the causes of these difficulties and the establishment of a structural framework which will enable the board to operate on a businesslike basis.
To this end, it is proposed:
1.	That the functions of the board conforming with its actual operations be defined.
2.	That the board be reconstituted on a basis which will make it possible to carry out these functions efficiently.
3.	That powers appropriate to these functions be conferred on the board and that the

National Film Act
board's responsibility to parliament through a designated minister of the crown be clearly established.
4.	That executive machinery which will make efficient administration possible be established.
5.	That appropriate power to staff the board be conferred and that provision be made for continuing members of the staff to come under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
6.	That financial arrangements suited to the board's present operations be established; and that, subject to control under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, provision be made for the settting up of a film board operating account and of working capital which will enable the board adequately to finance its operations.
I shall have more to say on this subject when the bill reaches second reading. Essentially the resolution seeks leave to bring in a measure to clarify the functions of the board and authorize administrative machinery which will make possible its efficient operation.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect that this resolution would be up this morning, as it was announced that we would continue with the Indian Act; therefore I shall not take up much time. I feel that in the last five years I have done nearly enough talking about the film board. I have criticized it severely, but I think in most cases it was with just cause. During those years I asked on many occasions about communists who were employed in the film board, and this situation has been cleared up. I asked that real businesslike methods be used, and I understand that since the report of the business consultants was issued and a new commissioner engaged, different methods have been used. I feel that members of parliament and the public should give the new commissioner a chance to show what he can do.
I asked that the report of the business consultants who had checked the operations of the film board be tabled, and that was done. That was an unusual procedure, but I think it was necessary in order to give hon. members and the public a chance to know the ins and outs and the whys and wherefores of the national film board. Because of the suggestions and criticisms I have offered, some of the matters that I complained of have been rectified.
It is stated on page 2 of the summary of the report of the business consultants that the board should be provided with a permanent

working capital fund of not less than $700,000. This matter is also referred to on page 7 of the report as follows:
The board has been hampered in its business operations by the lack of adequate working capital to finance inventories, accounts receivable, work in progress, etc. In addition to a working capital fund of slightly less than $300,000 a revolving fund of $200,000 has been provided in recent years ($300,000 is to be provided in 1950) but advances from this fund have had to be returned in full at the end of each fiscal year. This practice has caused an unnecessary disruption of the board's activities towards the end of March each year as efforts are directed to converting assets into cash in order to repay the advance.
It is obvious that some of the difficulties referred to above are inherent in government film production in Canada and will continue to be problems. They are mentioned here simply because they should be kept in mind in Judging the board's performance. Other difficulties can be overcome and these are dealt with in the balance of this report.
The resolution provides that the film commissioner is to be the chief executive of the board, which would mean that a minister of the crown would not be responsible, as at present, but that the board itself would be responsible to government. This is mentioned on page 8 of the report, where it states:
The operations of the national film board are quite different in many fundamental respects from those performed by regular government departments.
In regard to that I might say that a few years ago they were very different.
And if the board is to operate efficiently it will be necessary to continue to exempt it from certain parts of the over-all machinery of government control.
One obvious way of doing this would be to set up the national film board as a crown corporation organized, for example, along the lines of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . . .
I do hope that if such a corporation is set up it will not exercise the same powers as have been exercised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in order to curtail the production of commercial films throughout Canada. We now have some very efficient motion picture companies in Canada. They are trying to make a go of their businesses, and they are doing a good job. I have seen their films, and they are good. All they need is a chance.
The report continues:
-the national research council or the national harbours board. Looking at the problem from the viewpoint of the national film board alone this would seem to be a logical solution. But it is also necessary to consider the relationship of the board to other governmental agencies and to ensure to the government a measure of control commensurate with its responsibility for the policies and activities of the board. On balance, we think it should be possible to establish the national film board within the regular government organization plan and yet

give it the flexibility which it must have to operate efficiently. To do this, it will be necessary to amend the National Film Act, 1939, in a number of respects:
In 1939 the National Film Act was passed in this house, and it was said at that time that there would only be one paid member of the board. The way in which the board has functioned in the last ten years is entirely different from the way in which the national film board was originally set up. It was like Topsy; it just grew up, "put on new clothes, and where it went nobody knows." The report continues:
1.	To authorize an adequate working capital fund.
2.	To permit the board to keep its accounts on a revenue and expenditure basis (i.e. on an accrual rather than on a cash basis) and to retain proceeds of sales.
3.	To permit the board to engage necessary help during pleasure for positions within a plan approved by the governor in council and to permit such employees to be brought under the Civil Service Superannuation Act.
The situation at the present time is that practically all employees of the national film board are on a temporary three-months basis.
4.	To permit the board to enter into contracts on behalf of His Majesty and in the name of the board for any purpose necessary to the production or distribution of films, filmstrips or still photographs.
I should like to pause there to say that I hope the new management will see to it that there is a definite curtailment in the taking and production of still pictures by the board. There is no doubt that the stills department has encroached on the business of commercial photographers throughout Canada. I know that is so, because I have had hundreds of letters from commercial photographers, and they have quoted instances in which the national film board has stepped on their toes. Press photographers have also been hindered in many ways by the national film board's activities in taking and selling still pictures. The report continues:
5.	To grant authority for the transfer of funds from other departments and agencies to the board to cover the costs of activities undertaken on their behalf.
That would cover work undertaken for other departments of the government, such as the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the travel bureau, and so on. Films would be ordered by these departments from the national film board and paid for out of departmental funds. At the present time I think some departments still owe the film board for pictures made for them. Perhaps the pictures were so poor that they do not want to pay for them. I understand the Department of Agriculture had some films made by the national film board, and when they were completed they were so poor and
National Film Act
had such a communistic leaning that they were put in the vault and held there. They have not been released.
The report continues:
At present two ministers of the crown are members of the board, one of whom is chairman. While the ultimate responsibility for the board's activities must necessarily be assumed by the government, and the government must therefore have knowledge of its policies and activities, it should be possible to maintain the necessary control without requiring ministers of the crown to devote so much of their time to the board's affairs.
I should like to pause there. I do not believe that ministers of the crown, before the present minister assumed responsibility for the film board, devoted very much of their time to its activities. If they had devoted to it as much of their time as they should have, the national film board would be a better organization today, and they would not have made the mistakes that they did.
The report continues:
Furthermore we question the propriety of a minister acting as an equal member of the board and thus being placed in a position where he can be overruled by the other members. In future we suggest that the board should report to a designated minister through its chairman and that the practice of having ministers serve as members of the board should be discontinued. The designated minister would be responsible to parliament for the board's activities.
If a special committee of the House of Commons was established each year to go into the accounts and activities of the national film board I feel it would be worth while, and also it would help the board. I have always found that a little criticism helps. We like to be praised as much as possible, but it is the person who is enough of a friend to criticize you who generally is your best friend. That is the way I look at it.
The report goes on:
Matters requiring the approval of the treasury board or of the governor in council should be submitted to the minister for his prior approval-
As I understand it, that would have to do with obtaining more funds.
-and the amending legislation should provide that the board should comply with any directions given by the minister from time to time with respect to the exercise of its powers. In this connection the minister should approve the appointment of all the senior officials of the board subject to confirmation by the governor in council. The chairman should keep the minister advised at all times of the work which the board is doing and supply him with any reports he may require in, this connection, including :
(a)	Copies of minutes of the meetings of members of the board.
If this proposal is carried out I hope the minister will read the minutes.
(b)	An annual budget of revenues and expenditures subdivided by months.

National Film Act
That is something we have not had.
(c)	A monthly statement comparing actual revenues and expenditures with the budget forecast.
With these safeguards the minister should be in a position to control the general policy of the board without having to concern himself with the details of its administration.
I have said before during this session, and as I said a few moments ago, there has been a definite change in the films produced by the national film board. I was talking to a well known motion picture man the other day and he told me that he felt that not only the pictures but the sound effects had improved. He said that during the first five or six years of the existence of the national film board the sound effects always reminded him of the man who was in charge of the board at that time, Grierson. They sounded like communistic music to him. Now we have a little softer music and the effect is much better. It used to grate on one's ears. I have been in theatres when one of the "Canada Carries On" series was shown, and people in the audience, not only in the front or back rows but all over the theatre, would say, "Oh, that darned thing again." They were absolutely sick of them.
We do need good films for our rural and urban schools. As I have said before, we also need good films to advertise Canada in foreign countries. I notice that one suggestion contained in this report by the business consultants has not been carried out by the new manager. In the report it was suggested that film distribution in foreign countries, with the exception of the United States, should be carried on by the Department of External Affairs, but within the last few weeks I believe an agent of the film board has been appointed for the United Kingdom. I have not the newspaper clipping here, but I saw it either in the New York Times or in one of the Canadian newspapers.
I said in the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I would be brief. I believe we should wait until we have the bill before us, when we can go through it clause by clause. I also said I thought we should give the new manager a chance, and I honestly feel that this should be done.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter and, like many other important matters, should have been brought before the house earlier in the session. Like the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), I propose to leave any detailed discussion until the bill is before the house, but there are several points I should like to make at this time.
Over the last few years I have felt that both this house and the film board itself

would have been well served by bringing the officials of that board before a parliamentary committee similar to the committee before which the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation appear. I believe that would have obviated much uninformed discussion that has taken place across the country, and would have eliminated some of the criticism to which the board was subjected some time ago.
I feel that on the whole the national film board has done a very good job since its inception. Its documentary films depicting the life of the people of this country have been exceptionally well done, I think, and their distribution has been quite wide in North America, in the sister countries of the British commonwealth, and indeed in some of the countries of South America. From time to time I have heard very complimentary references by people from those countries to the films produced by this board. I would agree that there is a place in Canada for the commercial film, the commercial documentary, but I am not forgetting that the success of the commercial film organizations doing this type of work, of which we have one or two in this city, is due very largely to the encouragement, assistance and advice that has been given by the national film board. Therefore to a large extent many of these smaller commercial organizations have been beneficiaries of the work done by this public organization.
It is true that the activities of the film board, the staff and so on, have grown far beyond anything we anticipated when it was set up before the war. To some extent, of course, that was due to its activities during the war, when it filled a real place both in educating the public to our war needs and in letting the people know what the country was doing in many aspects of our war activities. Some of the films dealt with agricultural production in this country. Others I have seen had to do with industrial development. Others, of course, brought to our people some of the tragic scenes that occurred during the war, giving them perhaps more of an understanding of the dangers and devastation of war than they could have obtained otherwise. The same is true of our troops. Some of the films showed the activities of our soldiers overseas; some showed our naval vessels on convoy duty, while others showed the air force in action. Many of those films were not only interesting to our people during the war period but will be of great historic interest in future. I have no doubt that a century from now the people of this country will be viewing these films depicting what was done by the

men and women of Canada in the armed forces, in industry and in agriculture during the period of the second world war. In other words we have here to a considerable extent a visual history of our country in recent times compiled by this government organization.
I am very glad to see some of the recommendations contained in the report that has been made by those ifivestigating the activities of the film board. I want to say, too, how much the circuits of the film board are appreciated in the rural communities. I know that in my own province of Saskatchewan, and in the neighbouring provinces which I have had the opportunity of visiting from time to time, the periodic visits of projectionists with their films are appreciated by those in the country districts. Before, during and since the war people have gathered together in country school houses to enjoy what many may consider to be an evening's entertainment, though in reality it is an evening's education. The educational films that have been made by the board and distributed to the schools and community associations that have projection machines have been of great value, and I have felt that much more could be done along that line.
I should like to see films portraying the coming to this country of the French explorers, who first opened it up; the expeditions of the Hudson's Bay Company; the growth of our country historically, and the achievement step by step of our national status. I believe such films could be made with very great advantage to the country, both now and in the future. That would require a great deal of money, however, and even under this legislation we are not providing the necessary working capital to undertake projects of that kind. I should think that at a time like this, when we are trying to build and strengthen our democratic institutions and our democracy, the national film board could, given the facilities, perform a very useful service by making historical films which could be distributed, over the circuits I mentioned, to the schools, and indeed to the classes that are being held throughout the country for the newcomers who in the countries from which they came were not given information about our democratic institutions.
I believe it is essential, however, that the national film board retain a considerable amount of independence from day to day supervision by the minister. We are setting up a number of organizations to undertake certain public activities, both economic and social. We sometimes refer to them as crown corporations. These crown corporations must be answerable in some way to parliament and to
National Film Act
the representatives of the people, and a means has been developed by which they may be answerable, through appearance before committees of this house of representatives of such organizations as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines, and so on. Yet we have to find a balance between the control of public institutions and the desirability of having them free from political interference. I believe that is something we have not yet worked out satisfactorily. But I feel that as we develop more and more public institutions, it is essential that we evolve ways and means of maintaining the independence of such corporations from political interference. I am not sure whether I like-in fact, I dislike it in some ways-the idea of bringing the employees of the national film board under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I think they should be under a superannuation plan, but I believe we are endangering the freedom of the individual in this country by bringing more and more people under direct or indirect ministerial control through the civil service.
During the recent by-elections I saw letters that had been sent out to employees of organizations that were not, in my opinion, civil service organizations, telling them that they must have nothing to do with any form of political activity. At the same time I believe there were persons in the public service who did not fear the government and who supported government candidates. That sort of thing is entirely wrong. Where a man is in the public service, provided he does not occupy a confidential position in which he could use confidential information gleaned in his capacity as a public servant, he should be free to exercise all the usual functions of a citizen in a democratic state. Consequently I am hesitant about bringing the employees of some of these crown corporations into too close association with what I might call the political arm of our democratic society. I am not reflecting on the present minister or the present government when I say that, because governments of all stripes are faced with this particular problem.
As I said at the outset, I do not propose to discuss this report at any great length. I am glad that, so far as I have been able to read the report-and the extracts read by the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) confirm this point of view-the film board was given a clean bill of health as a result of the investigation. I believe that is satisfactory, having regard to the criticism that was made through the press across the country, and sometimes in this house. I have known the new commissioner for a good many years in various capacities. I followed his work as

Judges Act
editor of Maclean's magazine, and I feel that ihe government made a good choice. I believe that Canada will be well served by the commissioner who was appointed some few months ago. I believe that the staff is a good staff. In spite of the criticism, and in spite of the fact that three or four members of the staff retired, I believe that on the whole the staff was trying to serve the best interests of the country in a democratic way. Over the years, with the resources at their disposal, they did a job of which they and this country can be proud.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 317, respecting the national film board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


JUDGES ACT
Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 316, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed increase in the number of judges in British Columbia would appear to be justified by the amount of litigation in that province. The provision with respect to district court judges is merely a change in the numbers in order to meet the situation, and as such is accepted. As to travelling expenses, the amounts designated are fair and reasonable and to that provision there can be no objection.
In the matter of appointments to judicial positions, I believe I speak for the bar of Canada when I say that political fitness ought not to be a prime consideration. I shall not refer to any appointments made since the minister has been in his present position, but I do impress upon him the necessity, if the bench is to retain the high reputation it has enjoyed over the years, of considering carefully all selections for appointments to superior, district and county court benches.
If political fitness be the only qualification, the judiciary of Canada will suffer, as will the administration of justice and democracy itself. More consideration should be given to the appointment of able members of the bar and outstanding leaders who do not happen to be government supporters. Since 1921, with the exception of five years, one party has been in power in this country, and in the

last seven or eight years there have been but two appointments to the bench of supporters of a political party other than that of the government. This situation demands the serious attention not only of the Minister of Justice, but of Canadians generally.
In the United States, in judicial appointments made by the federal authority and ratified by the Senate, as they must be, the usual method is to select a percentage of members of the bar, outstanding in their learning and ability, who do not happen to be supporters of the government of the day. Thirty per cent of the appointments to superior courts is the allocation given to outstanding members of the bar of political parties other than that of the President of the United States.
Unless greater consideration is given to the selection of outstanding leaders of the bar, learned in the law, I fear for the continuance of the inviolability and sanctity of the bench. I make this statement knowing that I represent the views of the majority of the bar of Canada, irrespective of political considerations. Appointments to the bench should not be dependent merely upon the consideration that a member of the bar has been a defeated candidate in an election. Some years ago a distinguished member of the United States bar who was addressing a meeting in Canada, was introduced in eulogistic terms by a distinguished member of the Canadian bar. But the Canadian took it upon himself to say that there was only one criticism he had to offer of the United States system of jurisprudence. He felt that an elected judiciary was a dangerous expedient, particularly when a federal or state election was about to be held. He said it was difficult to understand why the majority of the members of the bench of the United States were elected. The United States leader of the bar said that having been in Canada only a matter of two days he was beginning to wonder whether one of the prime qualifications in Canada is not to be elected, but rather to have been defeated once or twice.
Above all else we must maintain the supremacy of the bench, its detachment, its freedom from the suggestion that any qualifications other than ability, capacity and integrity-and I place integrity above all- shall be matters of consideration in appointment.
Not only must justice be done; it must be done expeditiously. There should be no unnecessary delay between the hearing of a case and the rendering of the judgment. I am sure the Minister of Justice has known of occasions on which members of

the bench have waited so long to render a decision that if they remembered the name of the case they certainly did not remember the facts of the case. It is not a matter of recent occurrence. Over the years there has often been too much delay between the hearing of the case and the delivery of judgment. Reserving judgment is a good idea, as long as it does not carry over for such a length of time as to be detrimental to the administration of justice.
Because of the fact that there has been a great increase in litigation in British Columbia, I feel that that portion of the bill deserves the support of all. Above everything else, justice must be administered, and litigants must believe that they have received justice. Delays of one, two or three and a half years in rendering judgment are inexcusable. Where they do occur, the minister should be able to say something to these judges that they would understand.
Recently I asked how many judges were employed on provincial royal commissions without having received the permission of the Minister of Justice. I asked how many provincial royal commissions there had been in the last three or four years upon which superior court judges have sat. The answer given by the Department of Justice is that the department has no information. "No information"?-with a judge away three or four or even five or six months from his duties? "No information" was what the department wished to furnish, rather than the facts.
Surely when a superior court judge is serving on a royal commission for a period of three months, and particularly when he is chief justice, his absence would be noticed. I suggest that the salutary provision in the law that no judge may serve on a provincial royal commission without first obtaining leave from the Minister of Justice should, in the interests of justice, be observed to the letter.
Anything that we on this side of the Kouse, and indeed hon. members in all parts of the house, can do to preserve and main'ain the highest type of administration of justice of which this country is capable will be done. This is one question as to which t .ere s. ould be no party considerations. I repeat that the Minister of Justice, as the custodian of the king's conscience, owes to the people of Canada the duty that, in making recommendations for appointments to superior courts, integrity and ability, and not political fitness, shall be the prime consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.
Judges Act


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is it proper to ask the minister some questions at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: Not at this time. That would be more appropriate when we are in committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to reply briefly to the observations just made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). With his generalizations no member in the House of Commons I think will be disposed to disagree. With, in particular, his emphasis Upon the fact that the chief consideration in the appointment of members to the judiciary should be ability, capacity and integrity no one will disagree; and I can say with a perfectly clear conscience that in so far as any appointments I as minister have made, the proper emphasis has been placed upon those three qualities.
But if those qualities were possessed in an eminent degree by a man who at the same time happened to be a member of the Liberal party, I think the hon. member would be the last to argue that membership in that party should disentitle him to consideration for appointment to the bench.


John George Diefenbaker: Neither should disentitle-ment be the other way.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and neither should dis-entitlement be the other way. So far as any appointments I have made are concerned, I think it would be much more fitting on my part to let them speak for themselves rather than for me to boast about them, or defend them, because I do not think they require defence.
The hon. member has said that there are only two cases which come to his mind in which members of his party have been appointed to the bench. I suggest that he think a little more deeply on the subject, and if he has done so he does not come to a different conclusion, I should be glad to go over the list with him and point out some others.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The minister will not find one in Alberta.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My usual experience outside the house is rather the converse of what has been taking place in the last fifteen minutes; there has been criticism for my having been a little too broadminded on the subject the hon. member has been discussing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Where has the criticism come from?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will leave that to my hon.
friend to guess.

Judges Act
The hon. member for Lake Centre has referred to the fact that there have been delays in the rendering of judgments, but he has refrained from identifying the provinces in which the delays have occurred.
I can understand the reason for his reticence in that regard in any public statement. However, I hope those reasons will not deter him from disclosing that information to me in my office.


John George Diefenbaker: Has not the minister had complaints sent to him by law societies?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I think the hon. member is wrong. I do not know what case he has in mind, but I should be very glad to discuss the matter.
At the present time we have only one example of a delayed judgment of the kind indicated. It was brought to my attention by a member of the bar of the province in question, and is now under consideration.
As the hon. member knows, the establishment of the courts to which he has had reference is the responsibility of the provincial legislatures, and the administration of justice in those courts is the responsibility of provincial attorneys general. It is true that the judges are appointed by the federal government. The impression seems to prevail -and while I listened to the hon. member I was wondering whether he shared it

that because the appointment is made by the federal government, the federal government has some executive power of discipline over the judiciary.
The hon. member knows quite well that one of the cardinal features of our system of government is that the judiciary should be independent of the executive. I believe that upon reflection he will be inclined to agree with me that in those cases in which there have been delays in the rendering of judgments the proper course in the first instance would be for the officer in charge of the administration of justice in a province, namely, the provincial attorney general, as tactfully and firmly as possible, to bring the matter to the attention of the offending judge. Then, if that did not produce results he might send a memorandum in the matter to the Minister of Justice, to the end that if the delays were sufficiently serious, a court of inquiry could be set up to ascertain the reasons for delay. I think the hon. member will agree with that course of procedure. Therefore in those cases, such as the most recent one to which I have referred, where complaints are made direct to the Minister of Justice-and not made by the attorney general of a province-one must prosecute the inquiry, and take the matter up with the provincial attorney general concerned, with a certain amount of diplomacy, lest it

appear that we are trenching upon what in the first instance at any rate is his proper field of responsibility.
There was one aspect of the hon. member's argument that made quite an impression upon me, and that was when he said that we must follow a certain course of conduct in the appointment of judges, in order to maintain the present high standard of ability of the bench. I am in complete agreement with him that in Canada by and large there is a very high standard of ability and integrity on the part of our judges, both provincial and federal. If the argument advanced by my hon. friend is to be taken seriously, then that great ability and integrity of the bench upon which he bases his argument is the product of the system which he is criticizing, the system, so far as I am concerned, of selecting appointees to the bench on the basis of ability, integrity and capacity, and then, and only then, having regard, if any regard at all is had, to their political affiliation. I do not think a better justification or vindication of the manner in which judicial appointments are made could be provided by anyone than is contained in the statement just made by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-British Columbia supreme court judges.
Arthur Leroy Smith: I had not
intended to speak on this matter, but I left the chamber for a few minutes this morning and as I came back I heard praise of our judiciary from both sides of the house. It is difficult for a practising lawyer not to do this. In other words, he has not a chance. Of course they will be praised. I want to compliment the minister upon the last appointment he made in Alberta. The fact that the appointee happened to be the past president of the Liberal association for a long time is neither here nor there. The most important thing is that he is an excellent lawyer and is doing very well. I think that is largely due to the fact that I brought him up as a law student and he was my next senior partner when the appointment was made.
But let us not forget a few obvious facts. One is that all the judges in Alberta, both in the superior court and district court, are Liberals. It is not an accident. Do not let us blind ourselves by blandishments as to their great achievements. I am prepared to say all that about the Alberta judges because I am going to appear before them. There may be some men on the bench who are not worth a nickel, but I am ready to stand up and praise them because I am not going to

cut my throat when I may be practising before them. I have forgotten the total number of judges, but, as I say, they are all Liberals. Having regard to what the Minister of Justice has said, they must have taken the cream of the crop, and it is just an accident that they all happened to be of a certain political persuasion. I do not know that I object very strenuously to that, if in the three qualities the minister mentions they stand superior or at least equal to their fellows.
There is another thing upon which I should like to compliment the minister, and in saying what I intend to say I hope I am within the boundaries of this bill. The two recent appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada are beyond any criticism. Those two judges represent the cream of our profession; the appointments are most excellent. I know nothing whatever of their politics.
There is another amendment which has been long overdue, and which is provided in section 3. On the old basis of allowances of $6 and $10 per day our judges lost money. I know in my province they went around doing the country's business and maintaining as best they could the high standards of justice. I have no doubt that they do their best, but there are capabilities and capabilities. That is all I have to say.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I understand that yesterday the hon. member for St. John's West made some remarks about this bill, and from my knowledge of the facts I feel they were fully justified. Having read the Hansard report of of what was said yesterday, there is one question that I should like to ask. Would it be possible to see the letter written to Mr. Varcoe by the minister of justice of Newfoundland?
The bill provides for five district court judges, and perhaps the minister can explain why the number has been reduced from seven, which was originally provided for in the negotiations. I should like to know also where these courts are to be set up. Will there be two district courts in St. John's? Has the minister any idea when the appointments are likely to be made?
I presume that the usual practice will be followed and that no question of party politics will enter into the appointments; that only qualified members of the bar will be selected for these positions. I agree thoroughly with the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's West with respect to the magistrate now in St. John's. As a lawyer I have a number of friends among those who are likely to be appointed, and I have no hesitation in saying that they are very competent to fill the positions.
Judges Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The reason for the difference between the number "seven", which was mentioned in the provincial legislation setting up the district courts in Newfoundland, and the number "five" which we have in the bill, is explained as follows. After the provincial bill had been passed a conference took place between the attorney general of Newfoundland and our department. We had officers of the department go to Newfoundland to examine the set-up, and the territory to be covered. We finally came to the conclusion that at the present time, all things considered, including the extent to which the appointment of seven judges might tend to denude the bar, five was the proper figure that should be carried into the bill.
As to the other matter to which my hon. friend refers, my deputy is in London appearing in a case before the privy council. While I have access to his files I would prefer not to use them until he returns and I can discuss the matter with him. I have not handled the matter myself, because it was a continuance of something that had been under way before I came to the department.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Can the minister tell me where these courts will be set up? Has he any knowledge of that now?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I think my hon. friend will find that that is covered in the provincial legislation. I could not indicate the extent to which that might have to be modified in practice by one judge covering perhaps more than one district by travelling to various points.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Who makes the decision as to where the courts will be set up?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend knows-and I am not necessarily speaking about the Newfoundland legislation, but about provincial legislation generally setting up courts of this kind-the total area of a province is divided geographically into certain judicial divisions and a court is created for each one. If the hon. member will examine the Newfoundland legislation I am sure he will see what these divisions are, or it may be that there is a clause in the Newfoundland bill empowering the lieutenant governor in council to determine the divisions after examining the matter. The question with which we are concerned is the appointment of judges to serve these divisions. That service may be provided by having a resident judge in each division, or by having certain outlying divisions covered by a judge who goes on circuit.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The provincial government would make the divisions?

Judges Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, they always make the divisions, either in the statute or by order in council afterwards.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When do you expect the appointments to be made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Contrary to the impression that some seem to have, I must say that no detailed consideration has been given to that at all. We will not embark upon that matter until we have the authority which we seek to obtain by the passage of the bill.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I assume you will take recommendations from the bar society of Newfoundland.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We welcome good advice from any source, on the understanding that we are not necessarily bound to accept it.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to refer to the location of the judges. There are to be two in St. John's, one in St. John's East and one in St. John's West. I presume they will be residents of the city and will be confined primarily to those districts, but the lieutenant governor in council has power to allow them to sit in other districts. As there are to be five judges, and there are seven districts corresponding to the federal electoral districts, I presume that the two additional districts may be divided amongst the five judges. The most important places must be known to the minister-St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Bell Island and Bonavista.


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot agree with what the hon. member for St. John's West has just said. I do not regard these places as more important, by any means. As a matter of fact the question of judiciary in Newfoundland has been under consideration by some members of the legal profession, including myself, for a good many years. The criticism of our present inadequate system of administration of justice goes back to the old days of the late Judge Prowse. I have no doubt my hon. friend is sufficiently well acquainted with the contents of the book on the subject which was written half a century or more ago by that learned judge to realize that the great difficulty we have in Newfoundland is not altogether the administration of justice near the city of St. John's. County court judges will be required rather far away from the city of St. John's in areas where in many matters affecting questions of land and the administration of estates there is no administration of justice. There is nobody there to administer justice, and nobody within reach except the supreme court at St. John's. It is true that that court goes on circuit every year now, but it was suspended for a number of years. I have had some experience in what took place, possibly more than my

learned friend across the way. I know there is a serious lack of any agency in the nature of a court to bring justice to the people in the far distant sections of Newfoundland. I have seen cases where next of kin have been deprived of the property of their parents, and there was no remedy, for the simple reason that they did not have the necessary money to go to St. John's, engage the services of a lawyer and appear before the supreme court with the consequent reasonably high expenses, if I may put it in that way. What is required in Newfoundland is capable county court or district court judges, whichever you like to call them, who will be located at these far distant points where they can bring justice cheaply to people who cannot afford the excessive expense of trials in the supreme court.


Gordon Francis Higgins: With all due respect to the Secretary of State, I think it is somewhat out of order to refer to the excessive charges for trials in the supreme court. I think the lawyers practising in that court are as fair as lawyers anywhere else. It is seldom that a poor man in Newfoundland does not have his work attended to for a reasonable fee.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I had no intention whatever of casting any aspersions upon the professional integrity of the hon. member. I have no doubt his charges are reasonable, having regard to the amount of work he has to do and the time he has to spend on that work.


Gordon Francis Higgins: And the money.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: My point is that if my learned friend had to depend for his income upon the fishermen and labourers in the far distant parts of Newfoundland, he would have a very meagre income.


Mr. White (Hasiings-Pelerborough):: I
should like to ask the minister to explain on what basis the salaries of judges are fixed. Judges of the supreme court receive $12,000, and the salary of a district or county court judge is $6,666.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I must confess that perhaps the best explanation that can be given for these two figures is the fact in each case that amount has been paid for a good number of years. I know we have had representations from the association of county and district judges in Ontario, in which at very considerable length a quite impressive case is made out to show that relatively they are underpaid in comparison with the supreme court and other judges generally. Speaking from memory, but I think my recollection is accurate, the practice heretofore has been that when an increase was put through, the relative position of the two groups of judges

was adhered to pretty closely. The contention of the association of county and district judges of Ontario is that the time has now arrived when in any adjustment of judicial salaries they should get a relatively greater increase because of the fact that they are now paid relatively less than other judges in relation to their work and responsibilities.	.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Travelling allowances.
Mr. Sinnott:: Under this section, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will give me a little leeway, since I was in committee when the motion for second reading was being discussed. In order that we may keep the record straight I want to read paragraph (b), which refers to the travelling allowances of judges:
(b) for each necessary day of travel going and returning and each day during which he so attends-
(i)	the sum of twelve dollars if that place is a city:
(ii)	the sum of eight dollars if that place is not a city:
(iii)	the sum of twelve dollars if during the time he so attends he is accommodated at a city and the Minister of Justice is satisfied that suitable accommodation is not available at the place at which he attends.
I have a few notes in respect to this bill, concerning travelling expenses, and I shall try to keep as closely as possible to the section.
When the resolution was brought into the house I strenuously objected to it. We have come to the time when people should use a little common sense. I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West, who said this was a fine thing and that these men were not able to get along on what they were receiving previously. He may hope some day to be appointed to one of these positions.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: At this very moment we are trying to convince the world that the democratic form of government is far superior to communism. I believe I am as near to the hearts of the people of Canada, and can see as well into their minds as anyone, and I know what will be their attitude toward a bill of this kind to favour a favoured few who already have been favoured far beyond the imagination of any Canadian- these men who have the authority to finalize and put into effect the laws of our country. I have seen men serve as much as two years for stealing from a store a small item worth less than $2; yet here we, as members of
Judges Act
parliament, are being asked to increase the travelling allowances of judges from $10 to $12 a day, in addition to the salaries they already receive. It hurts me deeply to see the very people who are supposed to be setting an example to all Canadians adopt this method of extracting from the pockets of the Canadian people all that the traffic will bear. Thousands of people in this country who are having a hard time to make ends meet will have to add to the already heavy taxes they have to bear. Many families are existing today on far less than these men are asking for travelling expenses alone, and I do not like to see the Minister of Justice made a victim of these circumstances.
I should like to know just how many of these men have asked for this consideration. It boils down to this. As members of parliament we are being asked to increase these travelling allowances by $2 per day; and putting it mildly, this is the cleverest piece of legalized robbery ever perpetrated. We are not permitted to discuss salaries, but every member of this house knows that we never hear of a judge passing on to the land of glory penniless. In most cases they leave estates worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. We should respect those who have the responsibility of carrying out the laws of the country. No member of parliament wants to be niggardly. It may be said that in view of the position these men hold the remuneration they receive from the public treasury may be somewhat less than they could earn in private life. It is not dollars and cents that count, however; it is a matter of honour and responsibility. In any case, I am sure no one could say the remuneration of these men is niggardly, especially when we remember that it is guaranteed until they reach the age of seventy.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, we are fighting communism, and we have to show that life in this country is much better than in the lands where communism is in power. If you want to encourage communism in the rank and file of those who have to work hard for a living, a few more bills like this will do that very thing. I was elected to represent all the people of my riding of Springfield, and I am sure everything I have said here today will be backed up by them. I believe Canada is the greatest land in the world. Let us keep it that way and not cater to any class distinctions.


Mr. Gillis:: I want to compliment the hon. member who has just spoken. Sitting as he does on that side of the house, he showed courage and a considerable knowledge of the

Judges Act
subject with which he dealt. It was a practical demonstration of democracy, and it is too bad that more hon. members on that side do not exercise the same privilege.
I am going to make what I have to say short, sharp and to the point. The purpose of this bill is to appoint another judge and to step up the travelling allowances of some sixty-three judges already appointed. I am not objecting to that; the Minister of Justice will have to answer for it. What I do object to, however, is that ever since I have been in this house, every time there has been any reorganization of the legal structure throughout the country or of the judiciary it has been done by a bill like this, with reforms from the top-more money spent on administration, more judges, and so on. There has been a complete failure to recognize the fact that the great majority of those who have to seek redress in the courts are without the means to purchase the legal advice necessary to get into those courts and take advantage of the system of justice we dispense.
A few moments ago the Secretary of State practically admitted that, in so far as his own province is concerned, the problem so far had been a lack of finances to enable litigants to get to the centres where justice could be dispensed. I believe that he is wrong when he assumes that the appointment of more county court judges is going to remedy that situation. It will to some extent, in that it will cut down travelling expenses; but when one has to seek litigation in the supreme or county courts it is necessary to hire solicitors. Then if the person is employed, there is the loss of time to be considered. Considerable expense is attached to litigation. There are many persons in this country who, because of a lack of the necessary funds, refrain from going to court and suffer considerably because of it.
I believe I am safe in saying that there are thousands of lawyers in this country who carry accounts on their books for years concerning cases they have fought without any chance of being paid. They do that work on a humanitarian basis. I know some of them myself. .1 hope some time in the future I shall see the Minister of Justice introduce a bill for the purpose of establishing legal aid for the people of this country below a certain income level. That has been done in other countries, and I think it is necessary here. I believe it is necessary as an aid to the legal profession, particularly those who practise in the magistrates' court and county court. In the final analysis there are not many people who go to the supreme court.
I believe if we are going to continue to do this sort of thing, to build a top-heavy, highly paid judiciary across the country, the
[Mr. Gillis.l
least we can do is to consider some means of enabling the people who are unfortunate enough to have to go to court to have proper counsel to present their case. I hope that some time in the future the minister will look into that situation to see if a bill cannot be introduced to provide for those people, because I think it is badly needed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to..
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now.


Mr. Knowles:: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 309, to amend the Official Secrets Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of second reading is to discuss the principle of the bill. This bill consists of four amendments to the Official Secrets Act. I suppose the principle which ties them all together is the fact that they represent an attempt by the government, a successful attempt we think, to comply with a recommendation which was made by the royal commission on espionage in 1946. That recommendation was to the effect that the Official Secrets Act, 1939, be studied in the light of the information contained in the report and in the evidence and exhibits, and if it was thought advisable it could be amended to provide additional safeguards.
The first noteworthy feature about this recommendation is that it does not contain, within itself, any suggestion for the amendment of the act. It merely recommends that it be amended if after study it is thought advisable to do so. We have studied the Official Secrets Act, and the bill which is now before the house represents those respects in which we think it should be amended.
Section 1 deals with an amendment to extend the meaning of the phrase "office under His Majesty", to embrace employment in, on, or under a board, commission or other body that is an agent of His Majesty in the

right of Canada or of any province. This amendment has been proposed by security officials, and the reason for its extension is obvious. There is a provision in the act, section 4, subsection I, which makes it an offence for any person to have in his possession or control any secret official code word or password, any sketch, plan, model, article, thing or document which has been entrusted in confidence to him by any .person holding office under His Majesty.
Under the act as it reads at the present time the phrase "office under His Majesty" is really limited to a servant of the government itself. The desire is to extend that to servants of the crown, boards, commissions, and corporations.
Then, in section 5 of the act, subsection 1, paragraph (d), it is made an offence for anyone, for the purpose of gaining admission to prohibited areas, to impersonate a person holding office under His Majesty. In that text also, the meaning of the phrase "office under His Majesty" would be extended.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask at this point that you call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess I was just about to begin consideration of clause 2 of the bill. The Official Secrets Act applies at the present time, in accordance with the usual rule of statute interpretation, only to things done and to offences committed inside of Canada. In our deliberations it was proposed by the mounted police, and also by the security panel, that the Official Secrets Act should be given some extraterritorial effect. The security panel suggested that it should be amended to apply to offences committed against the act outside of Canada by a Canadian citizen. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police suggested that the act should be amended to make it an offence for any person obtaining secret information within Canada to publish such information in any country outside of Canada.
This new section 12A, which is covered by section 2 of the bill, therefore makes it an offence to disclose secret information, and so forth, outside of Canada, if the person concerned on the one hand is a Canadian citizen, or in cases in which, not being a Canadian citizen, he obtained information while he owed allegiance to Canada.
Of course, an obvious difficulty in the enforcement of this provision, which has already been the subject of editorial comment in this country, is the necessity of
Official Secrets Act
getting the offender back to Canada for trial; but even giving weight to this great difficulty of catching one's rabbit before one can have rabbit pie, the amendment we have will still serve a very useful purpose, because those who commit an offence of this kind in, for example, the United States, are very likely to fall within the class of citizens who under the United States law are deportable from that country to the country of their citizenship. Therefore if the Canadian was apprehended in the United States and was found to have committed an offence of this kind and was deportable, he would come here under such circumstances that in all likelihood we would be able to bring him to trial.
I think I should say a word or two with regard to the phrase which is used at the bottom of the new section 12A, paragraph (b): "while owing allegiance to His Majesty in right of Canada." This phrase is a little more far-reaching in its effect than would be the expression "while present in Canada". It will be remembered that in the case of Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1946 Appeal Cases, 347, Joyce was held to owe allegiance to His Majesty in the United Kingdom while travelling on a British passport, notwithstanding the fact that passport had been issued under the misapprehension that Joyce was a British subject when in fact he was not. The amendment that we are now discussing carries the obligation of allegiance even further than it was carried in that case-that is to say, further than the common law as was enunicated in the Joyce case, because it makes punishable in Canada the disclosure, after ceasing to owe allegiance, of information obtained while owing allegiance. The law is that even an alien owes allegiance while he is within the realm of Canada, unless of course he has diplomatic immunity.


Mr. Fulton:: Or is an enemy.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, only a citizen of an enemy state which had declared an open war, a hot war, not an enemy in a cold war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Mr. Fleming:: Or a potential enemy,
according to the interpretation in Britain.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, the question where such an offender would be tried in the event of its being possible to apprehend him, in respect of offences committed outside of Canada, is already, we think, taken care of by section 13, subsection 1, of the act, which provides:
For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this act, the offence shall be deemed

Official Secrets Act
to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed, or at any place in Canada in which the offender may be found.
Clause 3 of this bill-


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister
speaks on clause 3 would he answer a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Have there been any cases in the last five years in which anyone has escaped prosecution and conviction because of the fact that this section was not in the Official Secrets Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to my hon. friend's question is no. Now that he has raised that point, perhaps it would be as well for me to establish the fact that in respect of all four of these amendments we are not closing the stable door after the horse has gone; we are attempting to close possible loopholes before any person has been able to use them.
With respect to section 3 of the act,. the thought has been entertained that the penalties in this act are inadequate. In our discussion this view was confirmed by the security panel of the government. Section 14(1) as embodied in clause 3 of this bill now provides that where no specific penalty is mentioned, an offender is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000, or to imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or both; and the offender, at the election of the Attorney General of Canada, may be prosecuted by summary proceedings under part XV of the Criminal Code, in which case, in the event of that election being made, the punishment would be a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or both.
In this connection I should point out the penalty that applies where no specific penalty is provided. The only case in which a specific penalty is provided in the act is in section 7, subsection 2, for the refusal by a person in control of telegraphic or wireless apparatus used in transmitting messages between Canada and a foreign country to produce such messages when required to do so by the minister. In that case it is a summary conviction offence and punishable by a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding $200, or both. So that when we provide, as we do in the new section 14, for practically doubling that penalty to apply to all the cases not specifically provided for, we are providing an increased penalty for the great bulk of the cases which might arise under the act.
Then under section 14(2), as it would be enacted by clause 3 in the bill, the provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act will apply to persons who have been or may be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act by way of summary conviction. I should like to emphasize in this connection particularly the point raised a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
I would not "want hon. members to get the impression that, with regard to all the prosecutions which took place as a result of the espionage inquiry of 1946, we did not fingerprint the culprits. But those were cases in which the procedure against the accused was by way of indictment and therefore fell within the express terms of the Identification of Criminals Act, which applies to all those who are guilty of an indictable offence.
When the attorney general under the present Official Secrets Act elects to proceed against an accused by way of summary conviction, although it is in respect of an offence which by statute is declared to be indictable, the possibility of a doubt arises as to whether the offence itself when so proceeded against is an indictable offence so as to make the Identification of Criminals Act regulations with regard to fingerprinting applicable to the offender. The purpose of this second portion of the new section 14, which would be enacted by clause 3 of the bill, is to remove that doubt.
I believe I have covered the main points of the bill. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the bill has been drawn after consultation for the purposes of complying with recommendation No. 5 of the royal commission on espionage of 1946.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is one to the contents of which, so far as they go, I do not think there can be any objection. Indeed, I believe the only objection that could be taken is that largely the bill is just a piece of windowdressing. It does not actually accomplish very much, and certainly in my view it fails to accomplish what the minister has just said it was designed to do, namely, to follow out the recommendation contained in paragraph 5 of the recommendations of the royal commission on espionage. That recommendation reads as follows:
That the Official Secrets Act, 1939, be studied in the light of the information contained in this report and in the evidence and exhibits and, if it is thought advisable, that it be amended to provide additional safeguards.
In the very narrow sense I suppose this bill might be said to provide additional safeguards, if those words are confined exclusively to the matter of obtaining convictions, should prosecutions be brought-and it

hardly provides full safeguards even there.
I am quite certain that was not the intention of the royal commission in its use of the word "safeguards". If the word "safeguards" is read in conjunction with the other recommendations, and with the context of the report as a whole, it becomes obvious that it meant safeguards against espionage and against the revealing of official secrets or the passage or communication to foreign powers [DOT]of information prejudicial to the interests and safety of the state. That would mean something prejudicial to the safety of Canada.
This bill provides no safeguards whatsoever in that respect. Indeed the bill accomplishes very little. It makes very little change in the present legislation with respect to the prosecution of those charged with offences under the act. About the only thing it does is to provide an increase from seven to fourteen years in the maximum term which can be imposed. I would accept that as a sound enough approach. I believe that people who deliberately betray the safety of the state and deliberately serve an alien and hostile power deserve heavy sentences. I believe therefore that it is proper that we should provide heavy sentences, although in the case of lesser offences it would not be necessary to impose a maximum sentence.
It is interesting to note here that the question of the sentence was considered when the act was passed in 1939. At that time the then minister of justice was asked why the penalty was limited to seven years, and, as reported at page 4723 of Hansard of May 30, 1939, he pointed out that in the English act, on which the bill then before the house was based, the maximum penalty was fourteen years' imprisonment. Then he went on to say that the maximum in the bill then before the house had been set at seven years' hard labour. He then indicated that some thought had been given to the question, and that it had been decided in our act to limit the maximum imprisonment to seven years.
I point that out only as a matter of historical interest, when it is now decided that we should lock the door after the horse has been stolen. It was felt previously that seven years was sufficient to act as a deterrent, whereas it is now felt that seven years is not sufficient either as a penalty or as a deterrent to people who may be tempted to commit these offences.
As to another thing that the bill is supposed to do, namely, to provide that the act shall now have extraterritorial application, I suggest that here again we find a piece of
Official Secrets Act
window-dressing. My contention is that the present act has extraterritorial application. Section 13(1) of the act states:
For the purposes of the trial of a person for an offence under this act, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed, or any place in Canada in which the offender may be found.
The minister has put his finger on the real difficulty in these cases, namely, that the criminal must be caught before he can be prosecuted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does not the hon. member think that that section is subject to the usual rules of interpretation, namely, that it applies only to offences within Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not interpret the section in that way at all. It appears to be deliberately and definitely directed towards the question where the offence may be committed. There are no limiting words. At this point I do not want to enter into a legal argument; the matter may not be of great import, because it has been clearly proved that the act has extraterritorial application. However, I do suggest that this is a piece of window-dressing, because it appears, to me at any rate, that the present act has extraterritorial application, by reason of the words:
-the offence shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place in which the same actually was committed, or at any place in Canada in which the offender may be found.
If the offender is brought back to Canada, which must happen before he can be tried, he is then charged with an offence against the act, and that offence may be deemed to have been committed at any place in Canada in which the offender may be found. But he must be found in Canada in order to be tried. The provisions of the English act on which this bill is based are in somewhat the same terms, although not exactly parallel. However, they are intended obviously to give their act extraterritorial application. Section 10(1) of the English official secrets act reads:
This act shall apply to all acts which are offences under this act when committed in any part of His Majesty's dominions, or when committed by British officers or subjects elsewhere.
My criticism of the bill so far is that it accomplishes nothing, or at the best very little. A good deal of publicity and anticipation has been created with regard to its introduction, as though the bill in fact was implementing the recommendations of the royal commission that additional safeguards be provided. The royal commission recommended that there be additional safeguards against espionage and against the communication of information prejudicial to the state. This bill does not provide those additional

Official Secrets Act
safeguards', in the sense that it makes very little change in the law with respect to the prosecution of persons accused of offences.
I find the bill quite unsatisfactory. What we need is a bill which will provide additional protection against espionage and against the communication of information to foreign powers. The recommendations of the royal commission show the vital need of some such provision. The report of the royal commission makes it terrifyingly clear that we had an elaborate espionage system in this country. It minces no words in telling us that the Russian embassy was the base of that espionage system. It states that that was carried on under three separate agencies, the most important being under the direction of the Russian military attache. We had a spy system in this country and nothing that has happened since indicates that there is any ground for assuming that that spy system has ceased to exist.
I should like to refer to a Canadian Press dispatch which I happened to notice in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, and which reads:
Soviet Boosts Ottawa Staff
Military attaches are trained observers of three services.
Ottawa, June 20-(CP)-The Russians have boosted the military representation at their Ottawa embassy to five officers in recent weeks, it was disclosed today by the external affairs department. A few months ago the department reported two as the total.
I do not want to say that that article indicates that the espionage system is being built up again, or strengthened, but in view of the clear and specific report of the royal commission, where no words were minced as to the activities being carried on at the Russian embassy, we should certainly be on our guard. These things should warn us that something is still necessary to protect us against this espionage system.
I find nothing in the bill. Other recommendations in the report of the royal commission are to the effect that we need additional safeguards. I should like to refer particularly to recommendations 2, 3 and 6, to be found on page 689 of the report, as follows:
2.	That the proper authorities in each service, department and organization take such steps as may be considered desirable and effective, in the light of this report and of the evidence and exhibits, to prevent further unauthorized transmission of information and to set up further safeguards.
3.	That all security measures should be co-ordinated and rendered as uniform as possible.
6. That consideration be given to any additional security measures which would be practical to prevent the infiltration into positions of trust under the government of persons likely to commit acts such as those described in this report.

Those recommendations make it clear that at that time the attention of the royal commission was directed to the provision of additional safeguards against a repetition of what they found had been going on. The. necessity of taking those precautions is more important now than it was then, and this bill does not fulfil that requirement.
This matter of security precautions or legislation against espionage and the communication of official secrets is difficult to discuss reasonably, because we are working with a complete lack of factual information as to what is being done. I and others have attempted-I shall confine my remarks to my own attempts-to obtain factual information as to what has been found out as to the extent of this espionage system, as to the extent of infiltration into the government service, and as to the extent of our counter measures and the removal from the government employ of any who were found to be untrustworthy.
So far I have drawn virtually a blank. No answers of a factual nature have been given to the specific questions which were asked, and we are left to go largely on guesswork and speculation. We must work in an atmosphere of secrecy. There is a veil of secrecy over the whole subject, not even a corner of which has been lifted. I appreciate the importance of maintaining security and the difficulty of disclosing security methods, but I cannot agree that it is impossible to give factual information as to the success, or failure if you like, of security measures.
I should like to refer to a couple of questions which were asked in this regard, and the answers which were given. On May 24 the following questions were put toy me and answered, or so-called answers were given, as reported on page 2810 of Hansard,'.
1.	Have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been able to identify all of the 150 persons then resident in Canada, listed in the notebook found as a result of the espionage investigations of 1945 and 1946, containing the name of Klaus Fuchs?
2.	If not, how many have they been able to identify?
The minister's answer, while courteous and lengthy, gives no information whatsoever. It tells us what we already knew, that the notebook contained the names of 150 persons said to be resident at that time in Canada. That was a part of the question. We were told that it formed only one item of many thousands of documents seized, and that in this mass of material so seized there were many such notebooks, also desk calendars, memo pads and a lot of other matters not relevant to the question because the question was about a particular notebook. It will be remembered that the suggestion was that certainly the conclusion reached

by many others besides myself was that amongst the 150 names there were, although they may not all have been, some who were involved at one time or another in the business of espionage. The minister went on to say:
The list of the 150 names referred to was carefully checked to ascertain \yhich of these 150 names, if any, were those of persons who could be suspected of espionage or subversive activity. It was found that a limited number of the persons named belonged to either or both of these groups.
In all such cases where positive identification proved possible, the entries were then related to and dealt with on the appropriate investigation files. As some of these investigations are still current, it will be appreciated that it would not be desirable to specify the number of persons identified. The majority of the entries in this notebook, however, refer to professional people and others of good repute whose loyalty is beyond question.
The question asked, with reference to these names, in how many cases it had been possible to establish positive identification. It did not ask how many of them were found to be spies or how many were suspected of being spies. It asked for factual information. It asked in how many cases the R.C.M.P. had been able to say: This is the actual person; we know who he is and where he is. That was the only information asked for, and in an answer of three paragraphs the question is evaded and no factual answer is given.
The second question on that subject was:
How many of the 150 Canadians listed in the notebook found as a result of the espionage investigations . . . and containing the name of Klaus Fuchs (a) have been in the employ of the dominion government at any time since June, 1945; (b) are now in the employ of the dominion government?
Again that is a factual question. I did not ask how many spies; I asked how many of the persons listed and identified in the notebook were in the employ of the government since 1945 and are still in the employ of the government. Again the question was not answered. The reply of the minister was:
This question cannot be answered with precision in view of the time covered by (a) and the vagueness of the identifying data available in the notebook.
The time covered by part (a) was simply the period from 1945 up to the present. The answer continued:
It can be said, however, that the number involved was small.
There again we are left with vague and indefinite replies conveying no information on which we can form an opinion whether the security measures now being taken are adequate, and whether an adequate check has been made on the security of the people whose trustworthiness is so vital to the interests of the state. There is no information on which we can form an opinion
Official Secrets Act
whether a check has been made and whether the steps taken as a result thereof have been adequate to protect the safety of the state.
Another question I asked is to be found at page 3467 of Hansard of June 12, together with the reply made by the Minister of Justice. The question was:
1. In each department or branch of government or board or corporation set up by the government, how many employees, if any, have been discharged or been in any way released for reasons having to do with security?
There are two other parts to the question. Again the minister's answer was courteous and lengthy, but, however courteous and lengthy it may have been, it was a complete denial of information. The minister's answer consisted of a general statement of the government's approach to this question of security within the ranks of government employees. He said that it would be unfair to give the name of a man removed1 from employment with the government on suspicion of being a communist, because it might prejudice his chances of future employment, and that no information could be given. One part of the question had to do with how many in each department, and that is all. The reason for the question was to find out how thorough the check has been, what departments have been investigated and what are the results in terms of figures as to the number of cases in which action has been taken. That would not identify any of the employees in question, if there are any. We are not even told whether the number, if any, is large or small. We are not told anything on which we can form a conclusion whether or not the measures in the bill are adequate.
As to the question of unfairness to a man who is genuinely suspected of being disloyal, I cannot think of anything more prejudicial to him than mere release from his employment. If he seeks other employment, he is bound to be asked what his last job was. He will be asked: Where were you last working? If he says that he had been in the government service he will be asked: What about a recommendation? Why did you leave your job? Can the minister honestly support the thesis that a person who is entirely unable to produce any recommendation or reasons for release from the government service would readily find further employment? I cannot see that the minister's reason for refusing to disclose factual information is a valid one. I did not even ask for names, but merely for factual information as to the number involved. I cannot see that the reason the minister gave for refusing to give the information is anything more than pure fiction.

Official Secrets Act
As I say, the lack of information makes it extremely difficult to discuss the question of security on a reasonable basis, because we are working in the realm of uncertainty. No one wants a witch hunt, but everyone wants to be and is entitled to be satisfied that adequate measures have been and are being taken. When that kind of factual information is refused, one is left to draw one of two obvious conclusions. Either the investigation is not adequate or the results have been so disturbing that it is not considered in the public interest to disclose them. I suggest that the second conclusion is unfair to the civil service and to government employees generally.
My main anxiety in the discussion of the bill, in previous discussions and questions having to do with security, has been to find out whether adequate precautions are being taken and whether adequate measures have been taken to deal with such breaches of security or such genuine suspicions as have been aroused. We have had no information. We are invited to take it on trust, and when the safety of the state is involved I regret to say that I cannot do so. I want facts and figures to establish the accuracy of what the minister says when he maintains that all adequate and necessary measures are being taken.
What has come out, however, what has been disclosed in the replies that have been made, gives us ground for concern of a different sort. The information that the security officer in the department is the deputy minister, and that he can remove a government employee from his service on grounds of suspicion alone, gives rise to the gravest concern about the methods being followed. This means that the whole security of civil service employment is under attack. One of the greatest advantages of civil service employment has been security of tenure in office. Before I go further I want to say that another reason why I object so strenuously to the secrecy which surrounds this whole thing is that I believe, as I hope the minister will agree on reflection, it is unfair to the civil service and to government employees generally, because it cannot help but create the impression that the results of this security screening have been so disturbing that nothing should be said about it. I certainly do not want to believe that is the fact. I am confident that the loyalty of government employees and those in the civil service of Canada is as high as it possibly could be. But I suggest that the loyalty of the civil service does not need to be protected by this screen of secrecy.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if I may raise a point or order. I do so with great reluctance, because my hon. friend is always so generous and courteous in his attitude toward his fellow members that I do not like to raise a question against him. I suggest, however, that the motion before the house is for the second reading of a bill to amend the Official Secrets Act in four particulars. It seems to me the observations my hon. friend has been making about the matter of security generally and what should be done in regard to maintaining security in the civil service are irrelevant to the motion before the house, under which, as I understand it, the discussion should be confined to the question whether or not this act should be amended in the manner indicated. We are not now passing the Official Secrets Act; we are seeking to amend it in certain specific particulars. I want to make it clear that I have no objection in the world to discussing the subject matter of my hon. friend's remarks at the proper time, which I take it would be on the estimates of my department. Then we could discuss them with much greater freedom than here, because we are circumscribed by the motion before the house. I seriously raise the point of order that what my hon. friend has been saying for some little time now is irrelevant to the motion before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order, I suggest that the bill deals with the subject of security. It deals with the Official Secrets Act and the amendment of that act, as the minister said, to provide additional safeguards as recommended by the royal commission on espionage. The whole question of official secrets relates to the public service, to those in office or employment "under His Majesty", which are the words that appear in the bill before us and in the Official Secrets Act. The whole intention of that act is directed toward those who, by the nature of their employment, may be in possession of official secrets. That is one of the large aspects; the other is those who come into possession of such secrets improperly. One way in which they come into possession of those secrets is if they have been improperly communicated by those who have properly come into possession of them. So this act necessarily involves the security of those in possession of official secrets, and I submit that the discussion that has been going on is perfectly in order. Indeed, it would be impossible to discuss this bill adequately without referring to the very subject I have been dealing with.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the first sentence in the explanatory note, which I think makes

it perfectly clear that the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) are in order. That sentence reads:
The principal purpose of this amendment is to extend the meaning of the expression "office under His Majesty" to embrace employment in, on or under a board, commission, corporation or other body that is an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada or any province.
I believe that enables the hon. member to discuss the service, and I submit that he was clearly in order in the remarks he was making.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I may speak to the point of order again, this bill purports to make certain specific amendments to certain specific sections. If my hon. friend thinks the amendments sought are not adequate and wishes to discuss others which in his opinion would be adequate, it is open to him to introduce an amendment or some other motion under which he could refer to these other matters. As long as this bill remains before the house, however, I think the bare question in section 1, for example, is whether paragraph (h) of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should be repealed and another wording substituted for it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are not in committee of the whole yet.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; but, as I indicated in my remarks, the principle of the bill is whether these four amendments should be introduced. It is not a wide principle; it is quite narrow. I suggest to my hon. friend, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion in which he has been engaging, which is exceedingly interesting and useful, could be carried on to much greater advantage to all concerned on another occasion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I may make just one further observation on the point of order, I feel it is quite clear that this bill deals with the amendment of the Official Secrets Act. That necessarily raises the whole question of security, including security with respect to those holding office under His Majesty. I suggest that it would be impossible to discuss that question without discussing the whole matter of security. The minister has suggested that the purpose of the bill-and the purpose must be related to the principle-is to carry out a recommendation that additional safeguards be provided. To say that in discussing the principle of this bill one is precluded from suggesting that the safeguards are not adequate, or from urging what would be adequate safeguards or measures, I suggest is impossibly narrowing the scope of the principle of the bill, and in fact rendering discussion of that principle impossible.
Official Secrets Act


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) who is out of order. As he has pointed out, he is discussing matters which were introduced by the minister himself-the question of security, how it should be administered, and what should be done about it. It is the minister who was out of order when he dealt with the clauses of the bill rather than the principle on the motion for second reading. We in the opposition said nothing but allowed the minister to go ahead, with a certain amount of leniency which he has not seen fit to reciprocate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am nearly through, incidentally.


Mr. Speaker:: While the hon. member for Kamloops was speaking I was considering whether or not his remarks were in order, in view of the fact that the Official Secrets Act in toto is not before the house, but only certain amendments to it. In view of what has been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) I might add that when the minister was speaking I did think he was referring to the sections of the bill in perhaps a little more detail than is usual on a motion for second reading. However, the nature of this bill makes it difficult to present an adequate argument to the house without referring to the sections. I might also add that when the minister was speaking, no exception was taken to his remarks, and I assumed he had the unanimous consent of the house to deal with the bill on second reading in the manner in which he dealt with it.
Referring once again to the remarks of the member for Kamloops he read a number of questions and answers referring to the number of employees who had been dismissed because of security reasons. I concluded that he wanted that information so that he could decide whether or not paragraph 1 should be put into effect. I believe the information might have been better obtained on another occasion, but in view of what had taken place up to that time I did not stop him. I believe the hon. member is going rather far afield when he discusses the whole question of security. The minister has not seen fit to bring in measures other than those that are set forth in this bill to provide adequate safeguards. If the hon. member feels there are other safeguards that should be introduced, he should bring up that question on some other occasion which is afforded to him under the rules of -the house. I would ask him now, since objection has been taken to this general

Official Secrets Act
discussion, to confine his remarks to the general principle of the four amendments which have been introduced to this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the consideration which has been given to the remarks I have made so far. I confess that I find it difficult to continue, indeed to say anything, as I pointed out earlier, without referring to the matter I was discussing. In view of Your Honour's remarks I shall endeavour to do so without transgressing your ruling. If I do transgress, I hope you will draw my attention, sir, to the fact, and I shall govern myself accordingly.
What I wish to do in trying to relate my remarks to the bill actually before us, without dealing in detail with the sections, is to refer to that part of the bill which relates to those who hold office under His Majesty, the definition of which is enlarged by the bill. It seems to me that is obviously the type of person with whom this bill specifically deals. In his earlier statements on this subject the minister outlined to us the approach of the government towards the matter of ensuring that those who hold office under His Majesty shall be the type of person who can be relied upon absolutely not to convey these official secrets, persons who are not likely to do anything prejudicial to the safety of the state. The minister has told us of the method followed to make that assurance a reality, and it was with that method that I was dealing.
I believe I have said sufficient on that score to indicate that while we have had no information which would justify our concluding that adequate measures have in fact been taken, yet we have had information which causes us concern as to what the implications of that method may be. The point I have in mind here is that persons who are removed from their employment on the ground that they are persons likely to communicate official secrets and are therefore untrustworthy have no opportunity of having their cases heard. My main concern, as I have already indicated, is that there shall not be in the government employ anyone likely to do that, but I should hate to see any measures taken which would go so far as to jeopardize the security of employment generally of government employees. Surely one of the greatest freedoms is the freedom to work. If a man can be removed from office now on the ground of suspicion, as the minister said, while we hope and trust that that right will not be exercised unfairly, it does open the door to the unfair exercise of it. It makes it possible for a man whom it is desired to remove, but who cannot be removed on any other grounds, to be removed simply because it is said he is suspected of being a person likely

to reveal official secrets. Although I insist that I want to see adequate measures taken,
I do not think that is the proper way to go about it.
I am going to make a concrete suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall be through. My suggestion is that there should be an appeal board set up to whom those removed on the ground that they are untrustworthy or likely to communicate official secrets could appeal if they wished. I believe this suggestion has merit. The board should consist of, first, the deputy minister of the department concerned, who is the security officer, as the minister has told us; second, the Solicitor General or his nominee, representing the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; third, a representative of the civil service commission; fourth, two representatives to be chosen from a panel of approximately a dozen suitable names submitted by the civil service association. There would be a panel of a dozen to protect the interests of the civil servant or government employee, from which panel two may be drawn in any specific case. The board would then consist of three government appointees and two civil service association nominees. A person released for security reasons may, if he wishes, appeal to that board. The board will not cost anything because the members are civil servants, and this service could be given without prejudice' to their normal employment. It would therefore be a board which could be carried on at no cost to the government or the country. If that were done, or something of the kind, we could insist upon the most stringent security screening being pursued, confident that no injustice could be done, no witch hunt started. If a person felt he was unjustly accused or suspected, he would have the right of appeal. I suggest that anyone who knows in his heart he is justly accused or suspected will not appeal. Only those who are unjustly accused would appeal. With that safeguard, we could proceed without doubt or hesitancy with a stringent security screening of all employees, particularly in departments which are designated as vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, may I then just refer to one other concrete matter arising out of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does that include the time taken for the point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed some additional time for that.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this to me is rather a memorable occasion, for I find myself in substantial agreement with what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has said We have differed in the past, always in a friendly way, of course; but today I feel that he is substantially right in what he has said.
I also accept the legislation which is before us, although I do not altogether share some of the reservations and the doubts which have been expressed. The hon. member for Kamloops said that the bill has failed to safeguard us against espionage, treason and kindred obnoxious things. I do not very well see how legislation could have done that without becoming excessively bulky. Indeed there are as many aspects to treachery as there are quirks to the human mind. The responsibility is completely that of the government in seeing that certain individuals are not given the opportunity to act as traitors. What additional safeguards are required must, I think, rather lie with the security department rather than with legislation.
The minister pointed out in his opening remarks that this bill was based in part upon the recommendations of the royal commission of a few years ago, and that it is designed to provide the state with additional safeguards. The hon. member for Kamloops wants to see the state safeguarded-a proper and laudable object, with which I fully agree. He mentioned of course the fact that there are spies in Canada. I must admit that I am not frightfully alarmed about that, because I think there have been spies here for a number of years, as there are spies in every country. We may not like spies, but sometimes, like the poor, they are with us and it is the responsibility of the government to try to eradicate them. The fact there are spies here today-and I believe there are-should not be a matter for undue alarm.
The hon. member went on to say that we must safeguard the individual as well as the state. Perhaps it is possible that when he was introducing this legislation the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) was thinking primarily of safeguarding the state; but it may be proper for us to consider also the safeguards which should be extended to individuals under legislation such as this.
The other day, I think it was in answer to the hon. member for Kamloops, the minister made a statement about security which at once reassured me and at the same time left me with doubts in my mind I was reassured so far as the measures which are being taken for security are concerned, but I was not at all reassured as to the method by which the 55946-253i
Official Secrets Act
accused could defend himself. In other words, we are facing the constant problem in a democracy in times such as these of trying to reconcile national security with individual freedom, and it is a tremendously important problem. There can be no question that those who are disloyal must not be employed by the government; and if they are proven to be disloyal, and indeed traitors, they should be punished, and punished most severely.
I have no objection to the clause which provides that fourteen years will be the maximum sentence, for I think that examples should be made of those who are in positions of responsibility if they behave in a treacherous way toward the state. But while we admit that treachery must be punished, while we admit there must be complete security, especially in vulnerable departments, I would dislike to see it interpreted as meaning that every department of state had to be screened from the point of view of security. That I think would be entirely unnecessary, and indeed could be dispensed with.
In the last few minutes in which he spoke, the hon. member for Kamloops mentioned this matter of the security of the individual, and it is one which merits most careful attention in every part of the house. We have a situation just now where one man in each department, the deputy minister, is given the responsibility of acting as judge, and it is a heavy responsibility to lay upon any one man. It is one which I myself would not like to have to bear. It is giving too much power to the deputy minister. In. that I do not say I have not a high regard for the calibre of these civil servants, but I think that they themselves might prefer to see this responsibility shared with others. What is even more important, those who are suspected must of course be protected.
The other year I was trying to get some information about security, with the same lack of success as the hon. member for Kamloops. I was trying to find out what the situation was, for instance, with regard to a subversivegathering. I got an interesting answer from the Department of Justice. It was as follows: "A gathering of a subversive character is a gathering of persons conducting subversive activities." As an answer it has its humorous aspects, but one could not say that it is accompanied by very much intelligence. Youi see, our problem is that there are different definitions of what may be a subversive activity. I am firmly convinced that the political actions of communists and fascists in this country are subversive; but on the other hand there may be the possibility of guilt by association. It may be possible that

Official Secrets Act
an individual went to hear the Red Dean, and some might consider that this meeting was obviously a subversive meeting, and those who went to it were subversive characters.
I think that would be most unfortunate, because there would be some who went to the meeting from, let us say, a purely sociological point of view, to find out what made it tick. Therefore there is a danger about guilt by association; but others may not fear that as I do. That is where I think it is so necessary that we should have a board of review. I am not sure whether it should be an appeal board, as the hon. member for Kamloops said; but I think there should be provision for appeal.
As the situation exists, where there is a character who is suspected he is at the mercy of the deputy minister. I think that where there is a civil servant who is under suspicion he should be informed of the charges which are laid against him, and should be allowed to appear before the review board. What its constitution is at the moment I do not care very much. Then the review board should report to the deputy minister on the facts of the situation, and on the facts alone; the deputy minister should then recommend to his minister what action should be taken, and the final appeal should be with the minister himself. So often we find that dossiers on individuals may be compiled from hearsay, or perhaps from his being interested in some organization in earlier and more indiscreet days. There are dangers, we must admit, about dossiers as there are dangers in holding against people their membership in organizations which they may have taken out quite a number of years ago and long since left. Since that time the individuals concerned have probably changed their minds substantially. I know that I myself, and perhaps other members in earlier years, belonged to what now appear to be rather odd organizations. But I think if it is important to safeguard the state-and no one will deny it-it is equally important to safeguard the individual.
That is why I mention this today. It is unfortunate that a man who is only suspected should be dismissed, because, as has been pointed out, his opportunity of getting further employment is more than limited. I should think it would be the objective of the government not only to safeguard the state but also to safeguard the freedoms which we cherish in a democratic country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to characterize the present bill as too little and too late.

The minister began his speech by associating the bill with a recommendation contained in the report of the royal commission on espionage, a report which, if my memory is correct, was submitted to the House of Commons four years ago this month. That report contained in the plainest possible terms, among other important recommendations, the following as No. 5:
That the Official Secrets Act, 1939, be studied in the light of the information contained in this report and in the evidence and exhibits and, if it is thought advisable, that it be amended to provide additional safeguards.
The house was in session at the time. That was the session of 1946. We had before us then the whole startling exposure of a master spy ring in Canada having for its purpose the transfer of Canadian secrets to a foreign power, the most startling spy exposure in all the history of Canada.
As I have said, the house was in session at the time. The government asked the house to take no action at that session in the light of the report. Came the session of 1947, and still the house was asked to take no action. Came the session of 1948, summoned early, as we will remember, in the fall of 1947, to deal with something that the government said was so urgent that it could not wait, namely the ratification of the Geneva agreements. And so the house met late in the fall of 1947. This subject was taboo. Throughout that part of the session in 1947, and throughout the balance of the session in 1948, the government asked for no action from parliament to implement this particular recommendation of the royal commission. Came 1949, with two sessions of the house, and still no request for action to implement that report. Now we are asked, in what are expected to be the last few days of the 1950 session, to take the meagre action embodied in this bill.
And so I say that if the subject matter of this bill is important it was just as important in 1946 and in the intervening years as it is today. Why, then, has the country been kept waiting for four years for this meagre action on the part of the government? There has been no unwillingness on the part of hon. members to discuss the subject or to deal with any measure which would have grappled with the problem or would have fulfilled the recommendations contained in that very important report of the royal commission.
Indeed, the question has been raised frequently in the house, and the interest has not diminished in this present session when it has been mentioned a number of times. The whole attitude of the government in relation to the problem of security with which in a measure this bill proposes to cope has been

that the law as we have it is adequate to deal with the situation. After we heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) claim on May 3 that the present law is adequate to deal with subversive communist activities in Canada, upon which occasion he referred to the Official Secrets Act, those of us who do not share the view of the minister, that the legislation of this parliament is now adequate, may feel some measure of vindication in the fact that at long last the minister has seen fit to introduce even this bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, with a view to tightening up some of its provisions.
In recent days the house has been told that there is something in the nature of an emergency facing the country which calls for special measures in aid of national defence, and which calls for the house to overlook some of the normal peacetime safeguards parliament seeks to apply to defence purchases and other undertakings on the part of the government. If there is an emergency in connection with the defence of the country, then certainly one would have thought the Minister of Justice would have been bringing forward more ample legislation to deal with some of the internal aspects of that threat to national defence which, on suitable occasions, we are asked to consider.
It seems that one week when the government finds an emergency suitable for its purposes there is an emergency. The following week, when it suits the convenience of the government to disclaim or to deny the existence of an emergency, then so far as it is concerned there is no emergency.
I think we have had enough of this blowing hot and cold. If there is an emergency in connection with the defence of Canada and it calls for special measures, as the government has been telling us, then certainly it ought to be laying before the house some legislative proposals to deal with some of these problems in relation to the internal security of Canada-and it will need to be something more far-reaching than we find in the present bill.
Let us see the contents of the bill as related to the history of the legislation germane to it. We begin with legislation of the Westminster parliament. In modern times the first official secrets act there goes back to 1889, the present act dating from 1911. That act was revised somewhat in 1920 and then, in 1939, prior to the outbreak of war, it was further slightly amended. In Canada the Official Secrets Act of the United Kingdom of 1911 had extraterritorial application, and we had in addition sections 85 and 86 of the Criminal Code, provisions
Official Secrets Act
which did not go nearly as far as our present Official Secrets Act. They were not so extensive in the scope of their provisions.
In 1939 the parliament of Canada, prior to the outbreak of war, enacted our Official Secrets Act which, by section 15, repealed sections 85 and 86 of the Criminal Code and also repealed the Official Secrets Act of 1911 of the United Kingdom, in so far as it related to Canada. So we have our own act beginning in 1939 and continuing without amendment to this date. It may be said that when our act was passed in 1939 it greatly extended the scope of such legislation in this country, and did increase the penalties. The penalties attached to offences under section 86, subsection 1, of the code were not as heavy as those imposed by the Official Secrets Act.
It is interesting to note that when the 1911 act was enacted at Westminster many of the offences were considered to be misdemeanours and were not created felonies. The punishment attached to the misdemeanours was not at all heavy in the light of present-day standards and world conditions. For instance, the penalties for misdemeanours were laid down in section 8, subsection 2, of the 1920 act as follows:
(2) Any person who is guilty of a misdemeanour under the principal act or this act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding two years, or, on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or both such imprisonment and fine.
Subsection 1 of the same section deals with felonies. It reads:
(1) Any person who is guilty of a felony under the principal act or this act shall be liable to penal servitude for a term of not less than three years and not exceeding fourteen years.
That was the model used for the Canadian act of 1939. When at that time parliament came to write the penalty section a maximum imprisonment of 14 years was not adopted, the maximum penalty being limited to seven years. It seems to me that in the amending bill before us, increasing the term of imprisonment which may be imposed for offences under the act, there might be some question raised as to why 14 years was not adopted as the maximum term of imprisonment when our act was enacted in 1939.
As far as they go I am sure the four purposes of the bill outlined by the minister commend themselves to all hon. members. The first one, which deals with the problem of extending the application of the act to employees of government boards or commissions or corporations, is necessary having regard to the large number of persons

Official Secrets Act
employed today by such bodies and also the fact that such bodies are engaged in enterprises on behalf of the government which bring them more closely in contact with secrets which would be of great value to a potential enemy and whose loss or disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the national interest than the great majority of those who are classified as civil servants and directly engaged in the work of the government departments and who are now embraced within the scope of the Official Secrets Act, 1939. When we go into committee there may be some observations I shall wish to make on those provisions, but I think there can be no doubt as to the necessity of extending the scope of the act to include employees of government boards, commissions and corporations.
I do not propose at this stage to dwell at any length on the second point, namely the extension of the scope of the act to certain aspects of those offences which may be committed outside the territorial limits of Canada. There may be some observations that will be called for in committee.
I have dealt with the third point, namely the matter of penalties attached to breaches of the act.
In conclusion I should like to refer to one or two matters which I think are deserving of mention. I for one have deplored the disposition which has been manifested by certain members of the government every time this particular subject is raised to scream, "witch hunt." Nobody in this house had advocated any witch hunt within the civil service or within any of these boards, commissions or corporations that are associated with the government. But many of us have been legitimately concerned about security measures and have been alarmed at what we consider, I think on ample grounds, to be apathy and want of sufficient and resolute action on the part of the government.
When anything has been said about these matters some members of the administration have immediately screamed, as I have said, "witch hunt." Surely it is apparent, when we hear such statements in relation to civil servants or government boards or government departments, as were made at the last session by ministers in regard to the national film board, that there is full justification for our calling for effective measures to rid the civil service and these boards, corporations and commissions associated with government of all who are disaffected or whose loyalty cannot be fully trusted.
Surely it is obvious, in the light of these statements made by ministers opposite during the last session of this house, that it was the

minimum duty of the government to carry on that kind of survey with a view to clearing all those members of the civil service and employees of government corporations and boards whose loyalty had been called into question by the statements made by ministers on those occasions and whose patriotism and devotion to the public good were beyond reproach. I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that within the scope of government there should be some means by which those who have been thought on inquiry unworthy to be trusted in respect to their loyalty to Canada should have an opportunity on appeal to establish their innocence, if indeed they are innocent. Surely that is the minimum duty of this parliament to the civil service.
But along with that must go effective measures for meeting within Canada from whatever quarter it may come any attack on our security. We know from the disclosures of the royal commission of 1946 how anxious those who were directing the spy system were to plant their spies within the government service and within government corporations and boards which were dealing with matters vitally essential to the public welfare and the safety of this country. I submit that there must be on the part of the government the most effective vigilance in regard to these operations.
Then with regard to the efforts to follow up the disclosures made in the report of the royal commission based on the evidence that was adduced before it, I say that we must press the government not to relax one iota of that vigilance which is so essential at the present time. This measure, too little and too late, is deserving of support as far as it goes. We say we would like to see some evidence on the part of the government of more effective measures to meet a situation which the government at times is prepared to describe as one of emergent proportions.
We will continue to ask why the government has not taken steps to implement and fulfil the other recommendations in the report of the royal commission. For four years we have waited for. this meagre attempt at fulfilment of just one of the recommendations. As my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) pointed out, the bill does not by any means exhaust the scope of recommendation No. 5 of the royal commission with respect to the Official Secrets Act. This is simply going a part of the way that the royal commission emphatically recommended in its fifth recommendation in the report.
They did not say that recommendation was any more important than the others. There were seven recommendations altogether,

only one of which has been followed by action on the part of the government hitherto. We would still like to know a good deal about what is being done and what is going to be done as to the recommendation with respect to passports. We do not see any evidence of action being taken as to that or the other important recommendations in the report of the royal commission.
We always come back to this point. When we see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) taking the attitude revealed in the house on May 3 and other occasions that the present law is all right, that we do not need any more law to deal with the subversive activities of those who are at work in our midst seeking to overthrow our institutions, seeking to expand their spying activities in a way that will necessarily always be prejudicial to the interests of the country, then we will continue to say to the Minister of Justice that we insist on the most vigorous kind of enforcement of the law as it now stands. We want more law, but if the law is not to be extended, then at least we will demand the most vigorous enforcement of the law as it exists. Wherever dangers and threats to our national institutions and safety exist we will continue to ask through parliament in a democratic manner for effective measures to deal with them. We will continue to demand on the part of the government vigorous and effective enforcement of those measures that the government has given parliament the opportunity to enact.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief as I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill. If I were to repeat the words used by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and say that this bill is too mild, that it comes too late, it would not be for the same reasons. Although I will gladly vote for this bill I do think it is rather mild in the sense that I am more drastic than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the government when it comes to dealing with communism. If indeed it comes too late, it may be due to the fact that in the past we have been too lenient with those whose philosophy calls for the complete destruction of our democratic institutions.
In a letter he wrote to his young friend Ivanoff in 1936, Stalin pointed out that the proletariat should aim at the conquest of the world both politically and economically. He concluded his letter by saying:
The victory of the proletariat shall be final in Russia only when the international proletariat,
Official Secrets Act
having joined forces with us, will have overthrown the present bourgeois system.
Therefore we can never be too strict in dealing with these people or in the enactment of legislation designed to prevent them from obtaining official secrets which they would use to undermine our institutions. It would not do to use an "iron hand in a velvet glove". Let us therefore remove the glove and use the bare hand so they will know we mean business.
I have listened attentively to the various speeches. In my opinion we must not be too indulgent. Whether dealing with so-called fellow travellers, pinks, supporters or ill-advised people that are not too conversant with the communist ideal, let us treat them with the utmost severity, because they are a threat to our institutions.
I therefore accept the statement of the Minister of Justice who claims that this bill gives us adequate protection. I am not prepared to accept it literally but rather in the spirit in which it was offered. He meant that the law as it now stands in Canada is adequate in so far as it is applied on every occasion. However, even though I shall vote in favour of the bill, I maintain that governments the world over, and not only our own, as daily events have shown, have not been alarmed soon enough by the threat of communism.
At present, ramifications of the communist fifth column spread throughout the world. It cannot be compared with that which the nazis operated before the war because it works on a much wider scale and, compared to the other, is as a giant to a dwarf. We must therefore not stay off our guard any longer. We should support every measure, every gesture which might, in the opinion of our leaders, curb communist activity and the chances that those people, working in the dark, have of destroying our institutions.
Unfortunately, the public inevitably look to the government to safeguard economic conditions. People are content to speak of "social security" and apparently feel that this alone will settle the matter. They should also, after thorough self-examination, be mindful of spiritual security for it is only through selfexamination that individuals and governments will secure p'assage of such bills as are required for our protection.
As a matter of fact, if the individual invariably banks on the government, without going to the trouble of studying in order to understand the true nature of communism, he does not broaden his personal outlook and, like

Official Secrets Act
those who caution us against the communist peril without knowing anything about it, is liable to do things that will outdo the communists themselves in fostering the expansion of their evil doctrine.
We should not always put it up to the government, but we should try to help it. It is through personal knowledge, through specific suggestions and personal example that the private individual may convince his countrymen, not only that he believes in the communist menace, but that he also proposes to prevent its spread by doing his bit, as should any public-minded citizens.
An hon. member said earlier that a crusade must be launched to prevent the spread of this ever-growing danger. I hope that after this bill has been passed, the Canadian government will deal with an iron hand with the activities of subversive agencies in this country. There should be no suggestion at all of tying the hands of the authorities when it is a question of preventing important military secrets from falling into the hands of certain people. There should be no political ties so strong as to prevent our governments from taking necessary measures.
Likewise, anyone who happens to have information which is likely to help our leaders in their efforts to prevent our institutions from being destroyed by those who have long been planning such a coup d'etat is in duty bound to supply any such information to the government of his country.
(Text) :


John George Diefenbaker: want to say just a few words with regard to these amendments. I believe the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) brought forward some excellent suggestions, well worthy of consideration by the government. However, I am going to restrict myself to one or two references to the proposed amendments to the Official Secrets Act. I believe everyone will agree that the climate for those who would commit treason or who would become spies should be made as inclement as possible, but I am afraid that climate has not been made much more inclement by the amendments now proposed by the minister. I had not intended to refer td the sections, but the minister having done so perhaps I might be given the same consideration.
As far as the first section is concerned, I doubt whether any wrongdoer has escaped punishment because of the fact that the amendments there proposed were not
(Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).]
included in the original Official Secrets Act. With respect to section 2, I asked the minister whether during the past five years any wrongdoers had escaped punishment or conviction by reason of the fact that this section was not in the act, and he frankly answered that there had been none. Finally there is the section adding to the penalty. With that section there can be no argument; but, sir, doubling the penalty without at the same time doubling the activities of the department will get little results. Penalties, however great they may be, if unimposed are of very little efficacy in dealing with treason, sedition or espionage. In 1939 the then minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, placed upon the statute books of this country the Official Secrets Act, an almost exact copy of the British act with the changes necessary to make it applicable to Canada. At that time he was asked why the penalty was not the same as under the British act, and he had this to say, at page 4723 of Hansard for May 30, 1939:
The committee who have been in charge of the preparation of this legislation have discussed the question whether the penalty should be made still more severe, a longer term than seven years, but that was decided against because those who drafted the bill were of the opinion that a more severe prison term would not deter foreigners or spies engaged by foreign governments from carrying on their business but would serve to restrain only such persons as are spoken of as small fry, and that for them seven years would be adequate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, no particular reason has been advanced by the present minister for these amendments, but I suggest the real reason is a properly aroused public opinion. Instead of doing anything adequate to meet the situation, as I see it these amendments merely indicate a willingness and desire to improve the law, but place no teeth in the Official Secrets Act and do not carry out the recommendations of the royal commission.
I should like to have seen this bill submitted to a committee which would include outstanding counsel from all quarters of the house. I see them here. There is one to my right who has just returned from Saskatchewan; I refer to the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). I also see the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), and if I went through the list of hon. members I could mention many others. Put them on a committee; do what we did in the dark days of June, 1940, when Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe brought in amendments to constitute the offence of treachery. He submitted those amendments to a committee which included outstanding legal men in the house, leaders of the bar. Two or three of them are judges today; others have left public life. Out of the discussions of that committee came an act that was enforceable, that had teeth. It never

had to be used because it was feared; there was the will to enforce it, and it was enforced.
The member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) says that this indicates the minister has changed his mind in the last six weeks; that bringing in this legislation indicates a change of mind. I do not want to disagree with my friend, but I think it shows no change of mind. It merely shows a desire to lead the people to believe that there has been a change of mind, for there is nothing in that bill that would have interfered with or prevented any of the things that happened in the last five years in this country. The minister has frankly admitted that in so far as the material section is concerned. If he desired to focus the public opinion of this country in legislation, he could give the members of this house an opportunity in a committee similar to the defence of Canada committee in 1940 of bringing in suggested amendments to the Official Secrets Act concerning treason and sedition, while at the same time maintaining the freedom of the individual and assuring that freedom shall not be used to destroy freedom.
Now, sir, is there any prosecution? There have only been two cases since 1935 under the law respecting sedition. The only prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act were those arising in 1945 and 1946 out of the royal commission. The royal commission recommended that several things be done. It pointed out that there was another spy ring in Canada, and indicated that it was even more serious than the one Ivor Gouzenko was able to reveal after he had made strenuous efforts to interest the government at that time in the revelations he made. He called here at the House of Commons; he called upon the Minister of Justice and pressed for action. It was only after he had pressed and pressed again for action that his views were finally accepted, and action was taken. Surely parliament has the right to know whether investigations have taken place since then; whether this other espionage ring, terrible in its ramifications and implications according to the report of the royal commission, has been investigated; whether action has been taken to punish the wrongdoers within that ring. To all of these questions we receive the usual answer, it is not in the public interest. It was in the public interest for the royal commission to say that there was a dangerous espionage ring in this country. Is it not in the public interest for the minister to say, if there was that dangerous ring and it was in existence in 1946, why it is there has been no prosecution, no action taken publicly as against the wrongdoers?
Official Secrets Act
The other day I asked the minister a simple question, as to whether or not the dominion was operating in conjunction with the provincial attorneys general. The member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) spoke of evasive answers, full of words and politeness. This answer I received will take its place in the same category. It reads as follows:
The Minister of Justice does not send regular reports concerning communist activities that come to the knowledge of the security branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the attorneys general of the provinces;
My answer to the minister is, why not?
The minister's reply continues:
. . . for officers commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the six provinces policed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under contract are responsible for keeping the respective attorneys general informed regarding communist activities,
The investigations made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are not the only security investigation. Why are the other security branch investigations not communicated to the provinces? One wonders sometimes why this-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend read the remainder of the answer?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, all right. I mentioned the six provinces.
. . . and in other provinces, liaison is maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the respective provincial police forces in matters relating to subversive activities.
Those subversive activities are only the subversive activities which the mounted police investigate in those provinces. Why is there not some central organization within the mounted police, some security panel, for spreading the information to the various attorneys general of the provinces and securing thereby their co-operation in preventing the expansion of illegal communist activities within this country?
So far as this bill is concerned, the indication has been given by the member for Kamloops and the member for Eglinton that all of us support it. But let no one in this country believe that under these amendments any serious advance is being made in meeting the situation. All that is being done is to provide for a contingency that has not existed in making it an offence under the secrets act for a Canadian who owes allegiance to His Majesty to commit an offence beyond the territorial limits of Canada, and in addition to that adding to the penalty. Penalties increased and not enforced are meaningless, and are merely words. I know we are met invariably by the same answer that it is not in the public interest. That is not the answer of the

Official Secrets Act
British parliament. There the government of the day went into detail regarding Dr. Fuchs. They went into detail regarding what was done. In this country the Minister of Justice does as he is doing now; he laughs when one mentions the illegal activities of these people.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inform the hon. member that I was laughing at the inaccuracy of his statement regarding the procedure in the British House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister read the debates that occurred in the British house? He must answer no or he could not make the statement he has just made. The people of this country are asking for answers. They are asking for the assurance that something is to be done. I say that legislation such as this, which increases the penalty but in no way puts into the Official Secrets Act the type of enforcement that people are demanding to meet the situation with which the nations of the world are faced by communist infiltration and propaganda, serves no useful purpose. So far as this bill is concerned, it is fine. It is even being misunderstood in some sections of the press. I have seen in certain editorials the statement that it is a tremendous step forward. Read it! The only step forward is to make provision for those who commit extraterritorial offences while owing Canadian allegiance either directly or indirectly. Apart from that the bill does nothing to carry into effect the seven recommendations made by the royal commission of 1946. After all, we in this country have to rely on the Minister of Justice. Either the law is carried out or it is not. All we can say is this. We are asking him to assure that the law is being carried out; for two prosecutions in fifteen years, other than those taken in 1945, do not constrain one to believe that that forcefulness and zeal are being exercised that should be exercised. We do not forget that in 1932 Mr. Carr had his naturalization certificate cancelled for sedition. We do not forget that just before the election in 1945 Mr. Carr had his naturalization certificate restored to him. These are things difficult to understand. Carr was no different in 1945 from what he was in 1932.
Later on the royal commission found evidence against him and he was prosecuted; but the fact remains that he was able to establish to the satisfaction of the then minister in charge of naturalization that he, the enemy of 1932, was in 1945 worthy of the citizenship of which he had been previously unworthy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Minister of Justice speaks now he will close the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I should like for a very few moments-and they will be very few because I can deal with the points that are relevant very briefly-to comment upon some of the speeches which have been offered by opposition speakers. They all agree that they are to support this bill. They think it is worthy of their support as far as it goes; and, as I understand their language, their contention is merely that it does not go far enough. In their speeches, notably those of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), is contained the reason why it is not possible at this time to go any further than we have gone. Both of these hon. gentlemen make it very clear. The hon. member for Eglinton traced the history of this legislation back through the British parliament, and indicated that our act of 1939 was almost an exact copy of the substance of the British act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what the Minister of Justice said.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The British act is of long standing. I would suggest to my hon. friends, and to you, sir, that the British parliament is not lacking in experience; that the law officers of the crown in England are men of considerable competence in their field, and that we have some competent men in Canada; and that when we in 1939 adopted the substance of an act which had been in effect in Great Britain for some years, and in connection with which those in charge of its enforcement have had all of the information which arises from experience, it would be rather surprising if that act was not in pretty good shape at the time we adopted it in 1939.
On the present occasion we say to this house-I think I made it very clear in my remarks in moving the second reading of the bill-that the four amendments which are now before hon. members represent those respects in which we think that an act which right now, before the amendments go into effect, is in quite good shape, can be fairly substantially improved.
In our deliberations with respect to these amendments we consulted of course with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and with our own security panel. We consulted as far as we could with some of the able lawyers who were connected with the prosecutions arising out of the royal commission on espionage in 1946, and we would have consulted to a greater extent than we did but

for the fact that the counsel for that commission, and some of the special prosecutors we had in the individual prosecutions afterwards, being leading members of the Canadian bar, consented to ornament the Canadian bench.
It is only today that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) referred to them in laudatory terms, in complimenting the department of which I am the head, in respect of their appointment to the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada. He referred to them as the cream of the Canadian bar.
When they go to the bench it makes it very embarrassing indeed to have any consultations, for reasons that would be obvious to every hon. member, but we have been able to secure a written opinion expressed in a letter by one of these eminent gentlemen before he went on the bench, when he was still a member of the bar, with reference to this very matter which we now have under discussion. If I may, sir, I should like to contrast this statement with the rather extravagant statements we have just listened to from the hon. member from Lake Centre, and to compare it with the more reserved, more careful and I think more accurate statements of the law made by the hon. member for Eglinton in his admirably prepared speech today.
This is a letter written by John R. Cartwright when he was a member of the bar, and which he has given me his permission to produce today. It is written to Arthur G. Slaght, who was the counsel for our commission engaged in the consolidation of our Criminal Code. I should like to put on the record all of those portions of the letter which deal with the Official Secrets Act amendments which we are now considering. Mr. Cartwright said in his letter:
Thank you for your letter of the 18th of May-


John George Diefenbaker: What is the date?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May 20. 1949. I continue:
Thank you for your letter of the 18th of May dealing with the commission on the Criminal Code revision.
I have considered the question raised in your letter as to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
In none of the cases of prosecutions under this act in which I acted as counsel did I find any particular difficulty by reason of the form of the act. I do not think that any of those who were acquitted were acquitted by reason of any defect in the act, nor do I think that any of those who were convicted were convicted because of any special statutory presumptions which the act contains.
If I were to suggest that consideration be given to any amendment of the act it would be in regard to the penalty.
May I submit this particular observation to those like the hon. member for Eglinton
55946-254i
Official Secrets Act
or the hon. member for Lake Centre, who were suggesting that perhaps the Canadian parliament of 1939 was wise when it confined the penalties upon the little fellows to seven years.


John George Diefenbaker: No; all I did was to quote Mr. Lapointe.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I continue:
As you know the maximum penalty under the act is seven years' imprisonment.
I am not suggesting that in any of the cases in which I was concerned this was not an adequate penalty.
This is a complete answer to the point made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) about closing the stable door after the horse had gone. At that point he was referring to the increase in the penalty. Mr. Cartwright points out:
Indeed, in no case was the maximum penalty imposed.
They did not impose the maximum.
It is however easy to imagine circumstances in which a breach of the act might result in very serious injury being done to our country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does not the minister consider it would be possible that if there had been a maximum penalty of fourteen years the penalty actually imposed might well have been greater-because as I recall it the maximum penalty imposed was six years, which was close to the maximum then allowed. Had the maximum been fourteen years at that time, the penalty imposed might have been ten or twelve years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not concede that, although I do not hold myself out as an expert. I understand my hon. friend may have a different opinion, and I would respect his opinion as being about equally expert with mine. Neither of us perhaps is particularly expert in the matter. But I should think that if, based upon the facts of the case, the judge who tried it had thought that the accused was subject to a penalty of seven years he would have imposed that penalty, when the maximum penalty allowed by statute was that particular period of time.
Then, returning to Mr. Cartwright's letter:
It is however easy to imagine circumstances in which a breach of the act might result in very serious injury being done to our country. Suppose for example very valuable information were given to a foreign power with which we were at peace but which it was probable we would very shortly be at war; this might result in the loss of thousands of lives and for the matter of that in the loss of the war itself and the present maximum penalty would be altogether inadequate.
There was another point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops in which he contended, as I understood him, that it was unnecessary for us to introduce in section 2

Official Secrets Act
of the bill any provision for the extraterritorial operation of the act, because he contended the act is already extraterritorial in its effect. In that connection he quoted a section from the act.
I suggest that upon reflection he will agree that the Official Secrets Act as it now stands, before amendment, like any other Canadian statute must apply in accordance with the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation only to things done in Canada, unless the act specifically states that it is to apply to things done outside Canada. That is the purpose of section 2 of the bill.
If there is the slightest degree of merit in the contention of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that we did not make the climate very much more inclement for offenders by the present amendment, it is because the Official Secrets Act which is modelled after or, as he put it, is in almost the exact language of the British act, provides a climate which is already exceedingly inclement at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-"Office under His Majesty."
John George Diefenbaker: Have any cases been brought to the minister's attention since he has been Minister of Justice wherein an offence was committed by an individual on or under any board, commission, corporation or other body that is an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada, and where such individual escaped because of the lack of inclusion of these words?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I think not. As a matter of fact when my hon. friend interjected a similar question during my remarks on second reading, I pointed out that we know of no case in which any of these amendments has had any application to an actual case which has arisen. But in that connection I suggest it is extremely important to close the door before the horse has been stolen.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not disagree with that; I was just asking the question. The minister has referred frequently to a security panel. What does he mean by that? Who are the personnel?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would have no objection to giving my answer in general terms, but I think the question is not closely related to the bill. It is an interdepartmental committee the full details of which I shall be glad to discuss when my estimates are under consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The new definition in section 2 (h) provides that "office under His Majesty"-
-includes any office or employment in or under any department or branch of the government of Canada or of any province, and any office or employment in, on or under any board, commission, corporation or other body that is an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada or any province.
We find in this definition expressions which have not hitherto appeared in the act. I am somewhat concerned about the proper interpretation of the concluding words, "an agent of His Majesty." There is no definition in the act as to who is an agent of His Majesty. We want to see this provision made broad enough to include all government boards, agencies, commissions and corporations, and I am raising the point now that the words "an agent of His Majesty" may be somewhat restrictive. There are other expressions used now in all the courts to describe boards or commissions associated with the government as emanations of the crown. I concede that perhaps it is difficult in a definition of this kind to make sure that no fish shall escape from the net. However, I must confess that upon reading this section I am somewhat concerned lest these concluding words be restrictive when they ought to be designed to be as inclusive as possible.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the answer to my hon. friend's question is to be found in a bill we passed yesterday to amend the statute law. If the hon. member would examine the language of the amending section which by that bill we were introducing into each of the acts of the various crown corporations concerned he would see that in each case those corporations were stated to be, in the terms of the statute, agents of His Majesty.
In view of the fact that that process has been followed with regard to all of these corporations, and those which are covered by the Government Companies Operation Act, a general act covering other government corporations such as Polymer, and makes them agents, this seems to cover his point quite well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would point out to the
minister that Bill No. 313, to amend the statute law, to which he referred, does not go as far as he has indicated. I have the bill before me and I find that in every case where that bill provides for an amendment to the terms of some particular named statute these words are used:
The corporation-
Or council or whatever it may be.
-is lor all purposes of this act an agent of His Majesty.
[Mr. Garson.l

The fact is that in the statutes creating the various crown corporations in each case it is provided that for all purposes of its own particular act the particular corporation, board or commission is an agent of His Majesty. But it is not general in scope; it would not apply outside that particular act. I urge the minister to consider the desirability of some extension of this definition because I am satisfied that Bill No. 313 does not contribute to the definition of the words "agent of His Majesty" for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The corporation to which my hon. friend has just referred is the agent of His Majesty for the purposes of that act. For example, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act outlines the scope of the activities of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That corporation has no powers outside the act which creates it. Therefore, I am inclined to differ from my hon. friend. But I want to give his suggestion the consideration it deserves and if we could pass on to other sections of the bill I would be glad to let this section stand and discuss it with the legislative counsel who drafted this bill to see whether he agrees with my hon. friend's view or with my view.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make another observation which I hope may be worthy of consideration before this section is taken up again. I urge that no risk be taken even though the section may conceivably be open to the interpretation the minister suggests, with which respectfully I do not agree. 1 repeat that no risk should be taken because we may be sure that in a court of criminal jurisdiction the language will be very strictly construed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I agree with my hon. friend that no risk should be taken and that is why I suggest that the section should stand.
Section stands.
On section 2-Offences committed outside Canada triable in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one question I should like to ask. I have in mind the suggestion that there have been some Canadians who have left Canada in the last year or two to go abroad, presumably to Moscow to attend the international Lenin school, and also that passports have been issued to certain persons who are presumed to have attended that school which is set up for the purpose of teaching destruction. What co-operation is there between the Department of Justice, the security panel, and the Department of External Affairs which would issue the passports, to prevent these people
Official Secrets Act
from going abroad under the protection of a passport for purposes which indicate their readiness to commit revolution on their return?
Within the last two or three years certain people left Canada for Europe in order to go behind the iron curtain. They had been naturalized but they left Canada because they did not like this country. They disavowed their Canadian citizenship and their naturalization and spurned the freedom that this country gave them. Some are now returning to the localities where they formerly lived. These things look rather strange to their compatriots in Canada. Can the minister give the committee and the country some idea of what is being done to prevent these people returning once they have spurned our freedom, condemned it, ridiculed it and then come back expecting to be accepted as good citizens, a qualification that they never possessed by reason of their activities?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry I cannot help my hon. friend. Not only is his question not relevant to section 2 of this bill; I do not think it would be relevant to the estimates of the Department of Justice. The question he is asking would come partly under the Secretary of State for External Affairs and partly under the department of immigration. I certainly would not want to become involved in answering a question which had to do with departments of my colleagues.


John George Diefenbaker: This section covers
wrongdoing outside Canada, as I understand it. If a person having a Canadian passport leaves Canada to go to Moscow to attend a school which teaches the practices and arts of disruption, he commits an offence, does he not, under this section? Surely there must be some co-operation between the Department of Justice and the other department that issues passports to such people?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course there is co-operation. My hon. friend seeks an answer which* can be responsive only if it indicates with some measure of accuracy what the position of these people is, with regard to their passports on going away or with regard to the immigration regulations on coming back again. I am afraid I cannot oblige my hon. friend by giving that answer. If he is. asking whether these people who left Canada in that way took from Canada and disclosed, to Moscow or to any person outside Canada any code word, pass word, sketch, plan, model, article, and so on, as provided for in section 12A(a), then of course upon their return to Canada, provided we had evidence to substantiate a charge of that kind, we

Official Secrets Act
could and we would prosecute. That could [DOT] be done whether they were Canadian citizens before they left or not. Section 12A is intended to cover a case of that sort and that is why it is being inserted in the act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was concerned about that in connection with this question of extraterritoriality and whether this amendment in section 2 is not necessary to make it clear that section 3 has an extraterritorial effect. I think the minister will agree with me that we do not need any amendment as to extraterritoriality in that particular part of section 3.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Which part of section 3?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am referring to subsections 3 and 4 particularly. Subsection 3 of the present section 3 reads:
In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, the fact that he has been in communciation with, or attempted to communicate with, an agent of a foreign power, whether within or without Canada, shall be evidence that he has, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, obtained or attempted to obtain information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power.
It seems to me that section 2 of the bill .giving extraterritorial effect to the whole act is not necessary, but that is not the point I was about to make, unless the minister wishes to comment on that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the point not this, that section 3 and the other section that my hon. friend read earlier-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 13.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -section 13(1) and section 3(3) are references in the act to the effect that certain circumstances will have certain effects, and in relation to what? In relation to an act. What act? An act committed in Canada, as the statute stands at the present time. It is only when we give extraterritorial effect to the act by the bill now before hon. members that we can utilize those sections to which my hon. friend1 has referred in a prosecution in Canada in respect of an offence which has been committed outside Canada. In other words, you cannot have any extraterritorial quality in an act unless you specifically provide it, and that is what we are doing in the present case. You must specify in the statute that the act of the accused will be an offence in spite of the fact that it took place outside Canadian territory.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I am making is with respect to section 3 of the present act, but I am prepared to concede the validity of the -minister's argument that as to the other
[Mr. Garson.l
sections there is no such provision and therefore the amendment incorporated in the bill to give extraterritorial effect is necessary and desirable. It seems to me we now have it doubly sure in so far as section 3 is concerned. I wanted to ask the minister if he will concede-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will read subsection 3 of section 3 of the present act he will see that it says:
In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this section, the fact that he has been in communication with, or attempted to communicate with, an agent of a foreign power, whether within or without Canada . . .
As the act now stands, that refers to the agent of the foreign power. If the person within Canada has communicated or attempted to communicate with an agent of a foreign power outside Canada he will be guilty of the offence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a pretty narrow restriction on the wording which I do not think is quite justified when you read the words in their plain connotation. What I want to ask the minister is whether subsection 3 of section 3, with its present extraterritorial effect, would not be available to justify prosecution and obtain a conviction against known communists of the type to which the hon. member for Lake Centre referred, who go to these countries and obviously communicate with agents of foreign powers, and whose character, known conduct, and so on establish in accordance with the terms of the act that they are doing it for a purpose prejudicial- and in fact they are assumed to be by the wording of the section-to the safety of the state. I want to ask the minister whether, now that we have the extraterritorial effect given by the amendment, we will not be in a position to prosecute people who go behind the iron curtain and communicate with agents of foreign powers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I did not quite understand the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am asking the minister whether we will now be in a position to prosecute known communists who go behind the iron curtain and communicate with agents of foreign powers. I am asking whether, with the extraterritorial effect being given to the whole act, we will not be able to prosecute such people under section 3.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think we shall certainly be able to do so, but subject of course to the fact that you have to apprehend them in Canada if they return here and you have to get evidence of what they did in the foreign country. Then you could prosecute them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I may be interpreting the words too widely, but what I am interested in now is subsection 2 of section 3. I am happy if it has the result I hope it has. That subsection reads:
On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him-
That is, no particular act.
-he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state...
With the extraterritorial effect which the act will now have, and which I say it had before but which we agree it has now, I wonder whether those words are wide enough to justify prosecution against known communists-I will name one if you like, Tim Buck-who go behind the iron curtain and communicate intimately and at length with agents-I do not mean just citizens-of foreign powers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let us look at the beginning of section 3. It reads:
3. (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state-
I shall omit (a) and read (b):


John George Diefenbaker: What section is the minister reading?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
3. (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state,
(b)	makes any sketch, plan, model or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power; or
(c)	obtains, collects, records, or publishes, . . . any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information-


Edmund Davie Fulton: "Or other document or information"-those are surely the important words.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.
-which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to a foreign power; he shall be guilty of an offence under this act.
Then follows subsection 2 which the hon. member quoted. It reads:
(2) On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state . . .
Official Secrets Act
Keeping that in mind, I should like my hon. friend to look at the new section 12A to be enacted by the bill. It reads this way:
12A. The acts, omissions and things made offences by this act shall be triable and punishable in Canada notwithstanding they were committed outside Canada, in the following cases;
(b) where any code word, pass word, sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, information or other thing whatsoever in respect of which an offender is charged was obtained by him, or depends upon information which he obtained, while owing allegiance to His Majesty in right of Canada.
I suggest that the new section 12A applies quite clearly to the offence of obtaining and passing on this information to which my hon. friend referred. If a Canadian or someone owing allegiance to Canada, not necessarily a Canadian citizen at all but a citizen of another country who does not possess diplomatic immunity or of a country which is not at war according to international law, goes away and discloses information he obtained in Canada, then the extraterritorial effect of 12A will apply and he can be convicted, though the offence did not take place within Canadian territory at all. Have I made my point clear?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, indeed, as far as the
minister has gone, but he has not quite cleared up what I asked further, as to how wide is the effect of those words in subsection 2 which raise a presumption against him. That presumption, as I see it, in the case of persons of known character is that by communicating with the agent of a foreign power he can be presumed to have been giving information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state. How wide is the effect of those words? Can these known communists now be prosecuted merely for going behind the iron curtain and having been shown there to have communicated with agents of a foreign power, even though you cannot prove what they said or did?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is as much a
lawyer as I am, and he has paid me a very delicate compliment in asking for my opinion in the matter. I should think it would turn, would it not, on whether or not it appears that his purpose was prejudicial to the safety of the state? In other words, in the case of a man who had gone to Yugoslavia or Russia and given this information, that person would be charged. The prosecution would open its case and would proceed to prove it under the authority of this amendment just as though the offence had been committed in Canada. When it came to the application of subsection 2 of section 3, I should think that section would apply in relation to that offence which had taken place in Russia just as it would apply in the case of an offence

Official Secrets Act
committed in Canada. The purpose of making it extraterritorial is to have the offence triable in Canada although it took place in another country. As far as section 3, subsection 2 is concerned, I take it that is a provision of general application to all prosecutions under the act. I would be interested to know whether my hon. friend agrees with that view.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suppose the only way to find out is for the minister now to institute a few prosecutions against some of these people, as I hope he will.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am concerned with the
opening words of section 12A, as to whether they go as far as the minister believes and as far as I am sure we would all like to see them go. Those words are:
The acts, omissions and things made offences by this act shall be triable and punishable in Canada notwithstanding they were committed outside Canada, in the following cases-
The argument put forward by the minister has been that at the very least many offences under the act are not offences if they are committed outside Canada. Indeed his argument may go so far as to suggest that none of them are offences unless they are committed within Canada. It seems to me, however, this section does not expressly say that offences, in the cases referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), if committed outside Canada are offences. It does not say that. We are up against the problem created by the rule of interpretation to which the minister made reference earlier, that legislation has no extraterritorial effect unless it so provides in express terms. No offence will be created under our law if the act is committed outside Canada, unless our legislation expressly provides that such an act becomes an offence. It seems to me these words fall short of saying that acts committed outside Canada become offences.
I draw attention to the fact that it is only the acts, omissions and things that are made offences by the act that become triable and punishable in Canada, but those acts, omissions and things are not offences under the act today. So it seems to me the words "shall be triable and punishable" are not enough. You must create the offence in the acts, omissions and things committed outside Canada. They have to be made an offence before the provision that they may be triable and punishable in Canada has any effect. Therefore as a matter of drafting and interpretation it seems to me we should have here a provision that such acts, omissions and things as are made offences by this act are offences notwithstanding that they may be committed outside Canada in certain cases. Then the provision that they shall be triable and punishable in Canada may follow.
[Mr. Garson.l
I believe the point I am raising now would be bound to be raised by any counsel acting for an individual accused under this section, and I hope we are not going to leave open any door that might make it possible for that point to be argued successfully.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Earlier in the afternoon the hon. member for Lake Centre suggested that we should submit the substance of this bill to a committee of lawyers. I am inclined to think we are getting the same result at the moment. It is a very good result, and we are glad to have these suggestions and to treat them seriously. I must say I do not share the views of my hon. friend. It seems to me the Official Secrets Act states very clearly what shall constitute an offence under it. If that offence takes place in Canada it is triable and punishable in Canada. If it happens to take place outside Canada, heretofore it has not been punishable in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because it is not an offence under the act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is still an offence, but it did not take place here. That is where I differ with my hon. friend. However, it would not be hard to meet the view of my hon. friend, as long as in doing so we do not create more difficulty than we solve. I take it that what he wants is a statement something along these lines:	"The acts,
omissions and things made offences by this act, notwithstanding that they were committed outside Canada shall be offences under this act, and shall be triable and punishable in Canada in the following cases," and then go on with the balance of the section. I am quite agreeable to having this section stand so I may check on this point, because one of the purposes we expect to serve in a committee like this is to obtain the benefit of the views of hon. members. I can do that during the dinner recess.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then may I touch upon a couple of other points which the minister might be good enough to consider as well. In the first place may I ask what is the relationship of this new offence to extradition? Is this going to be an extraditable offence?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not an extraditable offence. If the hon. member was in the chamber when second reading was moved he may remember I said that the difficulty of actually apprehending an accused might not be so great as it would appear. Citizens in a friendly country such as the United States, who are guilty of this sort of conduct, would probably be deported and we would get them in that way. As I understand it, none of these offences under this act are at the present time extraditable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think, so far as possible, an effort should be made to make offences of this kind extraditable. When we see now that there are gaps, which we are trying to close by extending the territorial effect of the legislation, I believe it would add greatly to the effect of the legislation if such offences could be made extraditable by treaty.
The other point I should like to mention relates to the final words in paragraph (b) of section 2 of the bill. They refer to "owing allegiance to His Majesty in right of Canada". I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that the words "in right of Canada" are not necessary because in the interpretation section of the act the point is already taken care of. Section 2, paragraph (a) of the act, provides that "any reference to His Majesty means His Majesty in the right of Canada or of any province". I think, therefore, those last four words are unnecessary.
I just mention also, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me unnecessarily restrictive to the scope of allegiance to His Majesty to add "in right of Canada". I am not going to take up the time of the house to discuss the difference between allegiance to His Majesty in the right of Canada and allegiance to His Majesty in the right of some of his other dominions or possessions. I think when we are trying to make this statute as effective as possible, serious consideration ought to be given to removing confining or restrictive words such as those in the interpretation section, "in right of Canada or of any province". In other words to deal with those who are subjects of His Majesty as effectively as we can today the act should simply refer to "subjects of His Majesty", whether they are Canadian subjects of His Majesty or subjects of His Majesty in other parts of the commonwealth, because the offences against which we are legislating are just as deserving of condemnation in the case of any other of His Majesty's subjects as in the case of Canadian citizens. I offer that as a suggestion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought when I was listening to my hon. friend that he perhaps was confusing allegiance with citizenship. Is this not the situation? An alien owes allegiance to this country while he is within the country, unless he has diplomatic immunity. What we are considering here is the trial in Canada of, we will say, an alien, who has obtained information while owing allegiance to Canada -that means while he was within Canada- and then has disclosed that information in another country. I do not think it would make much sense if you indicated he was owing allegiance to another country of the
Official Secrets Act
commonwealth because the prosecution is in Canada. He owes allegiance to Canada while he is here. I believe the phrase used in the bill is the proper and apt phrase. I believe it would serve no useful purpose if you said that, while he owes allegiance to, we will say the British commonwealth-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is still allegiance to His Majesty.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -while he owes allegiance to His Majesty in the right of Canada-in other words, if he obtains this information while he is in Canada. That is the whole point. He obtained the information while he was in Canada, and then he has gone to another country and disclosed it to that other country. The purpose of this amendment is to enable us to prosecute him in Canada for disclosing information, say in Russia, which he has obtained in Canada while he owed allegiance to Canada. It seems to me therefore that the reference to his owing allegiance to Canada is quite apt.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the section carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, the minister said it would stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This section will stand.
Section stands.
On section 3-Penalties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister say a word about the removal of the fine, which I am rather sorry to see. While I think the fine should not be made an alternative to a prison sentence, it would mean that a man could get off without a fine. I believe it should be left as a possible addition to a prison sentence. While I do not press it as an amendment to this act, I would like to see the fine left in the case of a corporation, because it was contemplated in the act that there would be a provision for a substantial fine in addition to the prison term which may be imposed upon the directors.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under the new section the prison term has been increased to fourteen years, and the section goes on to provide:
. . . but such person may, at the election of the attorney general, he prosecuted summarily in the manner provided by part XV of the Criminal Code, and, if so prosecuted, shall be punishable by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by both fine and imprisonment.
Now I believe that is why the election is provided for the attorney general, where he considers the offence to be of a less serious character, to proceed summarily. If proceeding by an indictment, you do so only in those cases of a serious character, in reference

Official Secrets Act
to which I would think no amount of fine would be regarded as a suitable punishment. I can see some point to what my hon. friend says, that it may be imposed in addition, but I should think if a man got a ten-year term there would be little likelihood of his paying a fine under those circumstances. As a rule a man pays a fine in order to escape going to jail. There would not be much likelihood of the fine being paid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There would be likelihood of a
fine being paid if it were a corporation. A prison term may be imposed on the directors, but the corporation would not be hurt unless you had the right to impose a substantial fine on it. However I am not going to press it, but I am sorry to see that provision abandoned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We will revert to clause 1.
On section 1-"Office under His Majesty".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the point which my hon. friend raised in connection with this section was that we required, so that no doubt would arise, some definition of the phrase "agent of His Majesty" in respect of these corporations created by the crown. I suggest in that connection, after consulting with the counsel who drew this bill, that the remarks which I made previously are correct, namely, that the bill which we passed yesterday to amend our statute law makes it very clear that these various crown corporations are and can be in no respect anything except an agent of His Majesty.
We have amended the various crown corporation acts to this effect, that:
The commission is for all purposes of this act an agent of His Majesty and its powers under this act may be exercised only as an agent of His Majesty.
Having regard to the fact that the only powers which these corporations possess are powers which are given to them by the statutes which incorporate them, and all these powers can only be exercised as an agent of His Majesty, it is inconceivable that they could act in any other capacity. Therefore we think that the present wording of clause 1 should stand the way it is. It is quite adequate for its purposes as it stands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 2-Offences committed outside Canada triable in Canada.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: In connection with clause 2, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend made a point to which we gave consideration. Together we have worked out a wording which I think meets the point which was raised by my hon. friend and is quite satisfactory to the legislative counsel and to myself. If my hon. friend would move it-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I move:
That the first four lines of section 12A as enacted by clause 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
An act, omission or thing that would, by reason of this act, be punishable as an offence if committed in Canada is, if committed outside Canada, an offence against this act, triable and punishable in Canada, in the following cases:


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend raised one other point, namely, that the final four words of the section, "in right of Canada", should be deleted since the term "His Majesty" has already been defined in the Official Secrets Act as "His Majesty in right of Canada or any province."


Donald Methuen Fleming: I move:
That the words "in right of Canada" in clause 12A (b) as enacted in section 2 of the bill be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill
be read the third time-now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 315, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister going to make
a statement?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker,
when the Canadian Citizenship Act was passed by parliament in the session of 1946,

the principal objective was the creation of a distinctive Canadian citizenship and the establishment of a procedure designed to instil in our new citizens from other lands an appreciation of the responsibilities and the privileges of Canadian citizenship. This change in our concept of citizenship in Canada was received with enthusiasm from many quarters and has continued to receive the active support of individuals and groups of persons across Canada.
However, as in all experiments with something new, our experience of the past three and a half years since the act came into effect on January 1, 1947, has revealed a necessity for clarification of some of the sections, the addition of certain amendments regarding which there has been a considerable public demand, and, in particular, to bring the act in alignment with recent changes that have taken place in the legislation of other countries of the British commonwealth.
Some of the minor changes which are proposed in this bill are definitions of the words "alien" and "foreign"; a definition of "Canadian ship" expanded to include aircraft; and the deletion of the definition of the word "consulate", to provide for registration under the regulations.
A new provision is that which excludes from the status of natural-born Canadian citizens the children born in Canada of parents who are the diplomatic or consular representatives of foreign governments in Canada, or who are employees in the service of these representatives. It is proposed that it would not be appropriate to permit children who come within this category to be designated as Canadians by birth.
A further important change, and one which has received considerable public support, is that which permits women who were British subjects by birth or by naturalization in Canada, and who lost that status by marriage to aliens prior to January 1, 1947, to be admitted to Canadian citizenship by a simple procedure and without regard to the question of residence. We have had many representations on behalf of these women, who, through no fault of their own, became aliens, and are still aliens, although many of them have never resided outside Canada. Under this amendment, their status will be restored with a minimum of delay.
There is also the case of a person born in Canada who, for one reason or another, became naturalized in a foreign country and thus became an alien. Many of these persons have since returned to Canada with the intention of spending the rest of their lives in their native country. It has been represented to us that these native-born persons should not
Canadian Citizenship Act be required to reside five years in Canada and to follow the procedure required of an alien who was not born in Canada, in order to be admitted to Canadian citizenship. It is proposed, by this amendment, to permit persons in this category to apply for citizenship, by a simple procedure, after a residence of one year in Canada.
A new departure in Canadian legislation is the proposed amendment under the terms of which certificates of Canadian citizenship may be granted to adopted or legitimated children if the adopter, or the legally recognized father, is a Canadian citizen.
Some of the countries of the commonwealth, more particularly India and Pakistan, have discarded the term "British subject". Therefore it has been found necessary to amend that part of the existing act which defines the status in Canada of a British subject who has acquired the status of British subject by birth or naturalization under the laws of any country of the commonwealth. The amendment provides for recognition of the term "commonwealth citizen", and, for the purpose of Canadian citizenship laws, gives it the same meaning as "British subject". This change, and the union of Newfoundland with Canada, necessitates several changes in the first schedule of the existing act. Under the amendment, Ireland and Newfoundland have been deleted from the schedule, and Ceylon, India, Pakistan, and Southern Rhodesia have been added.
There has been considerable discussion concerning the status of citizens of Ireland following the establishment of the Irish Republic and its severance from the commonwealth. This matter has been given very serious consideration in view of representations that the citizens of the Irish Republic who are in Canada should not be placed in the category of aliens. Admittedly, it has been difficult to arrive at a formula which would adequately define their status, particularly in view of the fact that Ireland is not a member of the British commonwealth and therefore cannot be included in the first schedule. I think, however, that the solution proposed in this amendment will meet the situation as it will, in effect, give citizens of the Republic of Ireland the same status as that enjoyed by British subjects in Canada.
Part III of the existing act provides for loss of Canadian citizenship. The bill repeals all of part III and substitutes new sections in which most of the former provisions have been retained, with a few exceptions. One of these permits, in the case of a Canadian who deliberately acquires nationality in an enemy country, a discretion that either he

Canadian Citizenship Act be held to his responsibilities as a Canadian citizen, or that he be deprived of such citizenship.
The other changes in the amendment to part III are of a minor nature, such as discretionary powers for the governor in council and the co-ordination of certain provisions.
There are certain clauses in this bill in which it is intended to make it quite clear that the minister has discretionary power to grant certificates of citizenship. In the existing act, there is a degree of uncertainty as to the extent of these powers, and for that reason these amendments have been included in the bill.
Another change in the existing act is one which provides for the validity and the recognition of certificates of naturalization granted under the Naturalization Act, chapter 77, R.S.C., 1906, or under similar earlier statutes, despite any statutory limitations. Because of these limitations, a person naturalized in Canada under the earlier statutes could not be recognized as a British subject, and did not have the status of a Canadian citizen if he was in the country of his origin and, under the laws of that country, was recognized as a citizen. The amendment will remove this limitation.
There is one other matter which I wish, briefly, to bring to your attention. It concerns clause 19 of the bill, under the terms of which it will be possible to continue, under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, proceedings which were commenced under the Naturalization Act. The reason for this amendment arises from the fact that, some months after the Citizenship Act had been in force, the Department of Justice ruled that proceedings which had been commenced under the Naturalization Act, and which had not been completed before the expiration of that act, could not be continued under the Citizenship Act as the objects were not the same. The application of this ruling has created considerable hardship, particularly among persons who had commenced proceedings in 1946. For these reasons, it is desirable that the act be amended to permit these persons to continue proceedings under the Citizenship Act, as though there had been no interruption.
The remainder of the bill is procedural, covering matters of renumeration and coordination. I am satisfied, however, that if this bill is adopted it will result in a definite improvement in, and a distinct clarification of, the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Citizenship Act is one of the most important acts on our statute

books. I believe the twentieth parliament of Canada had no greater accomplishment to its credit than the enactment of that act in the session of 1946. One recalls that the principle of the measure received the warmest support from all parts of the house, and that it was a major piece of legislation.
There have been in these four intervening years no amendments of any substance, and it is inevitable that after a period of four years some amendments should have become necessary in the operation of the act. Some of the amendments which have been indicated tonight by the minister are obvious in their nature and, I think, do not require elaboration.
One may, however, express a measure of regret that a bill of this kind, which is not a short one, and certainly not unimportant, should have been placed before the house on such short notice. Hon. members are now faced with a bill containing twenty-two sections which amend the act in some important respects. They had this bill placed in their hands just at noon today. All members are very busy at the present time between sittings of the house and sittings of many of the committees of the house which are working very hard writing their reports and bringing their deliberations to a close. I must express regret that an important measure of this kind is brought to us so late in the session, and that the house is asked to take it up on such short notice, which effectively precludes that careful study which a measure of its importance ought to receive. I think it is a measure which might very properly have been referred to the standing committee on external affairs, where its provisions could have been closely examined.
The comments one might feel disposed to make concerning the provisions of the bill may be more properly made in committee of the whole, because they relate to particular sections. It is very difficult to find a principle in a bill like this which one can discuss on second reading, because there are so many amendments which, for the most part, are not related to one another. I think, however, that some very good evidence will be necessary to establish the necessity for the additional ministerial discretion provided in these amendments and the added scope for the regulations, rather than having these matters dealt with by direct enactments of parliament.
There is one thing that perhaps calls for special observation, particularly by those members of this house who have Irish blood in their veins, of whom I am one. I am sure that it would have been a matter of profound regret on the part of hon. members of this house had a decision been made to consider citizens of Ireland as foreigners.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Republic of Ireland has severed ties with the commonwealth I am sure we all welcome the maintenance of brotherly relations with Irishmen, no matter from what part of the lovely green isle they may come.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of the house welcome the amendments contained in this bill. I join with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) in regretting that the bill was not introduced earlier and perhaps referred to the external affairs committee where it could have been discussed fully although there may have been little in the bill requiring prolonged consideration. That may be the excuse that would be offered for the minister and the government bringing the bill down at this time.
This bill indicates the development of our common citizenship in the strange agglomeration of peoples called the commonwealth of nations. There are actually three methods of acquiring Canadian citizenship provided for in this bill. First, there is the recognition of the usual type of citizenship which we call British citizenship; then there is the new commonwealth citizenship which would include Pakistan, India and so on, and then we have the typically Irish sort of citizenship which is quite difficult to understand and define.
However, I think we all welcome the solution that has been found. The minister did not indicate that this is on a reciprocal basis. I do hope that citizens of Canada who reside in the southern part of the emerald isle will be regarded as citizens of that country in the same way as citizens of Eire are regarded as citizens of Canada.
I am glad to see that there has been a removal of some of the disabilities that existed. I note with considerable interest the change that is to be made in the status of the old citizenship certificates, to be found particularly on the prairies. In the homesteading days people in order to prove up their homesteads acquired what they thought was Canadian citizenship in the fullest sense of the word. Then it was found that, because of certain imperial statutes, they really would have to acquire new naturalization papers in order to receive all the benefits of our common British citizenship. I am quite sure that throughout the years there are thousands of people on the prairies who through ignorance have been exercising all the functions of citizenship, such as voting at federal elections and the rest, without having the legal right so to do. I am glad that those disabilities are being removed by this bill.
Canadian Citizenship Act
I am glad also that the status of citizenship for women is to be changed and I think that is a commendable feature of the minister's proposals. I suppose that these amendments are made in the light of the experience of the last few years and they certainly are in the right direction. I imagine the entire house, regardless of where hon. members sit, will welcome this measure and I do not think it will require lengthy discussion to get general approval.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Alien.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Paragraph (k) of subsection 2 refers to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar may wish to raise his point on this section. I had previously marked it to ask at this point as to the position of Canadian citizens in Ireland.


Walter Edward Harris: I feel, as do many other people in this country, that we could hardly do otherwise than we have done and I think the Republic of Ireland will feel that they can not do otherwise than grant to Canadians the same privileges that we are granting here. It has not been done as yet, but I think it will be.


Major James William Coldwell: Have you had discussions on the matter with the officials of the Republic of Ireland?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: In the first schedule we find listed Australia, Canada, Ceylon, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom. In which of those countries would the term commonwealth citizen be used as distinguished from British citizen?


Walter Edward Harris: At the present time the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Southern Rhodesia have legislation similar to this. In the case of South Africa their legislation is slightly different but is in practically the same terms. In the Asian countries the legislation in some cases has not yet been passed because they were only recently set up, but they have dropped the use of the words "British subject" and are not yet using "commonwealth citizen." It is expected that commonwealth citizenship will be recognized as such in their legislation.


Howard Charles Green: Would that include India,
Pakistan and Ceylon?


Walter Edward Harris: Those are the three Asian countries.

Canadian Citizenship Act


Major James William Coldwell: Does the South African legislation still retain the term "British subject"?


Walter Edward Harris: We understand that that is the case up to this moment.


Howard Charles Green: What about Australia?


Walter Edward Harris: They have not passed legislation like this.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Will this mean that St. Patrick's day will be officially recognized in Canada next year?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ask the Prime Minister.


Howard Charles Green: Why has it become necessary to define alien, which apparently is a new definition in the act?


Walter Edward Harris: The word "alien" is used in parts of the existing act and is being continued. The inclusion of citizens of the Republic of Ireland in the category of British subjects in Canada makes it desirable that we should define alien by excluding all others not within the group.


Major James William Coldwell: I suppose people from the
colonial areas are defined as British subjects?
I refer to the West Indies, crown colonies and so on.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Born after commencement of the act.
Donald Methuen Fleming: In clause 2, subsection 1 of
section 5, line 25 of page 2 of the bill, provision is made for registration of births "in accordance with the regulations". Those are the new words. Further reference is made to the regulations in line 27. Will the minister indicate what changes are now proposed in the regulations themselves, and in the scope given to the regulations under the scheme of the act?


Walter Edward Harris: We found some difficulty with the old regulations in this way. In some places we have not been able to have the consul general do this work. In some places we have no consuls. In other places we have immigration offices, and we would like to extend the provision so that in the appropriate place the most convenient office would be the one in which these births might be registered. The regulations are designed to indicate in what particular office and under what circumstances births of Canadians born abroad will be registered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Are these regulations promulgated yet?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it proposed to bring them into effect immediately after the adoption of the bill?


Walter Edward Harris: Right. We will
give publicity to them as soon as they are made known.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that the only effect of the
regulations?


Walter Edward Harris: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Conditions for retention of Canadian citizenship by persons born outside of Canada.
Edmund Davie Fulton: With due respect to the hon.
gentlemen in the other place, who I understand considered the bill and approved it before it came here, I wish to enter a protest, if that word is not too strong, against the substitution of section 6 of the bill for the old section 6 of the act. On reading the new section 6 one finds that it reads very clumsily because if you will look at 6(1) the operative words read as follows:
A person who is a Canadian citizen under paragraph (b) of section 4 or under paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 5 ceases to be a Canadian citizen upon the expiration of one year after he attains the age of twenty-one years unless, after attaining that age and before the expiration of the said year,
(b) if he, being a national or citizen of a country other than Canada, files in accordance with the regulations . . .
You have the phraseology that a person ceases to be a Canadian citizen "unless if he files in accordance with the regulations".


An hon. Member:: Bad grammar.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is bad grammar, as my hon. friend across the way remarks. Furthermore, if you look at the first three lines of 6(1) you will find you are referred back to two previous clauses to find out exactly what the clause means whereas under the present section 6 the exact meaning and circumstances to which the section has reference are contained in the introductory words of the section. We have objection on two counts, that the exact circumstances to which the section has reference are not clearly set forth in the introductory words of the section, as they were in the old section, and that there is bad and clumsy draftmanship contained in the words, "unless if he files", which is quite meaningless. The explanatory note reveals that no change is made in the substantive law and that the purpose is to shorten the existing section. I submit they shorten it at the expense of clarity. Subsection 2 of the new section 6 merely takes the place of a proviso and makes no change in the substance of the legislation. Therefore, with due respect to the draftsmen who worked on the

bill and to the hon. gentlemen of the other place who considered the bill before it came here, I earnestly submit that the new section is clumsy and lacks clarity. It purports to make no change in the substance of the legislation, and therefore it should be deleted and the original section 6 left in its present form.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister not answering the hon. member for Kamloops?


Walter Edward Harris: Only to say that I do not agree with him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do you think that the words "unless if he files in accordance with the regulations" are easy to understand or make sense in accordance with the rules of grammar?


Mr. St. Laurent:: It is the same in the preceding one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have to take it with the "and".


Howard Charles Green: There seems to be quite a change in this section from the old one.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Kamloops said there was not.


Howard Charles Green: I do not quite agree with the hon. member for Kamloops. As it was before, a person who was the child of a Canadian, having been born abroad, would lose his Canadian citizenship if he did not, within a year after attaining the age of twenty-one, apply for Canadian citizenship. Then there was a provision that if the country in which he lived permitted him to divest himself of the nationality of that country then he would have to so divest himself. Apparently the provision has been changed now so that this young Canadian must divest himself of the other nationality whether or not the other country provides for such divesting. That is the way I read the section in the bill. I think it is a good thing because the divesting, or declaration of renunciation as it is called, of his United States nationality, let us say, apparently must now be filed with the Canadian authorities whereas before it would have been filed with the United States authorities. Is that the difference in the new section?


Walter Edward Harris: That is quite right.


Howard Charles Green: What about subsection 2 of the new section 6? That would seem to go pretty far because such a person can decide to be a United States citizen after attaining the age of twenty-one years, and he can then change his mind again and become a Canadian after fifteen or twenty years more.
Canadian Citizenship Act Why is that provision made? Once he makes his decision why is he given a second chance to change?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think the hon. member has quite followed the purpose of subsection 2. Subsection 2 is intended to assist a person who, by the automatic result of subsection 1, loses his Canadian citizenship by not filing a declaration within the year after he reaches twenty-one. That is not to say he may have elected his other citizenship. He simply takes no action whatever. Under subsection 2 the minister may then permit him to make a declaration of resumption of citizenship at a later date than within one year after he reaches twenty-one. If in the meantime, however, he has taken any steps to become a citizen of the other country then of course he would not get the benefit of subsection 2.


Howard Charles Green: The section does not say so. As I read subsection 2 it really gives such a person more than one year in which to decide that he will be a Canadian citizen.


Walter Edward Harris: After one year at the discretion of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: Should there not be some provision in the section so that he will not have this right if he deliberately takes United States citizenship, for example, upon becoming twenty-one years of age?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think so. To repeat what I said before, this is designed to cover the person who took no steps to acquire another citizenship. It is only the man who loses his Canadian citizenship by operation of the previous subsection who gets the benefit of subsection 2.


Major James William Coldwell: There is one anomalous situation in regard to citizenship that has been often brought to my attention. A Canadian goes to the United States, signs an application for citizenship and gets what are called the first papers. When he gets those papers he takes an oath in which he declares-I am not going to try to give the exact words, but they are somewhat along these lines-that he renounces allegiance to all foreign princes and potentates, and particularly, in the case of a Canadian, to His Majesty King George VI. In other words he renounces his Canadian citizenship when he makes that declaration; but if he returns to Canada, having renounced our citizenship, he does not lose the right to exercise all the privileges and functions of a Canadian citizen. He is not even required to take out any declaration or oath of allegiance here, or to renew in any form his citizenship in this country.

Canadian Citizenship Act
That always struck me as a very anomalous situation. I remember that on one occasion several years ago the point was raised during a general election. A gentleman who was very active in one of the political parties, it does not matter which, who held office in the organization, was challenged with having taken out his first citizenship papers and having taken this oath; and I believe the matter was referred to Ottawa. The reply was that while he had taken that declaration, under our law he was still regarded as a Canadian citizen. Should not a person who has renounced allegiance to this country, which is really what is meant by renouncing allegiance to His Majesty the King, be required to take a declaration when he resumes his allegiance, or in other words his citizenship in this country? Has that point been considered?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall give it consideration. Of course at the moment we are governed by section 16 of the act with respect to loss of citizenship, and there it is required that he must acquire the nationality or citizenship of the other country.


Major James William Coldwell: He does not acquire it until he has taken out the final papers.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Major James William Coldwell: But he has renounced his allegiance to His Majesty King George VI. In other words by his own oath he has ceased to be a subject of the king or a citizen of Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall give the matter consideration.


Mr. Cannon:: I agree with the principle of section 6, but in connection with the remark I made a few moments ago I would ask the minister if he does not think that replacing the word "if" by the word "unless" at the beginning of paragraph (d) would improve the draftsmanship o'f the section.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think we should introduce the word "unless" any oftener in this section. If we allowed it to stand for a moment we might consider whether we could eliminate the words "if he" at the beginning of paragraph (b) and insert the word "he" after the word "Canada" so the paragraph would read:
(b) being a national or citizen of a country other than Canada, he files in accordance with . . ."


Some hon. Members:: That is better.


Mr. Chevrier:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On section 5-Grant of a certificate of citizenship.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This is the first of a number of sections introducing the phrase "in his discretion" as applied to the powers of the minister. I do not wish to risk your displeasure, Mr. Chairman, by wandering too far from this section, but it may be that the minister will have an explanation relating to all the places where this new provision appears in the bill. May I draw attention to the fact that it appears in section 5, page 4, line 25; on page 5, in line 12 with respect to the power to grant certificates to British subjects and again in lines 25 and 45; on page 6, line 23 and line 48; on page 8, line 1; on page 9, lines 15 and 37; on page 10, line 42; on page 11, line 34, and there may be other places. Is there some statement the minister can make which would relate to all these, seeing that the phrase appears so frequently?


Walter Edward Harris: As I indicated in my statement on the motion for second reading, there has been some doubt as to the authority of the minister to exercise his discretion under the existing act, as to whether he may or may not grant a certificate under certain conditions. In order to remove all possible doubt as to the discretion of the minister we are inserting those words in the sections which have been cited by the hon. member for Eglinton.
The position is simply this. At the moment applicants for citizenship go before county judges for examination. In certain cases it is not possible to produce in the ordinary way evidence which may be available to indicate that a person is not fit for Canadian citizenship. Under those circumstances it is felt that the minister is the person who should accept responsibility for refusing citizenship, and that is the reason for the insertion of these words. I must say that in the four or five months I have had to do with this act there have been occasions on which I have felt that persons should not receive Canadian citizenship. Having in mind the responsibility we owe to parliament and to the Canadian people, it was felt proper that someone in the government should accept responsibility for refusing certificates to certain persons who may apply.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the discretion ever used the other way, to grant citizenship when the county court judge finds that all the qualifications have not been fulfilled, as for example in the use of one of the two languages? Is discretion ever used to grant a certificate to a Chinese, for example, who has been resident

in Canada for many years, who has been unable to acquire the language yet possesses all the other qualifications for citizenship?


Walter Edward Harris: I believe the practice has been for the minister to. return the application to the judge for reconsideration, as the act now requires. Because of the uncertainty that has existed up to the moment I personally have not granted certificates under those conditions, preferring to send them back for rehearing.*


Major James William Coldwell: But you could do so?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the case to which the minister referred, where he felt citizenship should not be granted, I take it the applicant had appeared before a county or district court judge and satisfied him as to his fitness to receive citizenship? The minister nods his head. I had an experience in the house not long ago, when I asked a question which was answered by a nod of the head, but the nod did not appear in Hansard. Would the minister mind replying to the question?


Walter Edward Harris: What was the question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was the question to which the minister nodded his head.


Walter Edward Harris: All right; the answer is yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I ask the minister what was the nature of those cases, because while many of the county court judges in the larger cities have to deal with large numbers of applicants, one would not like to think that great care is not being taken by the judges who have jurisdiction in this matter. We must ever attach greater rather than less significance to citizenship, and so much depends, in the administration of this act, upon how the county court judges exercise their functions under the act when applicants for citizenship appear before them. Would the minister indicate the nature of those cases in which he felt it necessary, even in the face of the favourable recommendation from the county court judge, to refuse citizenship?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the situation is not quite that. Some judges felt that the present act, the one under which we have been acting, does impose upon the minister the final responsibility for granting certificate. They have discharged their duties by merely reporting to the minister the examination held on the various qualifications under the act, that is that the applicant has resided in Canada so long; intended to reside
Canadian Citizenship Act permanently in Canada; had some qualifications in language, and had some general understanding of our institutions, leaving to the minister what the judge considered was in fact the minister's decision to make. The recommendations in themselves are really not recommendations but are reports of, perhaps for lack of a better term, courts of inquiry. That is one group with which we have had to deal, in which the judge does not make what he considers a final recommendation.
The other group concerns those persons who, because of their past activities or perhaps their present activities, having in mind the discussion which took place in this house this afternoon, are not considered to be persons to whom we should extend the advantages and privileges of citizenship. In some courts in the country evidence of that nature is difficult to produce, because in doing so one might easily disclose the information not only on which it is proposed to deal with that particular application but other information which would affect others as well. Under those conditions, in some cases we have felt that we could not do other than deal with it through the minister rather than through the county judge.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister, in view of the latter part of his answer, if it is a correct inference that some attempt is made to review those applications even after they have come from the county court judge, before the certificate is granted, having regard to security reasons?


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In all cases?


Walter Edward Harris: That is the intention here, yes.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I ask
the minister, does that mean then that the real effect of section 5 of the bill is that there is no absolute right on the part of the applicant? The minister said that some judges regarded themselves as merely making a sort of preliminary finding of fact, the final decision being left to the minister. Does the minister intend to indicate that view is being approved, that is the judges now are merely to conduct a sort of preliminary survey? I wish the minister would make that clear to me. Actually, what is going to be the effect of this section on the minds of the judges? Is it going to clarify their position or are they still, in certain cases, going to take that attitude? Is it a matter that is left to the discretion of the judges?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the attitude of the judges has varied a good deal on it, as I tried to point out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what surprised me.
See also page 4049.

Canadian Citizenship Act


Walter Edward Harris: That is not to say
that the judges have not been giving their best attention to those cases. It is for the very reason that some judges have felt that the present act still does rest with the minister the decision whether a certificate should be granted. They have discharged their duties in the light of that. They feel they are discharging them as the act intends them to do, by sending in a report on the nature of the hearing that has been held and the specific answers to the four or five qualifications I have mentioned. I would hope that in the next few months we can have more uniformity in those hearings by the judges. That is not a criticism whatever; it is merely because of a misunderstanding in the minds of many of them as to the intention of the act, a misunderstanding which is shared by others than judges.
We hope that parliament will, by passing this amendment, provide the discretion in the minister, but at the same time we will seek to have the judges apply the act in a uniform way so that recommendations will come forward as they formerly have under the act, together with any opinions they care to express.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where the minister proposes to exercise this discretion, what assurance will he give the house that some attempt will be made to exercise the discretion judicially and not arbitrarily. Where people believe they are legitimately entitled to citizenship, and believe they have fulfilled the requirements of the act will some opportunity be provided for a hearing of their cases?


Walter Edward Harris: By another section there is a provision for a rehearing at the end of two years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At the end of two years, but that may be a long time to wait. If the minister, in a case of this kind, exercises his discretion to reject the application it seems to me two years is quite a long time to wait. Parliament is giving the minister a new discretion. No one is infallible. I think that where discretion is being conferred on the minister or an official, some attempt should be made to see that the discretion will be exercised in a judicial sense, and a hearing will not be denied where there are reasonable grounds for asking for it.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that when this act was passed in 1946, along with him and I think almost everyone in this house, I heard the argument-in fact I think he made the argument-that this discretion should not be vested in the minister. I must say that argument appealed to me at the time and still does. Nevertheless I must confess


that since I have been in this office I regret to say that I find persons applying for citizenship under our present system, and perhaps getting it, who, in view of the present circumstances, should not have those privileges. I feel that the minister should take the responsibility of refusing those applicants.
In so far as the practice in dealing with those applications is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that every facility will be given to those refused, and there will be no unreasonable disposal of any case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a
question with respect to that part of this section which is over on page 5. It has the marginal note:
Grant to women who lost status of British subject through marriage.
I believe this is the part of the section to which the minister referred in his remarks on second reading. My question is, do the provisions of this section take care of all cases of Canadian women who married aliens prior to the passing of the citizenship act?


Walter Edward Harris: In so far as we
have been able to draft the section, the answer is yes. We would hope if we find a case which is not covered that we will be able to amend it quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, that is its
clear intention?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the case with respect to Canadian women who since the passing of the Canadian Citizenship Act married aliens, and who later wished to become Canadians again?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman,
the existing act permits them to retain their citizenship, and that has been covered since January 1, 1947.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any difference now, depending upon the nationality of the husband that the woman married?


Walter Edward Harris: No, nothing
depends upon that now for a person who has been married after the commencement of this act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the case prior to that, and that is one of the points being corrected.


Walter Edward Harris: That is the point.


Mr. Rooney:: Can the minister give me an answer to the question I asked a week or so ago in reference to those girls who were married and who were affected previously to the passing of the act of 1946?


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for St. Paul's was particularly concerned with respect to Canadian girls who married during the late war, and more especially as there were a great many Norwegian airmen and other soldiers in Toronto, perhaps the Toronto girls married Norwegian soldiers. The answer is that this section will give these girls an opportunity, on application to the minister, to become Canadian citizens.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have a couple of matters that I should like to discuss with the minister for a short time. There are problems that arise out of the union of Newfoundland with Canada, and particularly in regard to the former act known as the naturalization of aliens act of that province. Under that act a number of Chinese citizens of Newfoundland made application for naturalization as far back as 1947. As a matter of fact, I believe there is a member of the minister's staff in this section who at that time was a member of the department we knew as the department of home affairs, and who is able to verify that a number of applications were made at that time.
These applications were completed in the ordinary form, and I submit to the minister they should be recognized as regular applications. What has happened at the present time is this. All these bona fide applications have been disregarded, and these Chinese people have been told that they have to make new applications, a most unfortunate situation. I submit to the minister that he should take these applications into consideration, and not demand that new applications be made.
That is one point. The other one is this. By order in council passed I believe some time last fall it was agreed that all Chinese who had gone to Hong Kong by December 19, and who had relatives in Canada who had made application for citizenship prior to that time, would be permitted to bring the children or wives who were in Hong Kong at that time. Through circumstances over which these people had no control they were one, two or maybe three weeks late, some of them, in fact, only a couple of days. I would ask the minister in these cases, and under the particular section where he has discretion, and where he knows of the bona fides of these applications, to deal with them in the manner that they should be dealt with, bearing in mind that the communists are now controlling China, and that the people over there are undergoing great hardship.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not familiar with the details of the particular applications under the old Newfoundland act, but I would
Canadian Citizenship Act be glad to look into that and I can assure the hon. member that in my dual capacity of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration we may be able to give sympathetic consideration to it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Which will be appreciated.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Herridge:: We object to these parrot calls of "carried" when discussing an important bill like this, and when a great deal of time is not being consumed.
I want to ask the minister a question. I think the answer affects him as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and also as minister of Indian affairs. How is this provision of the act going to affect the wife of an Indian who is subject to limitation? If these amendments carry, can the wife of an Indian make application to become a Canadian citizen, and then as the wife of an Indian enjoy full Canadian citizenship rights?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not sure that I follow the hon. member. If he means that Indians are not Canadian citizens, then I must say that I do not agree with him, and I cannot follow the rest of his question.


Major James William Coldwell: Let me put it this way. The wife of an Indian, though, we will say, she is a Canadian citizen in every other respect, has certain limitations placed upon her.


Walter Edward Harris: Such as?


Major James William Coldwell: I am not suggesting that it is a good thing for a woman to be given the opportunity to go into a beer parlour, for example, but if a white Canadian girl is the wife of an Indian and wishes to go into a beer parlour she is an Indian under the law. There may be other limitations of which I do not know, but that one certainly does arise in one's mind. I am not anxious to see the wife of an Indian go into a beer parlour, I may say, but I am just raising the point because it is a very interesting one.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree it is interesting and that we probably could have discussed it on the bill that we allowed to stand today.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister does not answer the question, though. As minister of Indian affairs and of citizenship and immigration can he answer the question in one of these capacities? That is the point.


Walter Edward Harris: Had I been asked to answer the question on the bill that we stood over today my answer would have been different from what it is going to be now. The wife of an Indian becomes an Indian

Canadian Citizenship Act according to the Indian Act, and she thereby becomes subject to certain limitations that act places upon Indians. Those limitations do not in any way deprive her of citizenship as such; they are merely restrictions because of the fact that she lives on a reserve and is the wife of an Indian who comes within that section. That is the status, and I do not think there is any way of altering it except to alter the Indian Act.


Howard Charles Green: Subsection 4 of the new section 10 is apparently a new provision. It is described as:
Grant to persons who lost status of Canadian citizen or British subject for reasons other than marriage.
Can the minister explain the reason for bringing in a provision of that kind? What were the reasons other than marriage which caused these people to lose citizenship?


Walter Edward Harris: This may apply probably largely to Canadians who became United States citizens. Quite a few Canadians have gone to the United States, taken out citizenship and lived there for a number of years; but toward the end of their lives they tend to come back to Canada and seek to settle down where they were born or where they were brought up. These people have consistently felt that they should not be required to go through the five-year period of residence in order to regain their citizenship. Of course there are others as well as citizens who were naturalized in the United States, but it is intended to make the period one year's residence in Canada again, and after that we may give them a certificate of Canadian citizenship.


Howard Charles Green: One other question under section 10, which I believe is the key section of the citizenship act. We have had suggestions from the Canadian Clubs that there should be some more uniform method of welcoming new Canadians upon the completion of the procedure for obtaining citizenship. Can the minister tell us whether his department is taking any steps in that direction? I think the suggestions are very much worth while, and I would hope that the department might give some lead toward working out a good way of welcoming these new citizens.


Walter Edward Harris: The Canadian clubs have recommended a greater uniformity in the proceedings and in the ceremonies with respect to acquiring Canadian citizenship. As the hon. member knows, the educational classes leading up to citizenship are under the control and authority of the provincial gov-


ernments. Through the citizenship branch we do contribute, as I have already explained on the estimates, to that work. In the proceedings before the county judges for the granting of citizenship of course each judge is in charge of his own court and may make of these proceedings what he wishes. However I think the Canadian Club has in mind some uniformity, with appropriate ceremonies at the end particularly. They have appealed to the department and, subject of course to the respective spheres of influence, we would hope we could work out a program which would be generally acceptable throughout Canada; and we are in fact corresponding for that purpose.


Howard Charles Green: The idea would be for the department to work out a program and then recommend it to the various naturalization courts.


Walter Edward Harris: In the hope that they would accept it.


Howard Charles Green: In Vancouver the Canadian Clubs have done a great deal to make these proceedings very impressive.


Walter Edward Harris: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: And I would hope that the minister might work out some uniform system.


Mr. Gibson:: As a matter of policy, I am sure the minister is in accord with that suggestion of the Canadian Club, is he not?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, subject only to this, that I do not want to have anything too uniform. I like a certain amount of variety in these things. Persons who took a real interest would probably want to do more than the minimum. However, I am in agreement that there should be some general program which would be acceptable to all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Part III, Loss of Canadian citizenship.
Howard Charles Green: The new section 8 provides for several new sections in the act, dealing with the loss of Canadian citizenship. I am interested particularly in the new section 15(2), the side-note of which states, "Where country at war with Canada". Then in the explanatory note we find these words:
Subclause (2) is new and permits, in the case of a Canadian who deliberately acquires nationality in an enemy country, a discretion that either he be held to his responsibilities as a Canadian citizen or that he be deprived of such citizenship.

Would this provision cover the case of a Japanese born in Canada but who served in the Japanese forces? There has been quite a concerted drive to get these young men back to Canada, now that the war is over, and I would hope that this provision is wide enough to prevent that. I do not see why a man who served in enemy forces and who may have been responsible for killing our own men should be permitted now to come back to Canada as though nothing had happened.
I am afraid this section does not go far enough to meet that situation. If I am correct in my interpretation, then I suggest that it should be worded to include the recent war. If this means only that in future wars such provision will apply, it is not enough. We all hope it will never be so used, because we hope there never will be another war. But if it does not apply to the recent war, then I suggest to the minister that some amendment should be worked out which would make it applicable to the last war.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman,
it is not retroactive and does not apply to those who served against us in the last war. So that while it would apply in the future, it does not apply to those persons of Japanese origin who were born in this country, who were absent prior to the war in 1941, and who served against us.


Howard Charles Green: Then I suggest that the minister give some thought to including some words in subsection (2) such as "including the recent war". I believe the problem could be met by inserting some words to that effect. After all, our citizenship is of great value. Each one of us should place the highest value on Canadian citizenship. Yet if the law is to be that people, simply because they were born in Canada, can go away, fight against us in a war, and then after the war is over come back here, pick up their citizenship and carry on as if nothing had happened, then I think we are not placing a very high value on Canadian citizenship.
This is a problem which should be faced. As I said before I believe there is a determined attempt to get these young men back to Canada, on the ground that they were born in Canada. I would ask that the minister have this new section 15 stand until he can give some consideration to the problem I have raised.


Walter Edward Harris: Very well.


Louis-René Beaudoin: New clause 15 will stand.


Major James William Coldwell: It seems to me that this is a place where the minister might consider the
Canadian Citizenship Act suggestion I made earlier, respecting one who makes a declaration renouncing allegiance to our common crown-"by any voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Canada, thereupon ceased to be a Canadian citizen." I will not suggest that that should be the wording, but I think the minister should consider it.


Walter Edward Harris: I will consider it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Section 8 stands.
On section 9-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I would refer to section
18(c). I have in mind a veteran of the first great war who is at present in the southern United States, and has had to be there for some few years. Is there any way he can retain his citizenship? I do not think he could stand the journey back, but he would like to retain it. This man is on pension from the Canadian government.


Walter Edward Harris: Is the gentleman a natural-born Canadian?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: This section does not apply, then.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But his wife is not. How would it apply to her?


Walter Edward Harris: Is she a naturalized Canadian?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: She is covered by subparagraph (e).
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 10-Citizen o) country in schedule has British subject status in Canada.


William Joseph Browne: I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked a question earlier this evening about the status of those people living in the West Indies or Hong Kong at the present time. By this section we see that section 28 is repealed, and section 23 applies only to those countries mentioned in the first schedule, and not to the other colonies.


Walter Edward Harris: The British West Indies are crown colonies and are covered by the definition of "United Kingdom".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Coming into force.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister care to indicate when it is proposed to bring the act into effect by proclamation?

Canada Shipping Act


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, if the regulations are available shortly we will bring it into effect as soon as we can. We think the regulations should be available in those places where they are likely to be used, particularly abroad. However, so far as we are concerned, I should imagine it would not be more than a few days.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Then we will revert to section 8.


Walter Edward Harris: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day, and that section 8 stand in the meantime.
Progress reported.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 303, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-British ship.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I might point out that this bill has been studied carefully by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and has been reported with amendments.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Chairman, I should like first to deal with certain aspects of section 1 which defines British ship in the following terms:
"British ship" includes a Canadian ship.
I do not quite understand that definition and I am not quite certain why it is included in the section. A British ship is not otherwise defined in the act. We certainly are not extending the definition of British ship as contained in the British merchant shipping act because that could not be done by Canadian legislation. However, I am prepared to admit that such a definition may be needed here and I am anxious to hear why. If it is considered necessary, I suggest that we have in this section a wording similar to that in section 26 of the Canadian Citizenship Act which reads:
A Canadian citizen is a British subject.
The definition here should then read:
A Canadian ship is a British ship.
I make that suggestion at this stage and I hope it will receive the consideration of the committee. This section also defines Canadian

ship and I am pleased to see this amendment being made in the Canada Shipping Act. This definition reads in part:
"Canadian ship" means a ship registered in Canada-
In all modesty I say that I am particularly pleased with this amendment because I believe I was the first member of this house to request some three or four years ago that this change be made. I also suggested this change on other occasions both inside and outside this house. In order to implement this new definition of a Canadian ship the bill amends the act further by repealing subsection 1 of section 3 of the act and substituting a completely new clause therefor. I shall not discuss that amendment at this stage but will reserve my comments until the appropriate moment.
I make that comment to stress my contention that the clause presently under consideration should contain an additional subsection which probably would appear immediately following subsection 16 and which would amend the definition of registrar as presently defined in the act. The definition of registrar, is to be found in section 2, subsection 81 which reads:	"Registrar means
registrar of British ships." There should be a further amendment to this section to bring it in line with the amendments we are making and to make it read: Registrar means a registrar of Canadian ships. I ask that consideration be given to that suggestion.
This section also amends the definition of foreign ships, the amendment reading:
"Foreign ship" means a ship other than a British ship.
Here again I must confess that I fail to see any reason for this new definition. If the definition is meant to serve a particular purpose, that purpose should be stated clearly. If possible, it should be restricted to the object we have in mind. I expect some clarification of this point from the minister and ask that ctuc. consideration be given to the comments I have made in this respect. Those are all the remarks of a special nature that I wish to make in connection with this section.
I should like to deal now generally with the implications of the amendments contained in this section and the sections immediately following. As I said a while ago, the definition of Canadian ship is provided for in this bill and I consider that a step in the right direction. But I regret that our Canadian ships are not being protected against foreign competition in our coastal trade. This is of great concern to our shipping and shipbuilding industry. The fact is that our ships are discriminated against in certain ways to the advantage of ships of

other nations which are engaged in the Canadian coastal trade. Let us review for a moment the present position of Canadian ships so far as Canada's coasting trade is concerned. At the present time our coasting trade is governed by part XIII of the Canada Shipping Act comprising sections 661 to 665 inclusive. Section 663 reads:
663. (1) No goods shall be transported by water or by land and water, from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, either directly or by way of a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation in any ship other than a British ship.
A similar provision has been made with respect to the transportation of passengers, and penalties are provided for the contravention of these provisions. It is further provided that no foreign-built British ship, regardless of where she is registered, is entitled to engage in the coasting trade of Canada without a licence obtained from the Minister of National Revenue. Exception is made, however, with respect to certain foreign-built vessels which were condemned as prizes of war, or ceded by enemy states to Great Britain or British nationals by the reparations commission during or after the 1914-1918 war. Similar provisions were made with respect to reparation vessels ceded to Canada after the last war.
In order for foreign-built British vessels to obtain a licence from the Minister of National Revenue it is necessary that a duty be paid of 25 per cent ad valorem on the fair market value of hull, machinery, furniture and appurtenances of such vessels. Section 665 provides that exceptions may be made to the foregoing by the governor in council. It is the custom of the Department of National Revenue to issue coasting licences to British ships, other than those which are foreign built, upon submission to that department of proof that the ships are entitled to operate in the coasting trade of Canada, and upon execution by the master and two others, usually officers of the company operating the vessel, of a coasting bond in the amount of $500 in accordance with form D-ll.
The requirements to be fulfilled to obtain a coasting licence, in addition to the filing of the said bond, are as follows:
(1)	Establishing that the ship was British built, that is, built in some part of the British commonwealth of nations, or that it comes within the description of the special exceptions referred to above.
(2)	Production of a certificate of British registry to establish that she is a British ship, that is, registered in some part of the British commonwealth and wholly owned by British subjects.
Canada Shipping Act
(3)	That her officers are properly certificated with British certificates of competency.
A coasting licence is not always required in order to operate in the coasting trade of Canada, but it is a convenience in order that the various requirements will not have to be established to the satisfaction of the collector of customs in each port from which the vessel may clear. The coasting bond requires compliance with the "coasting regulations of this dominion" but no such regulations have ever been issued to my knowledge.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The bill is a very voluminous one. I do not know whether or not it deals with the coasting trade but it seems to me that if the hon. member wished to discuss that subject he should have done so when the principle of the bill v/as under consideration on second reading. We are on section 1 of the bill, and certain latitude is usually given, but the principle of the bill has been decided upon and accepted by the house. The hon. member should make his remarks as relevant as possible to the section under consideration and not deal with the coastal trade if that matter is not contained in the bill.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman,
speaking to the point of order, all the, remarks I am making now are opening remarks which are necessary in order to discuss and, to my mind, intelligently understand what section 1 does when it defines a Canadian ship. We are creating by this definition a "Canadian ship" and before we accept it we should be clear in our own minds what we are doing, what such a ship is intended for and if it has a chance of survival. That is exactly what I am discussing. I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I respectfully submit that these comments are preliminary remarks that are essential to a discussion of this clause.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt the hon. member as long as he deals with the distinction to be made between a Canadian ship and a British ship because it is in order for him to do that. He has been discussing coastal trade, however, and that is dealt with in section 661 of part XIII of the Canada Shipping Act. There is no amendment in the bill having to do with coastal trade. I think the chairman is quite right in saying that any discussion of that nature should have taken place when we were discussing the principle of the bill on second reading. There is no question of coastal trade involved in these amendments at all. I hope my hon. friend can deal with section 1 of the bill.

Canada Shipping Act


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to making three speeches if necessary. I could separate my speech into three parts so that they would apply directly to clauses under study, but I think I am saving the time of the committee by dealing with them together at this stage. Then I will not have to come back to the same subject later on. I think the definition of "Canadian ship" has a definite bearing on the coastal trade and also the definition of "British ship". It is of great moment when we are considering the coastal trade of Canada. As I said a while ago, these are merely preliminary remarks, I shall be through with them in a few moments and then I will deal with the clause under consideration.
If I may be permitted to carry on, Mr. Chairman, in addition it is provided in section 65 of the Customs Act that equipment purchased or supplied or repairs made in a foreign country upon a vessel intended to be employed, or which is later employed, in the coasting trade of Canada, are dutiable if the vessel arrives in Canada within one year of the time such equipment is purchased or such repairs are carried out. The duty with respect to such repairs is 25 per cent ad valorem of the expenses of the repairs, and with respect to equipment it is the same duty as would be charged if such equipment had been imported into Canada in the ordinary course. The words "foreign country" mean any country other than Canada, whether or not such other country is within the British commonwealth of nations. This is my own interpretation, but I have been informed that this interpretation is not accepted by the Department of National Revenue. In the opinion of the department the expression "foreign country" does not include the countries of the British commonwealth of nations. It appears there is no legal basis for such an interpretation, but merely the practice of the department. It is my submission that the expression "foreign country" should include the other countries of the commonwealth, and steps should be taken to bring this about, either by changing the departmental practice in this regard or by defining the expression so there would be no possibility of misinterpretation.
With respect to the meaning of the words "foreign country" as used in the Customs Act, I refer the committee to the case of Cashin v. The King, 35, 4 D.L.R., 547, and particularly the following comment of Judge Angers at page 555:
I think that, for customs purposes, a vessel which is not registered in a Canadian port, even though a British vessel, must be considered a foreign vessel.
I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of the interpretation of this expression, not only to Canadian ship owners who are

menaced by competition from British vessels, but also to Canadian shipyards and suppliers who would normally carry out the repairs and supply the equipment to vessels operating in the coastal trade of Canada. Indeed, to my mind it would be ridiculous that a Canadian or British ship owner could have his ship repaired in Great Britain or elsewhere within the British commonwealth and come to Canada to engage in the coastal trade without paying any duty on such repairs, though the ship might have all kinds of equipment obtained at lower cost in Great Britain or elsewhere in the commonwealth, whereas if that ship were repaired and equipped in Canadian yards with Canadian labour, using parts, equipment or machinery which had to be imported into Canada from those countries of the commonwealth, such machinery and equipment would be subject to the duty as set out in the tariff; if on the other hand the expression "foreign country" were construed as excluding the other nations of the commonwealth, this would be the logical result.
Similarly, Mr. Chairman, section 66 of the Customs Act provides that surplus stores of vessels arriving in Canada shall be subject to the same duties and regulations as if imported as merchandise. However, if the owner or master desires, to put these stores in warehouse for future use on his vessel, the collector may permit him to do so. At the present time not only British vessels registered in Canada but all British vessels, no matter where they are registered or how they are manned, are given the same opportunity to participate in the coasting trade of Canada, with the proviso that if such vessels, whether registered in Canada or in any other part of the British commonwealth, are not British built, they must first obtain a licence from the Minister of National Revenue, upon payment of duty of 25 per cent.
If vessels registered in Canada could compete economically with vessels registered in Great Britain or other parts of the commonwealth, it might be argued that no restriction should be placed on British ships, which are not registered in Canada, operating in the coasting trade of this country, though even under those conditions many countries afford protection to their own vessels in their coastal trade in much the same way that air line companies of one country are seldom if ever permitted to carry passengers or air cargo from one place to another in a foreign country. However, the situation with respect to coastal shipping is even more serious than this. The costs of operating vessels registered in Canada, with Canadian

wages and under Canadian working conditions, and with repairs and overhauls carried out in Canadian shipyards and with Canadian labour, are -'substantially higher than the costs of operating vessels registered in other parts of the commonwealth, and in particular in Britain. The Canadian maritime commission has given a great deal of study to these comparative costs, and I do not feel it necessary to go into further details concerning this condition.
The competitive advantage of vessels registered in the United Kingdom and other parts of the commonwealth has been further accentuated by the devaluation of sterling and allied currencies within the last year. From the point of view of Canada this problem has been aggravated through the union of Newfoundland and Canada. The trade between Newfoundland and the remainder of Canada, which heretofore has been serviced by vessels registered in Canada, is now menaced by the incursion of British vessels registered in the United Kingdom. It is obvious that if British vessels are permitted to operate in the Canadian coasting trade they will be able to drive out any competition from vessels registered in Canada, since they can be profitably operated on revenues which would not cover the operating expenses of a vessel registered in Canada.
An example of such competition was brought to my attention quite recently, when a Canadian company chartering British-registered ships decided to operate in the Newfoundland trade and sent out a circular letter to prospective clients which in part read:
We are not quite ready to quote any rates, but rest assured that they will be lower than any competing services.
I had a further example of this quite recently also when I was informed that tenders had been called to carry iron ore from Havre St. Pierre to Sorel, and that the rates quoted by the owners of British-registered ships were as much as fifty per cent lower than those quoted by Canadian-operated and Canadian-owned ships.
Canada has faced a great problem in connection with her deep sea shipping, and government policy in this regard was announced by the Prime Minister in a statement in the House of Commons on December 9, 1949. Only a small portion of the present Canadian deep sea fleet will be maintained in operation during the coming year, and a subsidy of $3 million is being provided for this purpose, as it is recognized that without this assistance Canadian vessels could not compete successfully and continue to engage in international trade. Arrangements have been made for 55946-255
\
Canada Shipping Act the remainder of the deep sea vessels to be transferred to registry in the United Kingdom, and operated under conditions prevailing there. It is obvious that unless Canadian shipping, that is ships registered in Canada and operated under Canadian conditions, are given protection against competition from vessels of other nations, including vessels registered in the United Kingdom and other ports of the commonwealth, such Canadian vessels will be in the same position in the coasting trade of Canada as other Canadian vessels now find themselves in the international or deep sea trade. Ships registered in Canada may find themselves competing-I ask the committee to pay attention to this sentence-with ships now being transferred from Canadian to British registry. It is also feared that competition may be expected from oceangoing British vessels picking up cargoes in the maritimes when proceeding inbound in ballast or with a partial cargo bound for Quebec and Montreal, and often at what might be termed "sacrifice rates". With the development which is expected to take place within the next three years on the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, further opportunities for competition from vessels registered in the United Kingdom and other parts of the commonwealth may be anticipated.
If Canada is to retain any merchant fleet and any body of men capable of maintaining these vessels in time of emergency, it is necessary that protection be given to the operation of vessels registered in Canada in its coasting trade, particularly in view of the decline of Canada's deep sea fleet. It is not only the vessels which are maintained in operation in the coastal trade or even the trained men who man them and who would form a nucleus for expansion in time of emergency who have to be considered, but also the shipyard workers whose services are required in repairing and maintaining these vessels in good condition. It is my submission that it is necessary to take action immediately to protect Canadian vessels and Canadian operators from competition which they will otherwise be unable to meet.
The British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement, which was entered into between the governments of the various parts of the British commonwealth, does not permit immediate restriction of the coastal trade of Canada to vessels registered in Canada or to our newly-born "Canadian ship." One year's notice is necessary in order to change any of the provisions of this agreement. This agreement, and particularly the provisions relating to the right of vessels registered in any part
403S

Canada Shipping Act
of the commonwealth to operate in the coasting trade of any other part on the same terms as ships registered in such part, are entirely favourable to the United Kingdom and possibly to some of the parts of the commonwealth, and are and have been of no benefit to Canada. On the contrary, for the reasons submitted before, they are a serious detriment to Canada. It is recognized that vessels registered in Canada could never compete with vessels registered in the United Kingdom in the coasting trade of Great Britain. It is noteworthy also that the United Kingdom permits not only British vessels registered in other parts of the commonwealth but also foreign vessels to operate in its coasting trade. I understand, however, that the British government has been seriously concerned of late by competition British vessels receive in the coasting trade from Norwegian and other foreign vessels, and is considering restricting its coasting trade, although probably such restriction will be merely to British ships. This is true notwithstanding the fact that British operating costs can be favourably compared to Norwegian costs.
It is realized that there will be certain vessels registered in Great Britain which are now and have been for some years operating in Canada's coastal trade, and that it might be inadvisable to prevent such vessels from continuing to engage in our coasting trade without adequate warning. Exceptions to the policy I am recommending might be made for limited periods with respect to these vessels, particularly if it is found that there are no other vessels registered in Canada which are in a position to carry out the service being performed by such British vessels.
In order to solve this urgent problem, there are two steps which this parliament might take. The first is that notice be given to the signatories of the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement that it is the intention of Canada to change its coasting laws so that the coasting trade of Canada will be further restricted to vessels registered in Canada, owned, manned and operated by Canadians, and that this change will be made on the expiry of one year from the date of the notice. This is the ideal way of solving the problem, but I know that there have been serious objections made to this plan for dealing with the situation, and I understand those objections.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is another way open to us. The following action should be taken immediately, and this is in conformity with the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement: First, we should promulgate coasting regulations applicable to all

vessels operating in the coasting trade of Canada, providing that such regulations applied equally to vessels registered in Canada as to vessels registered in other parts of the British commonwealth. This would not abrogate the provisions of article 11 of the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement. Article 11 especially provides that each part of the British commonwealth may regulate its own coasting trade, but that any such law or regulations shall treat all vessels registered in the British commonwealth in the same manner. It is suggested that these regulations should include the following:
1.	Vessels operating in the coastal trade of Canada should be required to maintain certain standards of wages and working conditions. It might be undesirable to set forth the actual wages and working conditions which should apply, so in this event I would suggest that perhaps the following or some similar phraseology be adopted. All officers and men or other persons employed on vessels engaging in the coasting trade of Canada shall be paid, in legal currency of Canada, such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time for competent employees in the district in which said trade is being carried out for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged.
2.	All officers manning a vessel engaged or about to engage in the Canadian coasting trade should be properly qualified to carry out the coasting service. The coasting regulations could provide that any holder of a Canadian coasting, home trade or inland water certificate, would be assumed to be properly qualified for voyages to which their certificates apply.
Since under the Canada Shipping Act the holder of each grade of certificate is entitled to all the rights and privileges of holders of certificates of lower grades, the holders of foreign-going certificates would also be accepted as properly qualified for the coasting trade of Canada, whether on home trade or inland water voyages. However, holders of certificates issued in other parts of the British commonwealth should be required to establish to the administrative authority that they are properly qualified to engage in the coasting trade of Canada, and, for this purpose, to submit to either an oral or written examination. It might be assumed that engineer officers holding proper certificates of competency issued in other parts of the British commonwealth are properly qualified to act in such capacity in the coasting trade of Canada but it is quite reasonable that deck

officers, who have a general qualification certificate to proceed on international voyages, may not have the required local knowledge to ensure the safety of a vessel, including her passengers, crew and cargo, operating, for example, in the coastal waters of Newfoundland or of the St. Lawrence river. Such regulations and requirements were anticipated and are permitted under article 17 of the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement, which reads as follows:
Article 17-Subject to any special provisions that may be made by any part of the commonwealth as to the qualifications to be required of officers on ships engaged in its coasting trade, a valid ''certificate of competency or service granted by one part of the commonwealth will be recognized throughout the British commonwealth as indicating that the holder is duly qualified accordingly when serving on board any ship registered in that part."
3.	Before any ship is allowed to engage in the coasting trade of Canada, the owners of the vessel should be required to satisfy the administrative authority that they have sufficient assets in Canada to reimburse His Majesty the King in right of Canada for any expenses incurred by His Majesty the King in right of Canada in connection with such ship, her master or a member of her crew. With respect to ships registered in Canada, such assets must be disclosed to the registrar of shipping at the time of registration or else security in the form of cash or government bonds or the bond of a recognized surety company must be deposited with the registrar, prior to the registration of such ship. This is in accordance with section 21 of the Canada Shipping Act. The declaration to the registrar or the security deposited with the registrar by the owners of vessels registered in Canada under section 21 of the Canada Shipping Act could be accepted as compliance with this requirement of the coasting regulations. The amount of security required according to the present departmental practice is one dollar for each ton of the vessel's gross tonnage and $50 for each member of her crew, including the master of the ship. It is reasonable that vessels not registered in Canada should be required to provide this security since His Majesty the King in right of Canada may be exposed to expenses with regard to such vessels when operating in the coasting trade of Canada regardless of where the vessels happened to be registered. Amongst those expenses which are contemplated are the expenses which may be incurred in respect of raising or destroying a ship which has foundered and forms an obstruction to a navigable channel.
The fourth action which could be taken in regard to these coasting regulations is that the owners of any vessel applying for a
55946-255$
Canada Shipping Act
coasting licence should be required to establish compliance with section 65 of the Customs Act and should be required to produce an affidavit to the effect that no such repairs or equipment have been received by the vessel within the year prior to arriving in Canada or else give the details of such expenses of repairs and equipment together with proof that the duty provided for in section 65 has been paid. They should also establish compliance with section 66 of the Customs Act.
5. The obtaining of a coasting licence should be made mandatory instead of being merely a matter of convenience and no clearance should be given to a vessel on a coasting voyage unless such coasting licence is produced.
It is further suggested that the administration of the coasting regulations and the authority to grant coasting licences should be taken from the Department of National Revenue and placed under the Canadian maritime commission, so that there will be uniformity in the administration of the coasting regulations and the issuance of the coasting licences. No coasting licence, of course, would be issued unless the issuing authority was satisfied that all requirements, including compliance with the coasting regulations, had been fulfilled.
Provision might be made in the regulations to authorize exceptions to the above regulations with respect to vessels which are now and have been for some years operating in the coasting trade of Canada, when it is found that there are no other vessels which can comply with the regulations, which are in a position to carry out the service being performed by such vessels. No exemptions should be granted for more than twelve months, but applications might be made for renewal.
Before closing my remarks I wish to add that these recommendations have been carried out by other countries of the British commonwealth which were signatories to this merchant shipping agreement, and to my knowledge these countries have remained as good and as faithful members of the British commonwealth of nations as we can ever expect to be able to claim ourselves to be. The countries which have passed similar coasting regulations are Australia and New Zealand. In a news-letter which was sent recently to all members of the house by the Canadian Shipbuilders Association entitled "The Antipodes Show us a Way" we were given the history of these regulations. For example, Australia's navigation act, which is the counterpart of the Canada Shipping Act, for years has given its ministry discretion to restrict the trade to vessels paying crew

Canada Shipping Act
wages at current Australian rates and providing standard accommodation. In New Zealand, the Shipping and Seamen Act has a similar proviso on wage rates and manning scales. That means the home ships get the business.
And just last year, Australia has gone one step further to protect its shipbuilding industry. By the Shipping Act, 1949, coastal licences are reserved to ships less than twenty-four years old at the date of application and built in Australian shipyards or were, at any time prior to the passage of that legislation, engaged in trade exclusively between places in the Commonwealth of Australia.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: I conclude by saying that my recommendations can be implemented and should be implemented, and that the operators of vessels registered in Canada will be better satisfied if they are protected at least in part from the unfair competition of vessels employing persons at lower wages and obtaining equipment and having repairs carried out in a foreign country without using Canadian shipyards, and at a cost lower than such repairs can be made elsewhere.
Let me say this to the committee through you, Mr. Chairman: Let us not try to be more British than the British themselves, even if only for this good reason, that they have a right to claim ultimate perfection in this regard. This may be one of the greatest of their many fine qualities. The commonwealth merchant shipping agreement gave us the privilege of implementing all of these suggestions. Other countries of the commonwealth have done it and, as I said a while ago, they have remained as faithful and as good members of the commonwealth as we may ever be able to claim to be.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was before the house for second reading I made a few remarks. Since then we have had the opportunity of considering it in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Therefore I have no intention of going into detail on the first section of the bill. I do hope to say a few words about the plan to license outboard motors, and also with regard to the need for having radiotelegraph on our coastal ships. However that can be done when we reach those sections.
On this first section I should like to say that I believe the international convention for the safety of life at sea should be accepted by Canada. It stands as a schedule to the

bill, and I do not believe there can be any doubt that Canada would derive great benefits by accepting that convention. I believe it is the intention of the government to do so, and to have the convention formally approved before the end of the present session.
The Canada Shipping Act is a very important statute, and a very long one. There are not many members in the House of Commons who have reason to take much interest in the working out of this act. In fact, even for those of us who live in the coastal ridings the act is somewhat of a mystery. We did not have a very good opportunity in committee to consider the amending bill. At this stage of the session it is difficult for a committee to go into detail in dealing with any question. I wish the bill had been dealt with at a much earlier stage in the session, so that it could have been given more careful consideration. However, that is now water over the dam. I do suggest to the minister, however, that some arrangement be made in his department to go over the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act carefully, and that he allow it to be amended more readily in the future than has been done in the past.
There was an amendment in 1948, and I believe the only amendment before that was in 1938; the original act was passed in 1934. So far as I know there have been no other amendments, so that the act has not been given a great deal of consideration by parliament. It is of much too great importance to be treated in that way. Careful consideration should be given to it, and I hope that the minister and his department will review all the suggestions which came out during the discussion in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and that it may be possible to bring in any amendments during the next session at a much earlier stage so that they may be dealt with more adequately.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I too was a member of the committee that considered this bill. As a rule I like to be able to come to the house and say that I was satisfied with what was done in committee, and that all that could be done was done. However I was not entirely satisfied with one phase of this bill.
This evening the hon. member for Gaspe took more than forty minutes to make what I considered was a good basic case for the shipping industry in this country. I understand he is engaged in that business. I listened to him carefully because, coming from the east coast, I have discussed this question on several occasions with people

who are engaged in that industry, and it seemed to me that tonight the hon. member voiced about the same opinions as I have heard expressed from time to time. My reaction is that unless we do something with regard to the industry itself, we will not need a shipping act in another couple of years, so far as Canada is concerned.
I shall not take more than a few minutes to discuss the first section of the bill. I am not satisfied with the bill in that it includes a British ship as a Canadian ship, and a Canadian ship as a British ship, and grants the rights and privileges to a British registered ship to ply the coastal trade in Canada.
The hon. member for Gaspe suggested that the Canadian government was trying to be more British than the British, and that it was because of sentimental attachment to the British commonwealth that we were extending this privilege to British ships. That is not my conception of it, and I believe my view is supported by documentary evidence when I say that money is the nigger in the woodpile. I believe those who ship coastwise in Canada, and overseas, have come to the conclusion that it is much cheaper to use British ships in their transportation by water than to use Canadian ships. As a result Canada is gradually folding up her merchant service and British shipping interests are taking over, not only in overseas shipping but also along the coast.
The United States does not permit this. In their coastal trade they have regulations which state that no other ships shall ply the coastal trade of the United States. There is no fear in Canada of competition from American ships, because American wages and costs are much higher than Canadian, and it would not be profitable from a monetary point of view for Canadian shippers to use United States ships.
Great Britain does not prohibit Canadian ships from plying in her coastal trade but because of their operating costs Canadian ships are not able to take any business from the British interests. As the hon. member for Gaspe pointed out a few moments ago, Australia and New Zealand have taken steps to prohibit the participation in their coastal trade of any ships which do not have wage rates and standards comparable to those of New Zealand and Australian ships. I objected to this clause in the committee and I was led to believe that no change could be made because of the commonwealth agreement, but in checking over since and listening to the hon. member for Gaspe tonight I find that that is not true. Regardless of the commonwealth agreement, Canada is still master in her own house and can make any changes necessary to benefit our merchant fleet.
Canada Shipping Act
There are a lot of people in this country who are concerned about this matter. The merchant marine in Canada could be a great industry and it is necessary to a country that exports such a large portion of its production. I have received resolutions, and no doubt the minister has also, demanding that the Canadian government take steps to protect the merchant service of this country through means along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Gaspe.
I am afraid that the perpetuation of the rights of British ships to ply our coastal waters is a studied policy. I say that advisedly because I have in my hand the 1949 report of the Canadian maritime commission. The Canadian maritime commission was set up on the demands of the shipping industry and those in the industry that something be done to stop the trend in the loss of shipping business and the scrapping of our merchant fleet. A reading of that 1949 report would indicate that the commission, rather than attempt to devise ways and means of protecting the merchant fleet of this country, did just the reverse. I should like to quote one section which I think is pertinent to this discussion from page 44 of the report as follows:
The case for the abandonment of Canadian flag shipping rests on the thesis that the nation or nations which can give the best service at the lowest cost should conduct the carrying trades. Canada is primarily interested in selling her products abroad and it is immaterial under what flag those products are carried. The cost of operating a Canadian flag ship is the second highest in the world. The average daily operating cost, excluding fuel and depreciation, of a standard 10,000-ton Canadian deep-sea ship is $810.50 as compared to $525.46 in respect of a similar vessel of United Kingdom registry. The industry is disorganized by constant labour troubles both of a major and minor nature. If Canadian ships cannot compete in the international market, the business of shipowning should not be encouraged in this country. Moreover the present inconvertibility of foreign currencies poses major problems in securing cargoes and in the payment of freights. The volume of our export trade depends upon the ability of our customers to pay for what they buy.
That repQrt definitely recommends the abandonment of the Canadian merchant fleet on the grounds of cost. If that suggestion is followed through, why not go to Japan or some other country where costs are still cheaper? Why is not the same recommendation made in connection with every commodity imported to or exported from this country? There is no use trying to fool ourselves. As long as we leave the Canada Shipping Act as it is now we are not going to have a merchant fleet.
I am interested in this because a large portion of the section of the country from which I come is directly affected. That is one reason. Secondly, I am a Canadian.

Canada Shipping Act
Despite the fact that we are in the commonwealth of nations I am not going to consent to the standards of any section of the Canadian people being pulled down because we can get something a little cheaper from some place else. The trend in this country and on this continent is to build up standards. Time was when those who operated ships in this country used to use Japanese and Chinese crews because they could get them more cheaply, but since the industry has been organized they cannot do that any longer.
But another trend is developing and British registry ships are being permitted to operate even though the wages they pay are fifty per cent of what we pay and their operating costs are much lower. The result is that our own ships are being beached because these other ships can be obtained -much more cheaply. I realize that there are difficulties in the handling of exports to and imports from other countries, but I say it is definitely 'the responsibility of the Canadian government to protect coastal shipping in Canada.
The hon. member for Gaspe has suggested two ways in which that can be done. Under the commonwealth agreement the Canadian government has the right to make regulations along the lines of those passed by New Zealand and Australia so that ships plying our coastal waters would have to conform to the standards and wage rates enjoyed on Canadian ships. If that were done there would be no more difficulty because British ships would not be able to come in and underbid on cargoes as they are doing today.
This country needs a virile merchant marine. We trained a lot of sailors during the war. Until such time as the thinking of those who make policy for the government in the matter of building up and maintaining our merchant service is changed, we are just going to continue to go on and on and our merchant fleet will peter out. There has been a terrific loss in the last couple of years. If we go on for the next couple of years as we have been there will be no need for an act at all.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee but I submit that the minister should seriously consider bringing in regulations to protect our coastal trade, and as soon as possible. On the other hand there is the second alternative suggested by the hon. member for Gaspe, namely, that the commonwealth nations should be notified that a year from now we intend to ask for revisions and changes in the commonwealth agreement. The thing seems so ridiculous. First of all you hold a meeting of sixteen nations where wages, working conditions and
[Mr. Gillis.l
safety regulations are discussed. Then the convention is taken to the respective governments and an act is passed in the different countries embodying its contents. We write an act that practically hands over our shipping to British interests because they are not conforming to the standards maintained on the ships of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I think it is a wrong principle in the year 1950 for the government of any country, so far as any of its industries are concerned, to start to lower standards in order to enable another country to take your business from you, thus causing the scrapping of what should be a large industry in Canada. I hope the minister will consider these two recommendations and see what can be done for the protection of our coastal trade. I have not much quarrel with the remainder of the bill. It is merely a matter of incorporating safety provisions adopted at the 1948 convention, and then there are some minor matters which needed adjustment. As to the protection of our coastal trade, however, referred to by the hon. member for Gaspe, I think the government should do some serious thinking and take immediate action.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On section 9-Regulations by governor in council.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will see fit to accept the amendment. As the section in the bill now reads, there is no restriction whatever. It gives the governor in council the power to make regulations providing for the licensing of all vessels equipped with outboard motors. In the committee it was explained that the department in drawing up the regulations might not
Canada Shipping Act
go that far and might not include all outboard motors, but surely it is a wrong principle for the department to take power which is wider than needed. It is admitted that they do not need such wide power. There is no reason why outboard motors of small horsepower should be licensed. They are not the ones that are causing the trouble.
It was made clear in the committee that the difficulty arose because some of these faster outboard motors were constituting a hazard for traffic on the crowded waters of Canada such as the Detroit river and the harbours of some of the large cities; but there must be hundreds of thousands of outboard motors in use in Canada on thousands of lakes. Canada is a country of lakes, and I submit it is not sensible at all to have a law compelling the licensing of all outboard motors. Surely all we need to do is meet the problem, and that problem is raised by the fast boats.
In committee one of the hon. members pointed out the effect that licensing would have on the tourist trade in Canada. As everyone knows, that is one of our main industries. Thousands of Americans come here in the summer, and many of them bring outboard motors. If this general power is taken to license all vessels with outboard motors, those Americans with small motors also will be subject to registration.
Much more could be said, but I urge the minister to agree to make some change in the bill. If eight horsepower is too high, perhaps a different figure could be fixed, but to simply take general power to license all outboard motors is going too far. I hope the minister will see his way clear to accept the suggestion and agree on some definite figure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I add
just a word before the minister gives a negative answer to this. I really believe he may be going to co-operate, but I just want to add this. I suppose every man passes through a time of life when he is a reactionary, and personally I think it is very much open to question whether the inventor of the outboard motor was a benefactor to humanity. However, that is just something on the side and quite irrelevant to this discussion, merely a matter of personal prejudice. I suggest to the minister, who is a real lawyer, not just a half and half lawyer like myself, that there is a Latin maxim which covers this point. It is de minimis non curat lex, which I believe means that the law does not take care of tiny things. So I hope he will see his way clear to fall in with this suggestion.

Canada Shipping Act


Mr. Thomas:: I support this amendment wholeheartedly. I believe the section as it now stands is entirely too far-reaching. The average one and a half or two horsepower outboard motor is useful only to those who desire to go fishing, who travel at slow speeds. The boats that should be licensed and have some identifying number or mark are those that travel at high speeds. Personally I do not know whether or not eight horsepower is where the line should be drawn, but I do think the line should be drawn somewhere so that boats which are actually menaces on the waterways of the country can be identified in case they have broken any rule or law or have endangered other boats or swimmers, but I do not think it should apply to the small outboard motors.


Gordon Francis Higgins: With all due respect to my learned colleague the hon. member for Greenwood I do feel that small things, in the sense of outboards, are very important, at least in the part of the country now recognized as the tenth province. Definitely in my province small motors, up to eight horsepower, are a very important part of the routine proceedings of the ordinary day in the summer, and in fact most of the year. To suggest that they must be licensed, that people must go through the routine of applying to a collector of customs and painting a number on their boats, and all the rest of it, seems a bit ridiculous. I am sure the minister is not going to impose that upon us. I understood the intention was to give the minister power to make these regulations if he deemed fit; but, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, these powers are rather sweeping. I should hope the minister would agree that a boat no longer than sixteen feet, with an outboard motor of not more thaji eight horsepower, cannot do very much damage to anybody and is not likely to be careening around the water at such high speed that traffic cops would be needed. This is only going to inconvenience a great many people. I do not think only of Ontario and Quebec when I speak of a tourist program. The newest province has a big tourist program in view, and if we have to go through this licensing and numbering and all the rest of it, the next thing may be a regulation requiring all boats equipped with outboards to carry tail lights and running lights.
I hope the minister will not regard these remarks as at all facetious, because I am quite serious. I believe outboard motors up to eight horsepower should be exempt from this provision, as the hon. member for Kootenay West has suggested. I quite agree that high-powered boats such as those in

which the moguls of Toronto run around the lake should be licensed in some way. In the poorer provinces, however, that should not apply to small boats up to eight horsepower. I am sure the minister has the same thought in mind, living as he does on the greatest river in the world. I am sure he would not want his people to be put to this inconvenience under the act.


Mr. Noseworthy:: In committee we were given to understand that while the minister was asking for the power outlined in this section it was not intended to use that power to require the licensing of all classes of boats with outboard motors. In committee we tried to get from the minister and his officials some information on the nature of the regulations that would be made. We were unable to get that information; apparently neither the minister nor his officials were very clear on just what they should be.
My objection to this clause is an objection to giving the governor in council power to require that every boat equipped with an outboard motor shall be registered, if the minister should so decide. I object to that sweeping power, and favour the amendment. If the amendment does not meet the requirements the officials have in mind, it is still open to them to impose other limitations. At least the amendment would assure that no boat with an outboard motor of less than eight horsepower would require to be licensed. I do not want to have to get a licence for the little outboard I carry around in the back of my car, and which I stick on probably fifty different boats during the course of the season. I would have a happy time doing that, I am sure. That may not be the intention, but I object to the principle of giving such sweeping power to the department.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may be permitted to say a word in reply, I think I said once before that I was anxious to be co-operative in all these matters, but unfortunately tonight I cannot meet the suggestion of my hon. friend. One of the reasons is perhaps that given by the hon. member for Kootenay West, when he said he had perfect confidence in the officers of the Department of Transport, and particularly those who gave evidence before the committee where this matter was specifically discussed. My hon. friend said he had full confidence in those people, and I am sure he will have confidence in them still, when I tell him they have advised against accepting this amendment for reasons which I shall give in a moment. Another reason that prompts me to oppose this is that given by the member for Greenwood, who says there is a Latin maxim de minimis non curat

lex. There is another Latin maxim having to do with the law, which is far more pertinent than the one just quoted and I am sure my hon. friend knows it, and that is res ipsa loquitur, and that has great application in this case. Our officials feel that, for the reasons given to the committee, the time has come when there should be licensing of these motorboats.
I gave the reasons in the committee why I thought it was difficult to distinguish between a regulation which would cover horsepower and one which would cover length. Then again there comes into the picture the question of speed. You may have an 8-horsepower engine in a small boat travelling at high speed, whereas an 8-horsepower engine in a boat of more than sixteen feet would travel at slow speed and would not be a danger to other craft using the same waters.
There is nothing extraordinary in the powers taken here. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asks why we should take powers wider than we need. That has been done repeatedly, not only in the Department of Transport but in other departments. I call attention to the fact that the Canada Shipping Act of 1948, under section 488A, gave the minister power to exempt ships from having certain qualified officers and mates, and also from the steamship regulations, which is far more important than this.


Howard Charles Green: You will be regulating bathing suits next.


Lionel Chevrier: Need I say there is no intention to regulate bathing suits. Neither is it the intention to create a nuisance. As I indicated in the committee, from the studies that have been made thus far it is not possible to say upon what basis the dividing line should be drawn. I gave the assurance to the committee that we would not attempt to enforce regulations which would act as a nuisance to the public, particularly tourists and other people who use our lakes and who have these small outboard motors.
From the studies that have been made thus far, I would not think it would be proper to regulate motorboats of five horsepower and under. Neither would I think it would be a proper thing to regulate a boat of sixteen feet long or under. But from the information at hand I would not like to go any further than that, because the officers who are giving the matter their consideration are not able to say where the dividing line should be. They would like to get this power in order to study the matter. It will not come into force this year. There is no charge involved by the regulation. It is for the purpose of 55946-256
Canada Shipping Act
licensing and marking boats, and it is also for the purpose of protecting the public. It was mostly on that basis the officers proposed it, so with respect, Mr. Chairman, I have to say I am not able to accept the amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister just said that I had stated I had every confidence in the officers of his department, and so I have. I have every confidence in the officers' technical ability, but I have not confidence in their ability to express the opinion of the people of Kootenay West.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand the minister to say that the regulations would not be administered this year in such a way as to be a nuisance to anyon^?


Lionel Chevrier: I am saying that the regulations cannot be put into effect in 1950. They will not come into effect until 1951.


Mr. Hodgson:: Under this regulation you are leaving it up to the officer of the law to determine the law. Who is going to enforce this law? Is it going to be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Lionel Chevrier: May I interject that it is not an officer of the law who will interpret the law. The governor in council will make the regulations.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Yes, that is quite true; the
governor in council or some individual in the department will draw up the regulation and make the law. When you come to enforce the law, it has to be done by the provincial officers or the game warden. It cannot be done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because those officers are stationed so far apart. You are putting an officer of the law in the position of having to determine the law, determine whom he should arrest and whom he should not arrest. When he arrests one person, for instance, he has to arrest all. He cannot let one man go and arrest another. Who is going to determine when he is speeding and when he is not?
Amendment negatived; yeas 27; nays 44.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Repeal.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, it is eleven
o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are only four bills left on the order paper. With regard to Bill No. 315, that is the Citizenship Act, there is only one section left and I believe we shall take that up. I

Business of the House cannot give the exact order for these four bills, but we shall give time to the four of them tomorrow. There is Bill No. 314, an act to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act; Bill No. 303, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934; and Bill No. 317, an act respecting the national film board.
Before we take up the bill concerning the national film board, we shall go into the estimates of the film board.


Howard Charles Green: Before?


Alphonse Fournier: Before we consider
the bill. At three o'clock in the afternoon we shall take up the estimates of the Department of Finance. If we do pass these bills, then the departments that are ready with their estimates are Resources and Development, Secretary of State, Post Office and Justice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We will take up finance estimates at three o'clock regardless of how you stand on the legislation?


Alphonse Fournier: Right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you continue with finance then until it is completed?


Alphonse Fournier: We hope it will be through at six o'clock because the Minister

of Finance is leaving and he will not be here next week. That is why we are bringing them on tomorrow afternoon. I understand they had a discussion yesterday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If we do finish at six are we going back to legislation in the evening?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, we will take legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said there were only these four bills left on the order paper. Are there any other bills to come in at this session?


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know of any other bills.


Mr. Sinclair:: The appropriation bill.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not know of any other bills except the appropriation bill.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say when the supplementary estimates will be down?


Alphonse Fournier: Three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, June 23, 1950