1950-05-29

Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it seems right and proper that the House of Commons and the public should be informed of the fact that the leading intellectuals of all political parties in the house spent the week end at Brockville in the county of Leeds, and in other parts of the province of Ontario. Speaking for myself and others, our visit was a great pleasure from every point of view. We enjoyed all the social functions, and gained firsthand knowledge of one of the beauty spots of Ontario. We visited the truly magnificent Thousand islands, the imposing, comfortable and beautiful tourist resorts of the county, and the industries of Brockville, the principal town.
What caught my attention and imagination was the complete cleanliness of the industrial plants, the beauty and tidiness of the outer surroundings, and the spirit of harmony prevailing between employer and employee. The tidy workshops of industry in the town of Brockville were very different from the dirty and miserable places in other large industrial centres of this country where people must toil day and night.
Our thanks and appreciation must go to the genial member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford). He is not here today, because he is attending the graduation of one of his sons from McGill university. I should also like to express our thanks and appreciation to his most amiable wife, to the mayor and aldermen of the civic corporations of Brockville and Gananoque, and the members of the chambers of commerce, for a wonderful time and an educational feast.
I hope and pray that in the future there will be more such visits from the east of Canada to the centre, from the west to the centre, and from the centre to the east and west, in order that members of the house may obtain firsthand knowledge of the wonderful country in which we are privileged to live.


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: Before the hon. member sits down, will he explain to the house what a leading intellectual is?


Mr. Cruickshank:: There are none over on that side.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), may I say that I was most happy to hear what the hon. member had to say about our visit to Brockville. I should like to express my sincere appreciation to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) for organizing the trip. I want to express my appreciation also to the city of Brockville, the town of Gananoque and their chambers of commerce, for their part in organizing the visit.
I should also like to refer to a telegram that has been on the bulletin board of the House of Commons since noon yesterday. It reads:
Alexandria Bay, N.Y.
May 27, 1950
George T. Fulford, M.P.,
House of Commons
The "Wylie for president" campaign has got off to an enthusiastic start. There is much room today for purity in politics.
W. Hornblower, chairman.
The telegram demonstrates that when members of the Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. and Social Credit groups get together on such a trip, we can do things.
Before I resume my seat may I say that the trip through the Thousand islands was very much appreciated; it was something I shall always remember. On behalf of those associated with me in this group may I say to those who were so thoughtful as to arrange for this trip, thanks a million.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the other representative of the proletariat who was with me, as well as for myself, I agree with What has been said by both hon. members who have spoken. We are very much indebted to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) and those associated with him in arranging this informative and interesting week end of recreation.
The trip also had international implications. We visited Alexandria Bay, New York, and were treated very kindly by the people of that area. You will notice that my vociferous friend from Alberta made such an impression over there that they are considering running him for president of the United States.

Rimouski and Cabano Fires
We had a very pleasant week end, and are greatly indebted to those who were responsible for it.
(Translation):



RIMOUSKI AND CABANO-VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER  SCOPE OF DEVASTATION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to report briefly to the house on what I have been able to observe in the course of the trip I made last Thursday and Friday to Rimouski and Cabano, where I visited the victims of the disasters which occurred in those two cities of the lower St. Lawrence.
I left Dorval Thursday morning with the Solicitor General (Mr. Lapointe), and Mr. Leopold Langlois, member for Gaspe, who acted as representative for the hon. member for Rimouski, Mr. Gleason Belzile. Brigadier Jean Allard, commanding officer of the Quebec military district, joined our party in Quebec city.
Perfect weather and visibility permitted us to have an aerial view of the damaged sections of the towns of Cabano and Rimouski, before we landed for our visit to these two interesting industrial centres.
After landing at Mont Joli airport, we were met by Brigadier A. Theriault, member of the federal-provincial commission which is to report on both disasters, and then our party proceeded immediately by motorcar to Rimouski.
We paid our first call to the city hall, where we were greeted by Mayor Victor Lepage. We met the members of the municipal council, the members of the relief committee, the civic department heads, the engineers, architects and technicians, all of whom were there on loan from the federal and provincial governments. We were shown the properties which were destroyed on the cadastral survey of the city. The plan would be to try to rebuild the district which was burned down by making a new cadastral survey which would take into account the views of the owners, engineers, surveyors and town-planners who are all working in very close co-operation. One can easily imagine the difficulty of the problem when one knows that the damaged area does not allow all previous owners to rebuild their homes if they are to be separated by sufficient space to prevent another disaster.

From the city hall, we went to visit the damaged area, where we met the superior of the seminary. As you know, half of the building, not being fireproof, was burned down. Then we met the nuns in charge of the hospital where extension works had been in progress. Unfortunately even in the fireproof section, flames spread through and caused damage. There we also saw the nuns in charge of the home for the aged and of the orphanage, both of which have disappeared; we also met the manager of the Price Company, whose mill was destroyed. At this time of the year, the mill employed between 500 to 600 men. Although the company's plans for the future are not yet determined, it is held that it will shortly be able to provide work for a good many workers.
We have seen the ruins of 359 houses, the destruction of which has left over 2,000 persons homeless.
Approximately one-quarter of the town has disappeared in this terrible fire, not to mention the vast area covered by the plant and lumber yards of the Price Company.
The canteen set up in the arena by the relief committee has operated very well and it still serves between 1,200 to 1,500 meals a day. In the committee's warehouses, we have been able to see great quantities of clothing, furniture, building material and goods of all sorts which were sent to the victims by sympathetic and generous people in Canada and the United States.
Toward the end of the afternoon, we called on the Archbishop of Rimouski, who expressed his gratitude for the sympathy shown to the population of his episcopal See.
Friday, we went to Cabano with the hon. member for Temiscouata, Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot. In that town, we were greeted by Mayor Emilien Morin and Rev. Canon Cyr, parish priest.
One hundred and fifty-nine homes were destroyed in Cabano, which left over 1,000 persons homeless. In Rimouski every victim took refuge elsewhere in the city and in surrounding villages; but it could not be so in Cabano, where close to a third of the village was destroyed and many of the victims still live under tents supplied by the army or other divisions of the dominion and provincial governments.
In Cabano, as well as in Rimouski, the army and Red Cross have performed an admirable task, and nothing was spared to save the victims from hunger and want.
The population of both localities is courageous and optimistic. The sympathy and

help which they have received are appreciated.
In both towns there are clever and enterprising administrators and businessmen who show a great deal of initiative. In Cabano, the manager of the Fraser Company, whose plant has not been destroyed, assured us that normal operations would be resumed this very morning.
I have conveyed to every one the sympathy of the people of Canada and in both places I stated, as I had done in this very house, that upon receipt of the report concerning the nature and extent of each of the two disasters the federal government would take a similar stand with respect to assistance as was taken in the case of the Fraser valley disaster in 1948.
The members of the commission of inquiry into the disasters at Rimouski and Cabano are proceeding with diligence and the government has reason to believe that they will report on the results of their investigation in the near future.
Mr. A. Phileas Cole (Malapedia-Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I wish to assure him and the government that the good people of my constituency, which adjoins Rimouski, scene of the terrible catastrophe, are entirely at the officials' disposal in order to help cope with this disastrous problem. The Matane civic authorities have already taken the necessary steps to have the home for the aged in that city replace that of Rimouski. The old Matane hospital has been furnished and will be turned over to the nuns whose own building was lost at Rimouski; this hospital, which is quite suitable, will be used to hospitalize the inmates of the home for the aged in Rimouski.
Many of the Rimouski fire victims have already taken refuge in the constituency of Matapedia-Matane. I am also sure that at Lac au Saumon and at Amqui, people are willing to do all that is humanly possible in order to relieve the hardship suffered by the citizens of Rimouski. Government officials are doubtless aware of the efforts that have already been made in this direction and they also realize that the good people of Matane are very anxious to help the fire victims of Rimouski, if only they are given the opportunity to do so.


Mr. J. G. L. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of my hon. friend from
Rimouski and Cabano Fires Rimouski (Mr. Belzile), who is at present confined to the hospital, I was indeed happy to represent him at Rimouski while accompanying the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Lapointe) on a tour of that stricken area. If I speak today on behalf of my colleague as well as of the people of the constituency of Rimouski, it is to thank publicly the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General for this visit, which was as much a token of sympathy as a means of investigation. My fellow citizens of the fire-ravaged town of Rimouski will most certainly have found in this evidence of interest and sympathy on the part of the government a most valuable incentive in the heavy task of reconstruction which now faces them as a result of this disaster.
I know also that the people of Rimouski were deeply moved by the visit paid them yesterday by Their Excellencies the Governor General and Lady Alexander. I am also certain that this expression of sympathy on the part of His Majesty's representative in Canada has been greatly appreciated by these sadly afflicted people.
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote), as well as his fellow citizens and constituents, for the generous support and valuable help they gave to the people of Rimouski during and since that disaster.
(Text):



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Katherine Madge Samworth Monty.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Clara Rosen Freedman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Frances Berman Mellor, otherwise known as Sharie Sinclaire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Rodolphe Durand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Helen Leek Karaszi.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Sadie Chernin Petruska, otherwise known as Sadie Chernin Prince.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Audrey Phyllis Angela Blom	Rochfort.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Patricia Ruth Segall Wener.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Sophie Piat-kowski Demyk.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Hilda Brooks Nangreaves.-Mr. Winkler-Bill No. 248, for the relief of Zemelia Katrina Ayoub MacDonald.-Mr. Winkler.

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

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	How many new post offices have been opened In Newfoundland since April 1, 1949?
2.	Where are they located?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	One.
2.	Shearstown:	2J miles west of Bay
Roberts, 21 miles north of Coley's Point, and 2\ miles south of Spaniard's Bay post offices.


CHANDOS, ONT., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	What changes, if any, have been made in the delivery of mail in the township of Chandos in the county of Peterborough?
2.	Will the department make any further changes to improve the delivery of mail in this township?


Mr. Lapointe:: 1.	None.
2.	Yes; two rural mail delivery routes are being established.



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Dube:: In respect of what research projects and in what amounts has approval been given for financial assistance to New Brunswick by the federal government under the national health grants program since the program started in 1948?


Mr. Martin:: Amount approved
Grant to assist in the study of the nutrition value of certain farm products and their relation to the general health of the population. Research will be carried out by the department of biology, university	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51of New Brunswick	
Research and development of narcoanalysis as a guide in diagnosis of mental	$ 7,500	$ 7,250disorders 	
Grant to the national research council for research in the use of ACTH and	$ 1,000	2,000	cortisone 	
Grant to the National Cancer Institute for	6,000	6,000research in cancer	
Grant to the Canadian Arthritis and Rheu-	7,500	7,500	7,500matism Society	
Sickness survey-Examination by statistical methods of a representative sample of the population as part of a nation-wide survey to determine the	1,719	incidence of sickness in Canada 	11,862$10,219	$23,000	$32,612Total	
$65,831



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
<

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Who was appointed co-ordinator of public projects, as announced by the then minister of reconstruction on April 12, 1945, as recorded in Hansard of that date, at page 810?

2.	Does anyone occupy this post today? If so, who? If not, how long has it been vacant?
3.	How much money was paid out (a) in salaries; (b) for all other items, in connection with the work of the co-ordinator of public projects?
4.	What are the names of the persons appointed to each regional council, one for each province and two each for Ontario and Quebec, for the purpose of recommending public projects, as announced by

the then minister of reconstruction on April 12, 1945, as recorded in Hansard of that date, at page 810?
5.	Are these councils or committees still functioning? If not, when did they cease to function?
6.	What are the names of those appointed to the
permanent executive staff of these councils or committees?	.
7.	Is this permanent executive staff still functioning? If not, when did it cease to function?
8.	How much money has been expended (a) in salaries or allowances; (b) for all other items, in connection with the work of these councils or committees, and in connection with the work of the permanent executive staff, since April 12, 1945?


Mr. Prudham:: Return tabled.



RED RIVER VALLEY


Mr. Winkler:: 1.	How many square miles are there in the plain known as the Red river valley in Manitoba?
2.	How many square miles are there in Manitoba and Saskatchewan draining directly or indirectly into the Assiniboine river?
3.	How many square miles on the second prairie level in Manitoba drain eventually into the Red river?
4.	How many dam-sites or storage reservoirs in the second prairie level have there been surveyed or projected by (a) P.F.R.A.; (b) international joint waterways commission?
5.	In regard to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, what information has been received from the international joint commission as to the area lying in the United States?
6.	In the Fraser river valley rehabilitation plan of 1948, how much was expended in diking?



VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What is the total number of farms and small holding establishments bought under the Veterans Land Act in Nova Scotia and comprising the district served by the Saint John, New Brunswick, office, since the act came into force?
2.	What has been the total cost of (a) such farms and small holdings; (b) constructed roads, water mains, sewers, and other improvements, for each project in the said district?
3.	What was the total number of farms and small holdings (a) occupied by veterans; (b) in the process of acquisition or improvement, in the said district at the end of the fiscal year 1949?
4.	What has been the total amount of "writedown" of assets on all such properties in the said district prior to sale to veterans?
5.	What have been the legal fees and the names of those to whom paid for each project during each fiscal year since the act came into force?
6.	What was the total cost for (a) salaries; (b) wages; (c) travelling allowances, of permanent and temporary employees in the said district during each fiscal year since the act came into force?
7.	What was the total amount of instalments payable in each fiscal year?
8.	What was the total amount of said instalments unpaid at the end of the fiscal year 1948-49?
55*946-186
Motions for Papers



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many applications in 1949-50 by persons who received prairie farm assistance in 1948-49 were rejected in whole or in part?
2. How many wives whose husbands received prairie farm assistance were awarded separate prairie farm assistance in 1948-49?
3.	Of this number, how many wives applications were (i) rejected for payment or amalgamated with that of the husband in 1949-50; (ii) passed again for separate payment in 1949-50?
4. How many wives whose husbands received prairie farm assistance were awarded separate payment in 1949-50?
5.	How many wives not applying for prairie farm assistance in 1948-49 applied for payment separate from their husbands in 1949-50?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a return showing the names and addresses of all companies or associations in Canada who are denied the use of the mails at the present time by virtue of any order or decision made since December 1, 1949, and showing also the reason and the authority for such denial in each case.


Mr. Lapointe:: I have discussed this motion with the hon. member, and in view of the statements made in the house on this matter, and the fact that the Minister of Justice has announced that consideration was being given to changes in the legislation, he has agreed to drop the motion.
Motion dropped.



INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of depositions and evidence taken before the income tax appeal board in the case between Mr. "C" and the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. Winters:: The third schedule of the Income War Tax Act, as enacted by section 22, chapter 55, statutes of 1946, provides:
7.	(2) An appeal may, in the discretion of the board as the case may be, be heard in camera or in public unless the appellant requests that it be heard in camera in which case it shall be so heard.
Section 82(2) of the Income Tax Act is in similar terms. It reads as follows:
An appeal may, in the discretion of the board, the chairman, the assistant chairman or hearing officer, as the case may be, be heard in camera or in public unless the appellant requests that it be heard in camera in which case it shall be so heard.
As appears from the judgment rendered by the income tax appeal board in this case, the appellant requested that the case be heard in camera and it was so heard.

Motions for Papers
On March 28 the Minister of National Revenue, in reply to a question from the member for Lake Centre said this, as recorded at page 1182 of Hansard:
I have handed to the hon. member for Lake Centre a copy of the reasons for judgment and of the minutes of judgment in. this particular case. So far as the evidence is concerned, that is not public or available because at the request of the appellant the case was heard in camera.
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I am unable to produce the information requested by the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not accept the
interpretation given as to the meaning of the Income Tax Act, and wish to appeal against the refusal.
' Mr. Speaker: Then I will have to put the question. Those in favour of the motion will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it, and I declare the motion lost.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: I was paire with the hon. member for Edmonton Ea (Mr. Macdonald).


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was paired with the ho: member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie). Ha I voted, I would have voted against tl motion.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Thatcher:: For a return showing the names and address of all persons employed under the Prairie Far Rehabilitation Act in the fiscal year ending Mari 31,	1949, together with wages, allowances ai
travelling expenses received by each employ during that year.


Mr. Gardiner:: I believe this motion as) for exactly the same information as has be< given before. I would like to discuss it wi the hon. member, who is not in his seat, at I therefore ask that it be allowed to stan


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



RED RIVER, -MAN.    PERMANENT WORKS AN DIKES

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence since the fii of May, 1950, with the government of the provin of Manitoba directly or indirectly relative to t liability of the dominion government for permane works and dikes on the Red river.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: We will of course ascertain that the government of Manitoba has no objection to the production of this correspondence, and I am sure it has not.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the reservation made by the Prime Minister.



MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER THURSDAY, JUNE 1

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Thursday, June 1, 1950, until the end of the session the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Before this motion carries I think the house .should consider the advisability of deferring the date for a week. I am making the suggestion because so many of the committees are sitting at the present time. Some committees have not by any means reached the reporting stage; some of them, in fact, have just begun to sit.
Our experience of the last week or so, when committees were sitting in the afternoon as well as in the morning, indicated the difficulty of hon. members paying attention to the business that was actually before the house. On a number of days last week I made a count of the hon. members in the chamber. I am not blaming hon. members who were out of the chamber, but at times during the week over a hundred members were absent, sitting on committees in the various committee rooms. Committees should be nearer the reporting stage before this motion is passed.
I looked up Hansard of the pre-war years -and this should be considered as a postwar sitting-and this is what I found. In 1935, for example, there were only three morning sittings out of 97 sitting days; in 1936 there were four morning sittings out of 91 sitting days; in 1937 there were nine morning sittings out of 62 sitting days. In 1938 there were only four out of 102; and in 1939, when we were dealing with defence matters because of the international situation that had developed, we did have 20 morning sittings out of 103 sitting days.
Even during the war we did not have a great many morning sittings. In the spring session of 1940 we had 11 morning sittings out of 61 sitting days. In 1941 we had 20 out of 105; in 1942 we had 13 out of 124; in 1943, 14 out of 120.
House of Commons
This is the sixty-sixth day of the session. It seems to me that a motion for morning sittings is premature, both because of the number of days we have sat, and because of the business of the house which has been referred to -committees, which is not completed and which will require a great deal of attention from hon. members.
While we are all anxious that the business of the house shall be completed before the intensely hot weather arrives, because when it is hot it is difficult to give the kind of attention that should be given to the business of the house, I think reconsideration should be given to the date, and I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "June 1" and substituting therefor the words "June 8."
This will give us one more week to complete the committee work, and a chance to attend to the business of the house as well as of the committees. Perhaps the Prime Minister would consider changing the date himself, so that I would not have to press the motion; but I wanted to put it regularly before the house.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that any reason has been put before the house for this motion; therefore I do not think we should add an amendment calling for morning sittings to start a week from June 1. I am not taking issue with the view expressed as to the undesirability of starting morning sittings at this point, but I do question the possibility that any of the committees will have presented their reports between now and a week from Thursday-
There is strong reason why the motion should not be pressed at this time. A number of extremely important committees are sitting. They are committees dealing with social security, public accounts and a number of other matters that are being examined with a great deal of care. Agriculture is coming up. The national defence committee is in process of considering a very long bill which has been referred to it. At the stage when we are asked to sit at eleven o'clock in the morning, at the same time as all these committees are meeting, a committee appointed with the authority of the government, on motion of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) to deal with amendments to the elections act, has not yet been called, although the question has been asked several times when it would meet. If there has been any delay in the convening of these committees then the responsibility for that delay must be fully

House of Commons
assumed by the government and those charged with the responsibility of directing the business of the house.
Members on the government side, as on this side, who have been attending these committees have been showing a commendable desire, in a great many of the committee activities-in fact, in most of them-to produce useful results and to facilitate the business of the house. I do not think it is possible for members who are sitting on several committees-and their number involves an actual majority of the members of the house-to give consideration to the business of those committees and also to give proper consideration to the business before the house.
No matter what any member may feel about the time that may have been devoted to the discussion of any particular subject, it should be remembered that we have not disposed of the estimates of a single department, that we have dealt with only a few departments, and that the fundamentally important business of the House of Commons, which is the provision of money for the public business, still has to be dealt with.
Particularly in view of the reluctance to set up a committee on estimates, and the invitation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to examine the estimates carefully-which invitation, I may say, will be accepted-I do submit through you, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is premature. If it is intended that the committees shall have the opportunity to deal with their very important business as they should, this motion should not be pressed but rather should stand until there is some opportunity to see how rapidly the committees can proceed with their work.
Let us recall the criticism that there has been no attempt made fully to examine all the facts. May I say that with a committee on estimates sitting there would be an opportunity to do that. But if there is an attempt to proceed at the same time both in the house and in committees, and it is not humanly possible for members to deal adequately with all these activities, then there may well be justification for the suggestion that there has not been afforded a proper opportunity to go into such questions as social security, public accounts, agriculture, and all these other matters which are under consideration-to say nothing of the very important committee moved by a minister of the crown to deal with amendments to the elections act and certain recommendations which have been made.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, as a private member I venture to rise, because sometimes private members have

a little bit of sense. I think the Prime Minister has been very patient during this session, and when we think of those who see us from another place we should mend our ways.


George Alexander Drew: Which place?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If we are serious in our business, then perhaps we could make better speeches by cutting them from forty minutes to about ten minutes. That is one of the things I have discovered, as a member of the House of Commons, namely, the number of hon. members who can sit and listen so long and so often.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to discuss this matter at length. The record of proceedings will show what questions hon. members have felt were more important than the estimates, when motions have been made to go into supply. Hansard will show who the hon. members are who felt that there were more important questions they wished to raise.
With respect to the sittings of committees, the leader of the opposition has said that old age security and public accounts committees have not finished their work. I have looked up Votes and Proceedings for May 12, where I find that there is a notice for a meeting of the committee on old age security at four o'clock. There are notices for meetings on May 16 at four o'clock and May 17 at four o'clock.
In the last issue of Votes and Proceedings I find the committee on old age security called for four o'clock on May 29, for four o'clock on Tuesday, May 30, and for four o'clock on Wednesday, May 31. Those are the dates I have looked up. That committee got leave to sit while the house is sitting, and they have taken advantage of the leave that was granted to them.
This motion was submitted upon the suggestion of a large number of members from all quarters of the house. The leader of the C.C.F. party has now moved an amendment. I am going to vote against that amendment, but I am not making any recommendation to any of my followers. They are free to vote as they feel. Members of the house will be free to vote on the question whether this proposal should become effective on June 8 instead of on June 1 as is proposed. We will see just what is the feeling of a majority of members of the house.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if there is anyone who is more anxious to get home than I am. However, we have

come here to represent our people. Something has been said about committees not reporting. On March 6 I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) if he would refer the last report of the Canadian wheat board to the committee on agriculture for examination. I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He did not say flatly that he would not, but he did not give much encouragement.
Recently amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act have been referred to a committee. There are other matters of great importance before committees. I do not wish to miss any of the proceedings of the committee on agriculture, nor do I wish to miss sittings of the committee of the whole when there are estimates before it. We must give serious consideration to these very important items in committee, and yet we should be in the house when there are important matters before it.


Mr. A. Phileas Cote (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, as suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), every member should have his say in this matter. As one of those members let me point out that I have witnessed what has gone on since the beginning of the session. Every time the government has moved to go into supply on the estimates, the leader of the opposition has had something to say, about twice a week, so that those estimates have had to be placed in the background. I have not counted how many times it has occurred, but it has extended over several weeks. The only reason we have not finished the estimates is because of the leader of the opposition, and not because of the government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How do you
know? You were not here.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: You had
better check, because at times you do not see what is going on.


James Arthur Ross: You cannot see if you are not here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: The leader of the opposition has suggested that every member should have a say in this regard. We are faced with the proposal of the government that we sit from eleven o'clock in the morning. I for one am willing to agree to that, and it seems that the main objection to doing so is that the committee on privileges and elections has not yet been called to sit. I suggest to the leader of the opposition there is no urgency connected with that matter. There will be no election this year or next year-
House of Commons


An hon. Member:: Who told you?


Mr.   Coie@Maiapedia-Maiane: -because the government has a majority. It seems to be elementary, my dear Watson. Even with committees meeting it is feasible to sit from eleven o'clock instead of from three, if we take note of the attendance in the house. If the opposition had demonstrated up to now a willingness to speed up the business of the government and of parliament it would have saved a lot of the taxpayers' money, and I would say O.K. However, every time that the government has moved to go into supply the leader of the opposition has stood up and put forward an amendment. I have not counted the number of times he has done so, but they run to a baker's dozen.
So far as the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) is concerned, I do not think that postponing the commencement of morning sittings for one week matters very much. Why waste time discussing the question of allowing one more week before putting morning sittings into effect? I believe we should get down to business and try to carry on. If we do not have the proper number in the house on any occasion, then we can call for those who are attending committees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made reference to the fact that the committee on old age security has been holding a number of its meetings in the afternoon. He mentioned that in answer to the reference of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to the fact that it was one of the important committees now sitting. It is true, as the Prime Minister indicated, that a number of its meetings are held commencing at four o'clock in the afternoon while the house is sitting. As a matter of fact our recent practice has been to hold meetings at four o'clock in the afternoon three days a week, but we also meet at eleven o'clock in the morning two days a week. One of the reasons that we have to hold some of our meetings in the afternoon is that so many committees are sitting that there are not enough rooms or reporters available for them all to meet in the morning. I suggest if the house starts to sit in the morning as well it will make it most complicated and difficult for these important committees to complete their work. So far as the committee on old age security is concerned, we are reaching the most important stage of our deliberations-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and to interfere with its work at this time is not fair to members of

House of Commons
the committee. The hon. member for Mata-pedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) and others who are shouting "question" now seem to think that the chief aim of parliament is to get through and to go home. If hon. members simply want to go home, why did they not stay there in the first place? The job of parliament is to deal with the business of the country. I think the notion that shortening the session of parliament is our chief aim is completely wrong. Our task is to deal with the business of the country. Those whom the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) lauds for sitting still should consider whether they are attending to the business that they were sent here to deal with.


Mr. Sinclair:: You go to the other extreme and talk too much.


Mr. Cote (Malapedia-Malane):: On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should impute any motive to me from what I said. My remarks were not made for the reason he suggests. I think we have been here long enough, and I think the hon. member is one of those most responsible for not having finished the business of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not catch all that the hon. member said, but if he said that I am one of the most responsible members, it would hardly be fair for me to quarrel with him.


Alcide Côté: You are
responsible for our being in this spot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is one
other point I wish to make. As long as I have been here, it has been the practice for some consultation to take place amongst the various parties before such a motion as this is put upon the order paper. Either the Prime Minister has got in touch with the leaders of the other groups, or the government whip has got in touch with the whips of the other parties. Sometimes the house leader has done so. I know that on several occasions in the past the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), as house leader, has suggested a certain date to us, and we have objected to it and suggested a later date. Nevertheless we were able to reach a compromise, and then there was no delay when the matter came before the house. On this occasion the motion was simply put on the order paper. Certainly nobody in this group had any suggestion made to him about it, and there was no consultation at all so far as we are concerned. The other groups will have to speak for themselves, but I doubt if they were consulted either.


Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: The rump was
consulted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not heard of any
consultation taking place this session with respect to this matter. One of the things that is wrong with this parliament and its overwhelming majority is this notion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that whatever they want they can have without consulting those who happen to be in the minority groups. Since the motion would not go into effect until Thursday, and since my leader's amendment would not go into effect until a week from Thursday, I suggest to the Prime Minister that the proper thing for him to do now is to have the debate adjourned-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and let there be a conference among representatives of the parties to see if we cannot work out some reasonable arrangement. Members on the government side, Mr. Speaker, are always crying for cooperation, but they sit here with their majority of 190 or so and think that co-operation means that the minority should always agree with them.


Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, when I was a boy in the navy we had a favourite saying that empty vessels make the most sound. I think that some of the reflections cast upon hon. members were uncalled for. Generally speaking I believe that members of the house without exception pay attention to their duties. If some of us spoke as much as some members-


James Sinclair: One member.


Humphrey Mitchell: -it would not be sufficient to extend our sittings two hours a day; we would need twenty-five hours every day seven days a week. My hon. friend says that we want to go home. Of course we do. I am dreaming of a white Christmas. There are some members who think that the destiny of the nation spins around the fact that they are members of the House of Commons. I have seen a good many people come here and go like ships that pass in the night. I am convinced that the quicker we get down to work the better it will be. If hon. members cannot get up in the morning, that is their business, not the business of the government. Let them get down here and get to work. You are not fooling the Canadian people, you know; the only people you are fooling are yourselves. Let us vote for or against this motion, irrespective of the part of the house in which we sit, and then for goodness' sake let us get down to business and do some work this afternoon. It is ten minutes after four already, and we have done nothing yet.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the main motion carry?
Messrs:
Vdamson
\rgue
Balcer
31ack (Cumberland)
31air
Bryce
tasselman
Joldwell
Diefenbaker
Drew
Fleming
Fulton
Sillis
Sreen
Hansell
Harkness
Herridge
Hodgson
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
McLure
Noseworthy
Pearkes
Ross (Souris)
Stanfield
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Wright-30.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Abbott Applewhaite Ashbourne Bater Beaudoin Bennett Bertrand Blackmore Blanchette Boisvert Boucher Bradette Bradley Brisson Bruneau Byrne Campney Carroll Carter Cauchon Cavers
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Croll
Cruickshank
Dechene
Decore
Dewar
Dickey
Dube
Fair
Ferrie
Fournier (Hull)
Gardiner
Garson
Gauthier (Sudbury)
Gauthier (Portneuf)
George
Gibson
Gingues
Goode
Gosselin
Gregg
Harris (Danforth)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Harrison
Healy
Helme
Henderson
Hetland
Homuth
Jutras
Kent
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) LaCroix
Langlois (Gaspe)
Lapointe
Leger
Lesage
Little
MacDougall
MacKenzie
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught McCulloch McCusker
McDonald (Parry Sound-Muskoka)
Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McWilliam
Major
Martin
Masse
Matthews
Maybank
Mitchell
Mott
Mutch
Pouliot
Prudham
Quelch
Richard (Ottawa East)
Roberge
Robinson
Rooney
St. Laurent
Shaw
Simmons
Sinclair
Smith (Queens-Shelburne)
Smith (Moose Mountain) Stewart (Yorkton)
Stick
Studer
Thomas
Tustin
Viau
Warren
Weaver
Weir
Welbourn White (Hastings-Peterborough)
Winkler Winters Wylie-104.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Main motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to on division.



NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for ihe Minister of Fisheries) moved:: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification, without reservation. of the .international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries, signed in Washington on February 8. 1949, but subject to the observation that ratification by Canada of the convention extends to Newfoundland and that any claims Canada may have in regard to the limits of territorial waters or to the jurisdiction over fisheries, particularly as a result of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, will not be prejudiced, and that this house do approve same.


Mr. J. W. MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the northwest Atlantic area has been, during several centuries, an important fishing ground for the nationals of North American and western and southern European countries. Recognizing the need for scientific investigation and protection of the fishery resources of this area, Canada, the United States of America, Great Britain, Newfoundland, France, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and Italy signed the international convention for the northwest Atlantic fisheries following a conference in Washington in February, 1949.
The convention provides for the establishment of a commission on which all contracting governments will be represented, and separate panels with jurisdiction over defined sub-areas in which governments with particular fishing interests will have representations. The over-all area covered by the convention is divided into five sub-areas. These areas generally cover the waters off the west coast of Greenland, and the waters off the coasts of Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the New England states of the United States. Provision is made in the convention to safeguard any claims to territorial waters, or jurisdiction over the fisheries of the contracting parties.
The primary functions of the commission under the convention will be to collect, collate and disseminate scientific information on international fisheries in the convention area. The commission has no regulatory powers, but any panel may transmit, through the commission to the governments represented on
294S

Halibut Fishery
such panel, recommendations for joint action of a regulatory nature in respect of those stocks of fish that support international fisheries.
The permanent seat of the commission will be in North America at a place to be determined by the commission. The convention will enter into force upon ratification by any four signatory governments. The convention has now been ratified by Great Britain, Iceland and the United States. It would accordingly come into force upon deposit of the instrument of ratification by Canada.
At the Washington conference which adopted the convention, Newfoundland was represented by a separate delegation, .and the convention was signed "for His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom and the government of Newfoundland in respect of Newfoundland." The United Kingdom government, in depositing their instrument of ratification, drew attention to the fact that their ratification did not include ratification in respect of Newfoundland. When the Canadian government ratifies this convention an observation will be attached to our instrument of ratification, making clear that the ratification covers Newfoundland, and pointing out that the provision in the convention safeguarding any claims to territorial waters has taken a broader meaning as far as the Canadian government is concerned since Newfoundland has been united with Canada. This observation will therefore assert that the Canadian ratification is on the basis that the provision referred to above entirely protects all claims to territorial waters and jurisdiction over fisheries, particularly as a result of the alteration in the Canadian boundaries that has taken place by the joining of the tenth province.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alphonse Fournier: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the ratification, without reservation, of the convention for the extension of port privileges to halibut fishing vessels on the Pacific coasts of the United States of America and Canada, signed at Ottawa on March 24, 1950, and that this house do approve same.


John Watson MacNaught: The
convention provides for reciprocal port privileges to be granted to halibut fishing [Mr. MacNaught.l
vessels of Canada and the United States in the ports on the Pacific coasts of each country. The privileges are:
(1)	to land their catches of halibut and sablefish without the payment of duties and
(a)	sell them locally on payment of the applicable customs duty;
(b)	transship them in bond under customs supervision to any part of either country; or
(c)	sell them in bond for export; and
(2)	to obtain supplies, repairs and equipment, subject to compliance with applicable customs and navigation laws of either country.
These privileges which have been granted heretofore on an annual basis by special legislation will now be made available to the halibut fishermen of both countries on a continuing basis, so that in advance of the fishing season the fishing industry will be assured of the privileges that will be available.
In addition, the convention will alter the present practice in one other respect. It will extend the reciprocal port privileges to Canadian halibut vessels in ports of the United States proper, whereas at present these privileges are granted only in the ports of Alaska.
The convention will continue for an indefinite time, but can be terminated by either government upon 12 months' notice.
A recent survey of the opinion of the fishing industry on the Pacific coast indicated general support in favour of the treaty.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly in support of this resolution providing for the adoption of the treaty which deals with reciprocal port privileges for fishermen of the Pacific coast. But before dealing with the treaty itself, may I be permitted to make one other observation. This convention was signed on March 24 last for Canada by R. W. Mayhew and for the United States of America by the late Laurence A. Steinhardt. I wish to take just a moment to pay my little tribute to that outstanding gentleman, one of whose last official acts was the signing of this convention. We on the Pacific coast had the pleasure of meeting His Excellency and discussing with him several matters relative to fishing, Alaska and other subjects; and I know that I am expressing the feelings of all my people who met him when I say how deeply we regret his loss.
With reference to the convention itself, for the fishing people of my district I welcome this convention. As a Canadian, I welcome it as just another of the many examples of good neighbourliness between ourselves and

the United States. As has been said, this convention is similar to an agreement already in force applicable to British Columbia and Alaska ports; but it extends the operation of the agreement to the Pacific coast ports of the United States proper. I hope that this convention will be lived up to fully by both countries; and it is just on that point that I want to take a minute or two of the time of the house.
Articles I and II are the operative articles. They are similar except that article I refers to the privileges we are granting to American vessels and article II refers to the privileges of Canadian vessels in American ports.
Article II reads as follows:
Fishing vessels of Canada engaged in the north Pacific halibut fishery only shall, subject to compliance with applicable customs and navigation laws of the United States of America, have the privileges, in the ports of entry of the United States of America:
(1)	To land their catches of halibut and sablefish without the payment of duties and
(a)	sell them locally on payment of the applicable customs duty;
(b)	transship them in bond under customs supervision to any port of Canada; or
(c)	sell them in bond for export; and
(2)	To obtain supplies, repairs and equipment.
I wish particularly to draw the attention of the parliamentary assistant to those words "halibut fishery only" which appear in the opening lines of the article. I know that later on it grants the privileges of landing halibut and sablefish. I am not for one moment suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that there was anything but the best of good faith on the part both of the United States and of Canada when this convention was negotiated and signed. But customs officers, both American and Canadian, cannot all be experts on fish nor experts in reading legal documents. Any customs officer or port official, suddenly and for the first time faced with a case under this treaty, might quite easily glance at these words "halibut fishery only" and come to the conclusion that the treaty applies to halibut only. Like myself, he might not know what sablefish includes. He might not know that it included cod.
This is not just a theoretical fear. About two years ago a case occurred in connection with this treaty before it was extended beyond Alaska. My recollection of that case is that a Canadian vessel put into the port of Sitka and was refused permission to land ten thousand pounds of cod, but she was partly disabled and unable to proceed. The matter was taken up with the appropriate authorities; but fresh cod does not remain fresh cod while awaiting the outcome of negotiations between Washington and Ottawa.
International Labour Organization Eventually, I understand, instructions were issued pointing out to the Alaska customs officials that their decision was in error. But in the meantime the cod had had to be dumped, a total loss. My request to the parliamentary assistant is that the Department of Fisheries, in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs, or whatever other authorities are proper, shall make absolutely certain that the customs and port officials will know just what this convention does mean. Inasmuch as fish, as I have said, is such a perishable product, it is essential that these officers be fully briefed before any occasion arises to use the advantages of the treaty. Before this short debate is concluded, when he closes it, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to give us an assurance on that point.	.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Humphrey Mitchell: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of convention No. 88, employment service convention, 1948, which was adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization at its thirty-first session at San Francisco on the ninth day of July, 1948, and that this house do approve of the same.
He said: The purpose of this resolution is to obtain the approval by parliament of an international labour convention passed by the general conference of the international labour organization at San Francisco at its thirty-first session in June, 1948. This convention, No. 88, is designated the employment service convention, 1948. Copies of the text have been distributed to hon. members. Upon approval of its terms by parliament, the government proposes to proceed to the ratification of the convention.
Convention No. 88 provides that each member state ratifying the convention shall maintain a free public employment service, consisting of a national system of employment offices under the jurisdiction of a national authority. The duty of the employment service shall be to ensure the best possible organization of the labour market, in co-operation with other public and private bodies concerned. Co-operation of employers and workers shall be secured through national, regional and local advisory committees.

International Labour Organization
The organization of the employment service shall be so arranged as to assist workers to find suitable employment and to assist employers to find suitable workers on a voluntary basis. It shall also facilitate the movement of workers to areas with suitable employment opportunities, shall collect and make available information on the employment market, co-operate in the administration of unemployment insurance and other measures for the relief of the unemployed, assist in social and economic planning to ensure a favourable employment situation, and by vocational guidance endeavour to meet adequately the needs of particular categories of persons, such as disabled persons and young persons.
The Canadian representatives at the San Francisco conference voted for the approval of this convention.
It will be evident, I think, to all hon. members that Canada is already in full compliance with the provisions of the convention. Under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, we have established and are operating a national employment service in conjunction with the unemployment insurance provisions of the act. The nature and standards of service provided by the national employment service under the act are certainly at least as high and as complete as those laid down in the convention.
The opinion of the law officers of the crown is that it is within the legislative competence of parliament to give effect to this convention, and no new legislation is required for this purpose.
The convention has already been ratified by the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Bulgaria.
In my opinion, Canada should proceed to the ratification of this convention for the reason that in the provision and operation of our national employment service we have given effect to the convention, and to indicate Canada's approval of its objectives and thus to give leadership and support to higher international labour standards, and for the establishment of similar services in other countries.
Perhaps I should explain just what obligations follow upon the ratification of an international labour organization convention by a member state. When the formal ratification has been communicated to the director general of the international labour organization, the ratifying state is required to take such action as may still be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the convention within the state by the enactment of legislation or otherwise, if this has not already been done.

Each of the states ratifying the convention agrees to make periodic reports to the international labour office on the measures which it has taken to give effect to the provisions of the convention. In short, a member state ratifying a convention undertakes an obligation that the provisions of the convention shall be given continuing effect in that its legislation and practice on the subject are on a level at least as high as the standards set by the provisions of the particular convention.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add only a sentence. We regard this as a commendable international effort to find a minimum base-I think no one suggests it is any more than that-from which fair legislation may grow. I am happy to know that we in Canada and in the various Canadian provinces have gone a long way- in fact we have shown leadership-in establishing such a base.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say. In fact, I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), namely, that we regard the international labour organization as one of the most valuable pieces of international machinery established thus far. It has survived the test of a good many years as an international organization. We feel, too, that the means whereby the ILO works is a very useful and practical one, namely, that of having conventions considered and ratified at ILO conferences, following which that ratification is confirmed by the various countries represented.
This particular convention concerning employment services does seem to be one that is highly desirable to be laid down as a minimum for all countries that belong to the international labour organization. I think we would agree that Canada has gone at least some distance in pursuit of the principles laid down in this convention.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of those motions for which there is only one stage of debate. When this motion carries, that is the end of it so far as this house is concerned. But the minister can close the debate, and I would like, if I may, to ask a couple of questions-rhetorically-and perchance the minister would be good enough to answer them. My first question is this: First of all, does the government feel that there are any further steps that it will have to take, after it deposits the ratification of this convention, to make sure that Canada is


living up to all of the terms of this convention? My second question is: Are there any outstanding ILO conventions which Canada has not yet ratified?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker-


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


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not so enthusiastic about the ratification of this convention as some other hon. members seem to be, although I am not going to object seriously to it. I have a background which perhaps largely governs my thinking, and I must confess that I always look a little askance at the possibility of entangling ourselves with international organizations. I know that today civilization has reached a place where no nation lives unto itself. Nevertheless the tendency all around us in these days is to give to some outside body authority which belongs to us over our own affairs. I have never been able to bring myself to believe that is a wise move at any time.
While I am desirous that all nations should co-operate one with another, I believe we are headed for trouble if we put authority in the hands of any international body which would in any way eventually impose its will upon any individual nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, paying some little attention to this particular convention, I must say that I am disappointed we did not have this printed or mimeographed document presented to us before. It was lying on our desks when we came here at three o'clock. The motion to adopt it was moved just a few moments ago. Between three o'clock and four-thirty our minds have been engaged in other matters. What opportunity have we had, as members of parliament, to read this convention in the last hour and a half? Yet we are now called upon as the parliament of Canada to ratify it.
I believe this could have been done tomorrow or on a subsequent day, and that a convention of this kind might well have been sent to the committee on industrial relations for further study. As the convention is not greatly involved, perhaps it has been considered unnecessary to send it to that committee. However, there may be underlying it certain principles a committee would have had an opportunity to consider in greater detail than can be expected in this house at the present time.
As I have glanced at it here and there in the last short while, it appears to me that Canada has already gone as far as this convention would go in respect of the management of our own labour problems. We have
, 1950
International Labour Organization done this through the medium of the various employment offices across the country, and have been doing it for some years. In my view those employment offices have been doing a good job. While I have been in touch with only one or two of them, I have no fault to find, and would commend them.
I believe I am not far wrong when I say that at the international labour conference held at San Francisco they spent a great deal of time and energy, and must have spent a large sum of money, in attempting to do something Canada has already done. That is the way I feel about it; and there is no reason in the world why any other nation could not have done the same thing without necessarily subscribing to a convention of this kind. Those are my personal feelings in the matter.
As I look through the convention, about the only feature of an international nature I can find is that which appears at page 2, as article VI (b) (iv), which refers to facilitating the movement of workers from one country to another, as approved by the governments concerned. I had to read all the way down to that sentence to learn what the international aspect was. Up to that point it described only something we have already done.
I call the attention of the house to article V on page 2 which states:
The general policy of the unemployment service in regard to referral of workers to available employment shall be developed after consultation of representatives of employers and workers through the advisory committees provided for in article IV.
As I read that, I thought I had never
seen the word referral before. I do not claim to be a grammarian-indeed, sometimes I think I murder the King's English- but in this instance I called for the dictionary that is usually kept on the Clerk's table. It is the Concise Oxford Dictionary, and I find it does not contain the word referral. Therefore I am still at a loss to know what it means. I fancy it is a word which has been cleverly coined, and that its actual meaning is to transfer. When we talk about the transfer of workers it connotes to us something that might be dangerous in a free country like Canada.
When it comes to matters of employment, I believe we must view them from the standpoint of the obvious fact that we are living in a civilization moving at such a rapid pace that we have passed the day when we can think and talk in terms of full employment. Therefore we have to devise other means and think of things in terms other than those of simply putting everybody to work. Governments will be faced with almost insurmountable difficulties-I was going to say

International Labour Organization impossibilities-in an age such as that in which we live, where we have technological advances which are continually putting people out of work, an age in which we encourage technological advancement. We do that on the one hand, and then on the other we talk in terms of full employment.
* I remember a lobbyist coming to my office some few years ago and asking me a number of questions. I felt I should have been the one asking the questions, but it was he who began the questioning by asking, "Do you believe in full employment, Mr. Hansell?" "Well," I said, "you tell me what you mean by full employment. Define your term." I continued, "When I was a boy my father used to get up with the chickens, work hard all day, and perhaps go to bed at dusk. He did that six days a week. I suggest to you that that would be full employment. Is that what you mean?" Oh no, he did not mean that. Labour organizations usually work eight hours a day, and he fancied that eight hours a day for six days a week would be full employment. I said, "No, I do not believe in that sort of full employment. I believe in six hours a day; I believe in four hours a day. What do you have to say to that?" He said, "Well, that would be very nice if we as workers could get by with working four or six hours a day, but I am afraid we would not be able to earn enough money working that number of hours." I said, "That depends on how much an hour you are getting." He said to me, "Well, of course, a man getting $1 an hour and working eight hours a day would get $8 a day, and if he were only working four hours he would only get $4 a day." I said, "Yes, that is a very profound observation." He said that he would not be able to live on that. I said, "Suppose the whole industrial machinery' of the country working four hours a day should produce an overabundance of things. What then? If there were a possibility of augmenting your wages in some other way in order that you might have the advantage of the great production of the nation, would that not do?" He said, "I suppose it would, but is there any way that can be done?" I said, "I will tell you what to do. You call on Mr. King and ask him if he has a way he can suggest. Then after that call on Mr. Bracken and ask him if he has any way in which to handle a thing like that. When you are through with him call on Mr. Coldwell and ask him if he has any way of overcoming that difficulty. When you find they have no way then come back to me and we will talk a little further about it."

I have not seen the gentleman since but I think I can draw some rather correct conclusions. Returning to the document, I should like to suggest-and I say this purely on my own responsibility-that after the international labour organization has brought industry and labour into the position of a socialist state they will have all the stage work done for Uncle Joe. I see in this document something respecting the transfer of workers. That is exactly what Stalin would like us to have. I see no difficulty in the way of each country being able to run its own industrial organization in a co-operative way with one country learning from another. My profound conclusion is that the more we tie our hands to an international authority the less authority we shall have over the management of our own affairs.
Not so long ago we listened in the house to the pipe lines debate which took a long time to finish. The press and others referred to it as a filibuster. I am not debating that now, but there was one note sounded in that debate, and I have no objection to its being sounded." The view was expressed that we were taking our natural resources and giving them away to another nation. In the first place we were not giving them away. If we had any natural resources to dispose of we were selling them. That is one place where a mistake was made in the phraseology because we were not giving anything away. In some quarters of the house the measures were vigorously opposed because, so they said, we were giving away some of our natural resources. It was said that we must not do that, but when it comes to international organizations we can give away our freedom as fast as you like, and no objection is raised to that. I would rather sell our natural resources to another nation than give away some of our sovereignty, thus rendering us less free to manage our own affairs.
I simply warn of the danger of entangling ourselves with international organizations which will have the effect of outside authorities telling us how to run our own business and we shall not be able to tell them to mind their own business. That is the way I feel about these questions. As I said before, I see nothing particularly harmful in this convention, because I think we are several jumps ahead of it. In Canada we have already established our local employment offices that are able to do a good job. Let other nations take a leaf from the management of our affairs and do likewise.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this document and

the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not take the pessimistic view of these international arrangements that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) does. I believe it is a demonstration that nations can co-operate even under most difficult world conditions to produce something worth while and of mutual advantage. The document is the result of co-operative effort which the hon. member for Macleod has suggested should be undertaken. Even under today's difficult world conditions, when many people feel frustrated because of the difficulties experienced in reaching common agreement among the nations of the world, I am one of those who believe that it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I look upon this document, dealing as it does with the international labour organization, as a little candle in international relations in a somewhat dark world.
I rose particularly to ask the minister two questions. I notice the document was adopted on July 9, 1948. Why has there been such a delay in presenting it to the house? Second, the document was on our desks when we came into the house this afternoon. Why was it not made available a day or two before so that members might have had an opportunity to study it before the resolution was brought before the house?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Order. I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Humphrey Mitchell: The international labour office is the oldest international organization in existence today. It was founded in 1919 in the city of Washington, U.S.A. I might point out to my hon. friend that at the Paris peace conference of 1918, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Borden, the principles of this organization were enunciated, and eventually the ILO was established in Washington the following year. If I remember rightly Senator Robertson was one of the official delegates at that time. I forget the others, though I knew them quite well.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) spoke of national sovereignty. I do not think anyone in this house is going to suggest that the sovereignty of this nation be given up to any other nation. This is merely a declaration, to establish a principle. I would point out also that this is a tripartite organization, consisting of representatives of employers, employees and the governments of the respective countries; and I believe that
International Labour Organization in a broad and general way it has had a tremendous influence on what might be called the more backward countries of the world, in raising the standard of employment conditions and other things we have taken for granted in this country down through the years. I think perhaps it has contributed more than any other international organization, whether it be political, financial'or anything else. I am not going to get into an argument about the financial aspect, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Macleod. This is not the time or place for that debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked whether any changes would be made to fit our system into this convention. I believe I made it clear in my opening statement that to my knowledge we are living up to all the provisions of the convention, and the hon. member may rest assured that from time to time the government will endeavour to increase the efficiency of the employment service of this country. As Canadians I think we can be proud of the speedy development of that organization. I lived through the agitation for it for thirty years, when the labour organizations of this country were violently opposing the maintenance of fee-charging employment agencies. Those of us who were close to the situation during those days know something of what that practice did to the working people of this country. This afternoon we have heard representatives of every party in the house, including the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), agree that this convention should be adopted, so that would seem to be the thought of every party here.
My hon. friend asked why this resolution was not introduced last year. That was not done for the simple reason that last year we had a situation somewhat similar to the situation developing this year. There is a limit to human endurance. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre smiles. That is the easiest thing in the world to do when you have no responsibility. Let me remind the hon. member that it costs more than $6,000 for every minute this house is in operation. I wish someone who has more leisure than I would count the time some hon. members have taken up in this house and multiply it by six thousand. I am a great believer in the British way of discussion. I think a better speech can be made in ten minutes than in forty minutes, and if

International Labour Organization you cannot say all you know about a subject in twenty minutes you do not know anything about it. The hon. member for Macleod was speaking about long words, and I forget the one he used; but I am a great believer in basic English. When you are in a jam, use a long word to get yourself out of it. No one will understand it, including yourself.
Then I was asked why this document had not been circulated before this. Well, it is a public document, and I believe the basic principles were carried in the Labour Gazette. As an afterthought it occurred to me that it might be circulated to hon. members today.
1 do not believe it would have made any difference if it had been circulated earlier, because we are all agreed upon the soundness of the principles under discussion. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked what interest the government had taken in the I.L.O. As a federal parliament we have so far approved twelve conventions. Anyone who has followed the work of the I.L.O. closely knows the difficulties that occur in what we call a federal state. They have the same problems in the United States, Australia, and other countries in connection with the approval of these conventions. In the United States and Canada hours and wages, for instance, come under the jurisdiction of the state and provincial governments. In Australia there is also divided authority on labour relations, and the same might be said of South Africa. There is one reason we have not approved as many conventions on paper as some other countries. Anything works on paper, but I like to see a plan in operation day after day. I seem to recall that prior to the last war the nation that had adopted the most conventions at the I.L.O. was Roumania, but I do not hear of anyone in Canada wanting to live in Roumania. I have some knowledge of many Roumanians who want to come to Canada, and I do not blame them. I believe the adoption of any policy by a deliberative assembly like this house should be based upon the practical application,of that policy to the lives of the people to whom we are responsible.
I do not believe there is much more I can say, except to remind hon. members that the
I.L.O. will be in session next month in Geneva. I wish I could be there; I hear someone say they wish they could see me there. In all my years as Minister of Labour I have not attended a convention of the I.L.O. outside this country. Mine is a busy department, as hon. members know, and I have never had that opportunity. Some day I would like to attend a meeting of the I.L.O. in Geneva, representative as it is of more than fifty nations and making, as it does, a great

contribution to the lives of the men and women who work on the farms, in the mines, in the industry and commerce of the countries affiliated with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister sits down I should like to thank him for the answers he gave to some of our questions. I am not sure that he gave a complete answer to my question as to whether there were any outstanding conventions of the I.L.O. which Canada has not endorsed. He made reference to the conventions respecting wages and hours. Are there any others?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am speaking from memory, and I would not want to mislead my hon. friend or the house, but I rather fancy there may be one or two. However, they do not come within the jurisdiction of my department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Arthur Ross: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister now prepared to make a considered statement in answer to a question I asked on May 24 as reported at page 2800 of Hansard, namely:
Will consideration be given to the request of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that contributions to the Manitoba flood relief fund be exempted from taxation over and above the five per cent now allowed corporations and the ten per cent allowed individuals?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the act covers the circumstances I reported to the house in Hansard, page 2423. If anything more is to be done, it will come within the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Finance, who is aware of my hon. friend's request and is giving it consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: In the absence of the Secretary of State, may I direct a question to the chairman of the committee on printing? I refer to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Will the request of the Ottawa typographical union for one or more of their representatives to appear before the committee on printing to discuss matters relating

to wages and working conditions in the printing bureau now be given favourable consideration?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of the house there must be a reference from the house to the committee requesting the committee to study matters pertaining to government printing. This is a joint committee of the house and the Senate, so I can only speak for myself as one chairman of the committee, and without having consulted the joint chairman or my colleagues, but I can assure the hon. member that so far as I am concerned the committee will give every consideration to any matter affecting government printing which is referred to it by the house.



CUSTOMS ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 237, to amend the Customs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Repeal.
Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, section 2 proposes to repeal three provisions of the present act. It proposes to repeal section 43(3), section 43A in its entirety, and section 47(4). In what I have to say I have no quarrel with the proposal to repeal section 43A or section 47(4), but I do submit that the proposal to repeal section 43(3) is unfortunate, and would be a retrograde step.
The purpose or effect of section 43(3) is to confer a right of appeal to the tariff board from certain decisions of the minister under the Customs Act. The other provisions of that section, namely, subsections 1 and 2, empower the minister to fix arbitrary values in certain cases. The effect of subsection 3 of section 43 is to confer a right of appeal from such decisions of the minister. The purpose of clause 2 of the bill, that is the part of it I am now discussing, is to eliminate in its entirety the right of appeal from the decision of the minister to the tariff board. I submit that there is no reason for eliminating that right of appeal.
The jurisdiction of the tariff board on such appeals is limited to confirming or lowering the artificial value fixed by the minister under
Customs Act
an earlier subsection than section 43. It cannot raise such value. If one looks at the explanatory note opposite section 2 of the bill, one finds the following words:
Subsection 3 of section 43 was enacted in 1937 to implement a trade agreement with the United' States which is no longer in effect.
Whether or not that explanation is correct, sir, in so far as it goes it is only an explanation as to how this section came into the act in the first place. I do not know whether that was the only circumstance that led parliament to enact section 43(3) in 1937, but I do know that, the section being in the act, there is nothing in the explanatory note that calls for its repeal. We are simply told that the circumstances which called the section into being in 1937 have passed, that particular agreement with the United States being no longer in effect. This section giving the right of appeal to the tariff board is a sound remedial provision, and no reason for its repeal has been given.
This right of appeal was exercised last year in one case, and I might inform the committee that in that case the tariff board upset the decision of the minister by reducing the amount of the artificial valuation which the minister had fixed under the powers conferred in the earlier subsections of section 43.
In my submission, sir, this question is not affected in the least by the Geneva agreement. If we were dealing with any question in relation to the Geneva agreement, the whole of section 43, including the two earlier subsections, would be immediately called into question under the existing protocol of provisional application of the Geneva agreement which Canada has signed. The provisions of part II of the agreement need only be applied "to the fullest extent not inconsistent with existing legislation." This is such existing legislation. Article VII, subsection 2(a), of the Geneva agreement reads as follows:
The value for customs purposes of imported merchandise should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise on which duty is assessed, or of like merchandise, and should not be based on the value of merchandise of national origin or on arbitrary or fictitious values.
There is nothing in the explanatory note to indicate that that was in the mind of the draftsman of this section of the bill. If it were, if that is to be the reason given for bringing forward this legislation, I have to say that in the first place the article is not fully in effect because of the existing protocol of provisional application to which I have referred. In the second place even if it were being applied as to the signatories of the Geneva agreement, it certainly would have

Customs Act
no application to any of the other countries in the world. It happens to have been one of those other countries whose exports to Canada were involved in that case to which I referred as having been appealed to the tariff board from the minister's decision last year.
There are other nations that would be affected by this, and what will be the effect if we legislate as proposed here? Those affected by the decisions of the minister under the earlier subsections of section 43 will be deprived of the right of appeal to the tariff board. In my submission there is no reason at all for depriving any such person of the salutary right of appeal to the tariff board. Surely we believe in the tariff board. It is an existing institution under existing legislation of this parliament. According to today's order paper there is to be an amendment introduced to the Tariff Board Act dealing with the procedure before the tariff board. The tariff board is surely here to stay. Then why should we deprive persons who are affected by decisions of the minister in fixing an artificial value on imports of their right to appeal to the tariff board? If the tariff board is a salutary institution, and if this right of appeal to the board from decisions of the minister is a salutary institution, I submit there is no occasion whatsoever for repealing section 43, subsection 3, of the Customs Act.


James Sinclair: This bill is a Department of National Revenue bill, not a Department of Finance bill. The point which the hon. member for Eglinton was attempting to make would be a good one if it were an appeal from a ruling of the department; that is, the deputy minister. Perhaps I should say a few words in general explanation to hon. members about the purpose of this particular section of the customs bill.
The present section 43 of the Customs Act gives the Minister of National Revenue the power to put a quite arbitrary value on the imports of goods if it is thought that the goods are being dumped and the effect is going to be prejudicial to the manufacturers of Canada. On that artificial value of course is then levied the ad valorem rate of duty and whatever dumping duty would apply. As the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out, the Geneva agreements removed that type of artificial fixing of prices from our tax structure as it affects those countries signatory to the Geneva trade agreements. It is, however, still necessary to have such a protection amongst those countries which did not, either by choice or for other reasons, take part in the Geneva agreements. I think perhaps I should give a list of the countries in connection with whose trade we still think it is 
necessary for Canadian industry to have this protection. They are Abyssinia, Afghanistan, Anglo-Egyptian Soudan, Arabia, Bulgaria, Egypt, the eastern zone of Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Peru, Roumania, Russia and Siam. It is not the deputy minister of national revenue-that is, the department-who actually assesses or fixes this arbitrary value as a matter of departmental administration. It is a serious step to put on such a value, and so is a matter of government policy. The matter is first of all discussed in council, and the governor in council passes an enabling order specifying, first of all, the goods and secondly the country of origin. Then under this authority the Minister of National Revenue issues a specific order fixing the arbitrary price which is going to be set on the goods in question. This section of the bill now does remove the right of appeal to the tariff board from such an action by the minister. We still have that full right of appeal from departmental rulings, and we are extending the field of these appeals to include other interested parties.
There is a great difference between an appeal to the tariff board from a departmental ruling by the deputy minister of customs and excise and an appeal to the tariff board from a matter which has been discussed by council, which has been followed up by an order in council setting out government policy and then by a specific order from the minister. It puts the tariff board in an impossible position to be asked to rule in the latter circumstances; and because of that, this change is being made. This legislation now affects only those countries which I have listed, and will be used only as a protection for Canadian industry against dumping at unfair prices by producers of those countries.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the parliamentary
assistant for his statement because I think that everything he has said has strengthened the case I am putting before the committee for retention of the existing right of appeal under section 43, subsection 3. Let us be quite clear about this. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, we are not discussing the power given to the minister to set an arbitrary or fictitious value for customs or anti-dumping purposes. These provisions are contained in the earlier subsections of this section. No one is proposing in any degree to interfere with those. Those stand and they do not come into this discussion in any way whatever. What we are discussing, and the one question before the committee now, is whether an existing right of appeal to the tariff board against such decisions should be eliminated.

The parliamentary assistant complained that we are putting the tariff board in an impossible position by retaining this right of appeal to them from a decision of the minister. That is a far-fetched argument to put before this committee when we know that last year, when an appeal was taken, under this subsection, to the tariff board, they upset the decision of the minister. What is so impossible about that? Apparently the tariff board is not worried about the embarrassment of sitting on an appeal from decisions of the minister under the earlier subsections of section 43. They felt quite at liberty in that case to upset the decision of the minister.
I think it is clear that what is bothering somebody here is not a question of the impossibility of the position of the tariff board. Somebody apparently feels that the minister's decisions are so infallible that they should not be subject to appeal. That, Mr. Chairman, is a theory that I cannot hold with at all. The minister, in exercising the powers given to him under this and other sections, is proceeding on an administrative basis, surely; and so far as he is exercising judgment, surely it is not unreasonable that that judgment should be open to appeal to a tariff board in which we all believe. If there was anything in this situation that demeaned the minister in, exercising his right to make decisions under section 43, subsections 1 and 2, then this demeaning provision has existed for the last thirteen years in legislation of this parliament. Surely it is not going to demean unduly the minister and his prerogatives to allow that legislation to continue on the statute books.
It is sound legislation to protect a right of appeal to be taken to the tariff board in a situation of this kind. If you take away this right of appeal, you are saying in effect that there should be no right of appeal from a decision of the minister in a case of this kind, that the minister's judgment is final, and that he is infallible. As long as we have humans exercising these powers of judgment, there are bound to be mistakes, as was shown last year. Let us not take away from those affected a right of appeal in legislation in remedial form in this respect. Why take away from people a right they have today, which cannot be abused, and which does not hurt the government, but which exists and gives some protection to those who are affected by it?
Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 2 of the said bill be amended by striking out the words "subsection three of section forty-three of the said act as enacted by section six of chapter nineteen of the statutes of 1936.
Tariff Board Act
May I explain that that refers to most of the first three lines of clause 2 of the bill. It does not affect clause 2 as to the repeal of section 43A and section 47(4), but it will retain in the act section 43, subsection 3, as it now stands and will preserve that salutary right of appeal to the tariff board.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time on division and passed.


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 236, to amend the Tariff Board Act.


[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-Appeals under other acts.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Could we have some further explanation? The explanatory note states:
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the procedural powers of the board with respect to appeals under the Customs Act and similar statutes.
It is not quite clear from a perusal of the bill and the explanatory note whether the effect is to enlarge or contract the jurisdiction of the board on these appeals.


James Sinclair: This bill is a consequence of the bill we just passed amending the Customs Act. In section 3 of that bill there was an extension of appeals by allowing not just the importer who was affected by a departmental ruling on tariffs, but any other person who felt himself aggrieved, either to appear as a witness in the appeal or actively to launch the appeal himself, and then, if necessary, to carry further appeal to the exchequer court.
Up till now these appeals to the tariff board have been fairly informal, in that there was only the aggrieved person who was the importer, and the department involved. We are now widening the field of appeals to -allow other people, manufacturers in Canada, for example, who think they are aggrieved by a departmental ruling, to appeal. We must give the board-


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is in the other bill.

National Parks Act


James Sinclair: Section 3 of the other bill. Now that the appeals are to be on a little broader basis, it was felt best to spell out the actual powers of appeal.
Before the last amendments to the Tariff Board Act this act was in two parts. Part I dealt with inquiries. In this part were spelled out the powers as far as inquiries were concerned. Part II dealt with appeals, but no special powers were mentioned. These two parts were consolidated in the 1948 amendments but it was not quite clear that the powers to conduct appeals and the powers to conduct inquiries were consolidated. So that there will be no doubt that the board has the necessary powers to conduct these expanded appeals, if you like, as well as other purposes given in the powers, we are now writing into the appeal section the powers given in the inquiry section, except for section three, 7 and 8. There will be no need to compel witnesses to attend such appeals because of course the witnesses are the persons appearing of their own volition since they are interested.
As far as subsections 7 and 8 are concerned, the necessary authority is already in the Tariff Board Act. There is a provision that there shall always be a quorum of two out of three to hear such appeals; therefore 7 and 8 of the powers given under the inquiry section are not necessary here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That deals with 7 which says:
One member shall have power to conduct any inquiry . . .


James Sinclair: That is the point. As far as appeals are concerned, the quorum is explicit in the present act. There must always be at least two members of the tariff board to hear an appeal. So the quorums which are given in subsections 7 and 8 under the inquiry section will not apply as far as appeals are concerned.


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


Robert Henry Winters: 
Mr. Bryce:: Will the minister tell us what this is all about?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution which, when we are dealing with Bill No. 235, section 3, I shall ask one of my colleagues to move to have inserted as subsection 3 of section 3- The reason for that is that when Bill 235 went to the other place for consideration this resolution was part of the bill; but it was of course necessary to have this part of the bill preceded by a resolution because it deals with the expenditure of public funds and raising revenue. It was therefore withdrawn from the bill so that the House of Commons might deal with it, and a section will be inserted as an amendment to the bill later on, subject to the approval of the house.
The resolution itself seeks to obtain from the house permission to lexy taxes in public parks. It is in most respects a clarification of powers that are already in the act to enable the government in the first instance to pay provincial governments for services such as health and welfare that are provided by provincial governments to the residents of national parks.
In the second instance it is to authorize for taxation to offset the cost of services such as water, sewerage, garbage collection and the like provided to residents of national parks.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO LANDS REQUIRED FOR GAS AND OIL PIPE LINES, ETC.

Robert Henry Winters: the

second reading of Bill No. 235, to amend the National Parks Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Regulations.
Robert Henry Winters: I shall ask my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, to move that the contents of the resolution appearing on the order paper as item No. 14 be now added to Bill No. 235, letter 0-6 of the Senate, as section 3(3).


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That the following be added as subsection (3) of section 3:
"(3) Paragraphs (p) and (q) of subsection one of section seven of the said act, as enacted by section nine of chapter sixty-six of the statutes of 1947, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
' (p) levying taxes upon the residents of a park or upon the interest of any person in land in a park in order to defray the cost of health and welfare services supplied to such residents by a province pursuant to an agreement made under paragraph (o) or supplied to such residents by the government of Canada;
(q)	levying taxes upon the interest of any person in land in a park in order to defray, in whole or in part, the cost of the establishment, operation, maintenance and administration of any public works, improvements or utility services referred to in paragraph (i) and prescribing that such taxes may be levied with respect to any or all of the following lands (i) all lands in the park; (ii) lands in such area or areas in the park as may be designated by regulations, and (iii) lands benefited by such public works, improvements or utility services;
(r)	the sale or forfeiture of lands for non-payment of taxes;
(s)	the abatement and prevention of nuisances'."


Joseph Henry Harris: We have had only
a brief explanation from the minister. I wonder if he has before him any further information to give the committee?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps that could be done when the title is called.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On the title.
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this bill is to amend the National Parks Act. The most important change is a provision to authorize the granting of rights of way for oil and gas pipe lines through the parks.
Another amendment is to re-enact a provision in the Dominion Lands Act, which was repealed by the passage of the Territorial Lands Act. Recently there was passed by the house a territorial lands bill to replace the
National Parks Act
Dominion Lands Act. When that bill was being considered some questions were asked about timber berths which had been granted under the Dominion Lands Act. As stated then, there are some eight berths located in national parks, all of which were granted prior to 1930 when the National Parks Act was passed. As the territorial lands bill applies only to the territories, the provisions applying to these timber limits should be added to the National Parks Act. There are also a few minor changes which affect the definitions in the act, one of which is a change in the name of the department.


Joseph Henry Harris: I believe that change has to do with the department of the interior, which went out of existence some years ago.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


William Scottie Bryce: Have these contracts long to run?


Robert Henry Winters: To all intents and purposes they are in perpetuity. The only reason for termination would be lack of conformity with the regulations.


William Scottie Bryce: To whom are they rented?


Robert Henry Winters: There are eight of them in all, rented to the following: Berth No. 406, Yoho national park, to the Berpall Lumber Company. The original date of issue was November 26, 1886. Then, berth No. 40, Glacier national park, issued on May 26, 1886, to the Royal Trust Company; then there are five berths in Glacier national park, Nos. 117, 292, 328, 329 and 342 issued in the years 1893, 1902, 1903, 1903 and 1903, respectively, to the Deer Park Lumber Company. The last one, berth No. 73, in Revelstoke, was issued in 1893 to the Royal Trust Company.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is the minister
before the committee the present minister of the interior?


Robert Henry Winters: The functions to which the hon. member refers have been taken over by the Department of Resources and Development.


Joseph Henry Harris: It does not say so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like confirmation of what I .believe the minister said, namely that prior to this time pipe lines did not have the privilege of going through national parks.


Robert Henry Winters: That is right; this enables the government to make provision whereby pipe lines may go through national parks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is it usual for the federal government to charge the stumpage and royalty duties charged by the province in which a park is situated?
2S58

Criminal Code


Robert Henry Winters: Yes; the procedure is so far as possible for the federal government to conform to the practice in the province.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And increase the stumpage, as it is increased, or otherwise?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understand that the Royal Trust Company and certain other companies have enjoyed certain privileges. Do I understand now that any company will be eligible with the equal right to put a pipe line through a national park?


Robert Henry Winters: This gives the government the right to grant the same privilege to anyone receiving authorization in the usual manner.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Criminal Code.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister going to say anything?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggests that I say a word by way of explanation. I will make it very brief because the explanatory matter published opposite each section of the bill is pretty lucid. The bill comes from the Senate, which has given it careful consideration. It represents the annual amendments to the Criminal Code which the government recommends to the house at this session. In so far as second reading is concerned, the bill deals with fourteen separate matters which have little in common. There is no principle common to them all, and the only thing that can be said to bind them together in the one bill is that they all have to do with amendments to the Criminal Code, an act of a very comprehensive nature. Therefore I think we shall make much better progress if I just say these few words on second reading and then go into committee where, if further explanations are desired by hon. members with regard to any of the amendments, I shall be glad to provide them if I can.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, so far as the actual amendments are concerned, with two exceptions they cover amendments that are technical or procedural. The minister having said that the bill represents all the amendments to the Criminal Code the government intends to introduce at this session, it becomes necessary for me to refer to a number of matters having to do with the administration of the criminal law. I regret that some of the suggestions I am about to make have not found their way into the amendments that are being introduced on this occasion by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I am sure he will agree with me that there is nothing more important than that the criminal law should be maintained and kept up to date. To that end the criminal law amendment commission has been sitting since January 1949. It is charged with the responsibility of recommending such revisions and changes in the criminal law as are deemed necessary by the members of that commission under the distinguished chairmanship of Chief Justice Martin of the Saskatchewan court of appeal.
When I say enforcement of the criminal law is of major importance, and I notice the changes that are made with regard to firearms, what has taken place within the last two days in the city of Montreal underlines the necessity for agencies of the crown to do everything possible to minimize the use of firearms, particularly revolvers, pistols and other such weapons. Indeed there is an article in tonight's paper indicating that a special reward has been offered by the Canadian Bankers Association in the case of the gunman who killed Royal Canadian Mounted Police constable Alexander Gam-man during an attempted hold-up a few days ago in that city. The minister being in fact the titular head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I suggest to him that no person should be allowed to wander about our country with even the slightest possibility of immunity from arrest without all agencies of the crown and private citizens doing everything they can to ensure his apprehension.
I have referred to a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer killed in the discharge of his duty. I am sure that the country as a whole would approve of the minister, as head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, offering an additional reward to that already offered by the Canadian Bankers Association with a view to showing all lawbreakers or potential lawbreakers that the murder of an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall not go unpunished if agencies of law and civilian organizations can prevent it.

I am not allowed to deal with the various sections of the bill on the motion for second reading, and as the. minister said they can be dealt with in committee. Nevertheless there are one or two things to which I should like to draw his attention. There are certain changes that should be made, and parliament should not wait to make them until the criminal law amendment commission reports. The first one has to do with the provision of the law as it now stands, that in so far as money penalties are concerned the alternative is imprisonment. I have known, as I am sure the Minister of Justice and other legal members of the house also have, of cases where, because an individual was poor and unable to pay his fine, the price of poverty has been a passport to imprisonment. That should not be. If the offence committed merits no more than a fine the pecuniary inability of the accused to pay it should not place him in a position where the stigma of imprisonment hangs over him, and is indeed so often imposed. From experience I know there are many magistrates who, in the enforcement of the law, extend the time for payment, and are often criticized for doing so by the agencies that appoint them.
I feel the time has come in Canada to follow the reform that has been made in this regard in the United Kingdom where a person no longer is imprisoned for failure to pay a fine when he is unable to do so. I also feel that an amendment might be introduced to provide for instalment payments under the law to the end that this injustice will be removed.
Then I come to one further matter. It has to do with respect for the law, because after all the criminal law depends for its enforcement on the respect people have for it. Nothing has done more harm to the enforcement of law in our country than the flagrant flouting of the law on the part of the Sons of Freedom. They have placed themselves above the law, which they regard as simply a means of attaining martyrdom. They commit the most serious offences with the excuse that they are motivated by religious considerations.
This is the first opportunity I have had to pass on a suggestion to the minister. I understand that a commission has been set up in British Columbia to look into the matter and determine what course should be followed. One thing is certain; something must be done. These people cannot be permitted to continue to commit crimes, including arson, at their least whim with impunity under the pretence that they are indeed acting under a religious impulse. I have no interest in the
Criminal Code
name I place before the minister now in connection with that commission. I know something of the influence this gentleman has on Doukhobors who would break our law, and I know that no Anglo-Saxon has had as much experience with these people. I refer to James Wright of Saskatoon, the author of "Slava Bohu", an outstanding book of a few years ago relating to Doukhobors. I know of no one who understands the temperament of the Sons of Freedom as he does, or who has as much influence with them. I must add that he has no particular political qualifications for the position, for he belongs neither to the party of my hon. friend the minister nor to the party to which I belong. His great qualification is his understanding of the problem. He is an authority on the Doukhobors, and in particular on the Sons of Freedom. If his services are enlisted I am sure he will do much toward solving the problem which faces the minister and the attorney general of British Columbia, for it affects both. The administration of the law rests with British Columbia, but the R.C.M.P. are an agency of the federal parliament charged with the responsibility of carrying out federal laws. They are being used to meet this threat in British Columbia, which places upon the shoulders of the minister a heavy responsibility.
In offering this suggestion I am endeavouring to share that responsibility as one desirous of seeing this problem settled so that no longer will these people, while accepting all the benefits of freedom, whenever they feel like it set out to destroy freedom. They came to this country looking for freedom from persecution. They must be made to realize that we will not have our laws flouted by them at their every whim. In that spirit, and in a desire to see that the criminal law shall not be evaded and circumvented by these people, with the inevitable lessening of public support for law enforcement, I advance this suggestion to the minister knowing what this man can do, having in mind the experience we in Saskatchewan have had with Mr. Wright over a period of fifteen or eighteen years.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have one other suggestion to offer, which I believe deserves the attention of parliament. There is no more serious matter in our country today than the matter of drunken driving. In view of the fact that hundreds of people are being killed each year through the negligence of drunken drivers, I feel that the amendments to our criminal law should include some reference to this matter with a view to tightening up the law. Some time ago I asked the minister

Criminal Code
whether he intended to bring in any such amendment. On May 3, 1950, at page 2119, he informed the house and the country that the government did not intend at this session to bring in any amendments to the law with respect to drunken drivers.
Let us view the situation dispassionately. Some 1,800 Canadians are killed each year in motor accidents. Of these some thirty per cent-and this is a reasonable estimate based on the experience of police officers- are killed by drunken drivers. We regard murder as a terrible crime. Drunken drivers kill five times as many Canadians as are murdered. I am not going to place on record a great deal of data on the subject. There was a particularly good article in Maclean's magazine of March 15, 1950, and I am going to summarize what it says. In Canada the accident rate is 12-7 per 100,000. In Sweden, which has taken drastic measures to stop drunken driving, the rate is 4-3. One can determine how serious the situation is by communicating with any crown prosecutor in this country, or with the mounted police. Dr. Joslyn Rogers, the Ontario provincial analyst, has summed up the situation in these words:
The drunk driver's killings and mannings would appal the public if they could be put before people in all their horror. He is the greatest menace we have.
Then I have one other quotation, from Chief Charles Maclver of Winnipeg. Knowing this man as he does, I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will place a good deal of reliance in what he says:
Drunken driving is the No. 1 social problem today. A motorist under the influence of liquor is a potential murderer.
The police chief of Regina has branded it as the gravest social problem with which we have to contend. Yet we go on, year after year, with the criminal code unchanged, the minimum penalty being seven days and the percentage of acquittals particularly high because in many cases the crown is unable to establish guilt. The defence can always be raised that there has been a leak in the pipe in the motor, and the man has suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning, or he has had a heart attack or some other seizure. Perhaps he had a drink three or four hours before, or indeed he may have had a drink only after the police came. Frequently it is urged that the accused smelled of alcohol only because he took a drink after the police came in order to restore his morale.
This problem is not being faced by parliament as it should be. When you recall there are between 500 and 600 Canadians a year, or almost two Canadians a day, killed on the highways by drunken drivers, you can see

that this is a matter which deserves the attention of parliament. The attorney general of British Columbia was under the impression, in an interview he gave on April 28, that amendments to the Criminal Code were being drafted. According to the minister he was in error in that regard.
What should be done? Some would suggest that we increase the penalty. Increasing the penalty very often results in an increase in the number of acquittals. If the minimum penalty is too high the judge or jury will go a long way in order to arrive at a verdict of not guilty when any doubt, however inconsiderable, has been raised. In the explanatory notes of the bill to amend the Customs Act, which was piloted through the house today by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sinclair), the explanation given for reducing the penalties was that the penalties were so high as to constitute an invitation to acquittal. If heavier penalties are not the solution, what other methods are there? I am not here for the purpose of suggesting what methods should be followed. In Sweden, to which I have already made reference, drastic regulations and laws have been in force. According to Maclean's magazine the police of that country have the power to stop a line of cars at any time, on any street or highway, and take blood alcohol tests. Wherever the driver's alcohol percentage goes above the equivalent of one medium drink of whisky he can be sent to jail, and the minimum sentence is two months. That is drastic, and I doubt that such a plan could be accepted under our law.


An hon. Member:: But not too drastic.


John George Diefenbaker: I am arguing both sides
of the question, and I can see the point my hon. friend has raised. I know from experience in prosecuting, but more particularly as defence counsel, that heavy minimum penalties defeat the object for which they were established.
What are the alternative suggestions? The alternative suggestion is that chemical tests be provided for under the law, whereby when a person is taken into custody on this charge he may be subjected to either a breath test, blowing his breath into a balloon, or a blood test, which is more drastic, or a test of saliva or urine. Under our law now those tests, if taken, would be illegal; certainly they would not be admissible in evidence. It is not for me to suggest what should be done, but certainly there is no doubt whatever that any person whose blood test showed a reaction of -15 of alcohol is intoxicated to a degree that he is unable to properly operate his motorcar. It is not very long ago that I had

experience in a homicide case; after a drinking party an examination was made of the blood of the deceased, and it was found that the percentage of alcohol was over [DOT] 15. Every medical authority on jurisprudence agrees that at that point a person is in fact unable to form a rational opinion as to the difference between right and wrong, and has lost that control of his motivating capacity as would amount to intoxication.
I feel that something must be done. The number of drunken driver cases is multiplying year by year. Taking the city of Toronto as an example, the figures given for 1945 show that 453 of the drivers in accidents were listed as under the influence or had been drinking; in 1949 the number jumped to 826. In Vancouver there were similar records, and in Winnipeg there was a pronounced increase following the trend across the country. There is no more serious problem today than the problem of dealing with this matter. It is not dealt with today under the section of the Criminal Code. I venture the opinion that if a compulsory blood test or saliva test were provided by law it would afford many persons a defence; and on the other hand it would also provide, for those who escape the just penalty for their wrong, the certainty of conviction in the event that their blood was found to have a percentage of alcohol over -15. Therefore, sir, even at this late date, I bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I believe it is a matter that deserves attention now. Waiting another year means that 600 or more Canadians will be killed because the law is not sufficiently stern, and the enforcement of the law is insufficient to meet the requirements of present-day conditions.
I am one of those whose experience over the years has been largely for the defence. Nevertheless, I believe there is no section of the criminal law that is more evaded and circumvented than the provision against drunken driving. Indeed, as the law is today, there is nothing of a deterrent in the possibility of receiving a sentence of seven days in jail when any person desiring to break the law must realize that the possibility of conviction is next to nothing. However uncertain a person may be, however much he may smell of liquor, however terrible the accident in which he has been involved, there are in the law as it stands today so many loopholes-placed there not by the accused but by parliament-that I feel it should be strengthened. And parliament should not wait one year longer.
I am not going to deal with the phases peculiar to the provinces; but what a farce it is, with those who are convicted generally
Criminal Code
receiving the minimum of seven days, then in a matter of a few weeks getting their cars back again-


An hon. Member:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, in a matter of a few weeks.


Mr. Gauihier (Portneuf):: Yes, you are right.


John George Diefenbaker: And they are once again placed in possession of an instrument which is as dangerous as or more dangerous than a gun in the hands of many, to go forth with little more danger of a heavier penalty in the event that they again commit an offence, when the penalty becomes thirty days.
Not long ago I saw an example of the results of drunken driving. If the law were made really effective, no one would need to fear anything but his own inclination to be a potential killer. But certainly we in this parliament should see to it that something is done similar to what is today being done in the United States, where in thirty-five states the law is now enforced by means of blood, saliva and breath tests. At any rate, if the minister is afraid that a blood test is too drastic a measure, certainly there is nothing drastic about a breath test. There is no reason why an accused should be unwilling to submit to it.
These are three suggestions which, I submit, deserve attention now. Summarizing them, they are: First, let us stop penalizing anyone for inability to pay a fine. Second, let us do what we can to meet this threat to the enforcement agencies, the challenge to law and its enforcement, to which the Sons of Freedom are constantly subjecting our criminal law. Third, let us make the law inescapable to drunken drivers. If we reduce the death rate within one year by thirty-five per cent-as was the case in at least ten American states-from killings by drunken drivers, we certainly shall have done something worth while; for even if we do no better than that, we save in the next year in Canada two hundred Canadians who have a right to live, and who are asking parliament that that right be preserved by a proper change in the law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to make remarks that might have been somewhat extended concerning this question of drunken driving. What I intended to say, however, has very largely been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who, in addition, has been giving the house some worth-while quotations

Criminal Code
from the same documents which I have on my desk and which I had intended to use. Nevertheless, I think it is worth while to take just a few moments to support what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said and to do my best to impress upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) the importance of taking action at an early date, to amend the Criminal Code with respect to drunken driving. I agree thoroughly-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I
might be brave enough to raise 'a point of order against the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We sometimes wonder why we take so much time in the debates in this house, but tonight I think we had have a shining example, I will not say of wasting time but of spending a great deal of it. We have in this bill a series of amendments to the Criminal Code. If in the discussion of these amendments we can discuss every section of the Criminal Code which is not being amended, there is utterly no limit to the amount of debate that we can put on a single bill amending the Criminal Code. What I suggest is this, and I would have raised this same point with the hon. member for Lake Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you didn't.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -but I thought I would contain myself because his observations on matters of this kind are always of great interest. I think I was wrong, sir, when I did not raise the point of order. All of these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I submit are quite in order upon the estimates of the Department of Justice. But tonight we are discussing amendments to certain specific sections of the Criminal Code; and the only remarks that are in order are those which relate to the subject matter of the bill before us.
If I may extend my point of order, may I say that it is important to the time of this house, because what will happen is that we shall spend a lot of time discussing this subject tonight; and then when the matter is raised on the estimates of the Department of Justice, we can go over these remarks again. Then we wonder why we take up so much time.
There is another reason for my stand. I came down here, as I had a right to do with a bill containing certain specific provisions, prepared to discuss in debate the provisions of this bill and not a lot of other sections that are not being amended. I suggest that we shall have a much higher order of debate if we now keep to the points before the house instead of talking about a lot of things that are not in the bill at all; and then discuss, as we shall, these other points that have

been raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre and that are now being raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), at the proper time, namely on the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I indicated at the start that most of what I intended to say had been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre and that I was therefore prepared not to extend my remarks except to indicate my support of legislation against drunken driving, and to mention one or two additional points. I would have been through by now if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had not raised the point of order. But since he has raised the point of order,-


Alphonse Fournier: Is that a promise?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -it is a serious question as to whether it is proper to permit the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to speak at length on this matter and then for other members not to be permitted to do so at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of what has been said, it might meet with the approval of the house if the bill received second reading now and the sections were discussed in committee; then when the minister's estimates are being considered, there could be a general discussion. That seems to me to be a businesslike way of handling this matter. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion for second reading?


George Alexander Drew: No. I do not want to interrupt
the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you speaking on the
point of order?


George Alexander Drew: I want to speak on a point of
order. There is a very clear point of order involved in this. The estimates do not provide the appropriate opportunity to present the recommendations that have been made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). What the hon. member for Lake Centre has been placing before the house is the desirability, I would say the necessity, for appropriate amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with the slaughter on our highways.
The introduction of this subject into the discussion of the estimates would be an entirely fruitless thing, because at that time we would be discussing the advancement of money, not the amendment of the Criminal Code.
At this point, if the minister is actually prepared to regard this as a parliament-and

may I presume to remind some of the hon. members that the word "parliament" carries a meaning that seems to have been forgotten by some who spoke earlier today, and who thought that there should be no discussion here. Parliament is the place in which we discuss the principles of legislation. If the minister is anxious to meet this he could well introduce an amendment to his bill which would deal with something that is much more important than the amendment that he has introduced.
I did not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I do propose to have some comment to make about this particular subject, because the extent of it is something that should alarm every member of this house. I believe it should be possible at this time to place before the house something so important with the hope that serious consideration will be given to an amendment to the Criminal Code that will make the slaughter on a scale that is comparable with war casualties such a crime that it could really be dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that the leader of the
opposition has made his point and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated to the house his stand on this question, it would be a businesslike method of procedure if the bill were read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if that happens
there is no opportunity in committee on this bill to discuss the matter which the hon. member for Lake Centre has opened up. I do wish to speak for three or four minutes on the matter. The leader of the opposition has indicated that he wishes to do so as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think there should be a ruling one way or the other.


Mr. Speaker:: The leader of the opposition has already expressed his view in a very clear and forthright manner. Probably the house would like to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaking for two or three minutes on the subject. I think that would be the fair way.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I raise this point of order quite seriously, believe me, with no intention of curtailing the debate in any way or being unfair to any hon. member. If I had felt that way I would have raised the point of order the moment the hon. member for Lake Centre opened his remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you did not do that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The issue here is a very simple one. When we bring before the house amendments to certain specific sections of the
Criminal Code
Criminal Code or of any other act, in the discussion of the amending bill we are confined to the subject matter of the sections that are in the bill itself, and cannot roam all over the Criminal Code to bring in any other subject that we think should be included in the bill.
If hon. members of the opposition want to bring changes in the law to the attention of the government they can do so in the debate on the speech from the throne; they can do so in the budget debate; they can do so on the motion to go into supply; they have any number of opportunities to do so. But if, in addition to that, when we bring down an amendment to let us say section 100 of the Criminal Code, they are going to discuss other sections of the code that are not referred to in the bill, then there will be no end to the discussion on any amendment that we bring down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ruled on a previous occasion that on a motion to amend an act a general discussion on the act itself is not permitted. However, I do feel that I must be fair to all members of the house. The member for Lake Centre has expressed his view; the leader of the opposition has expressed his view. I think it would only be fair to have one member from the C.C.F. party express his view also. He said he would do it in two or three minutes. I think I should hear him and then I will put the motion for second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you; and I shall take only a few minutes, particularly because the case was so well put by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I am glad he gave the quotations that he did from the article in Maclean's of March 15 by Mr. Fred Bodsworth. I might also refer to information that I have on my desk put out by the committee on tests for intoxication of the national safety council of the United States. That committee is pressing for more use of tests of various kinds in the states of the country to the south of us, with particular emphasis upon the breath test, or the balloon test as it is sometimes called.
As the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out, that test does not have some of the disadvantages that the blood test has. In particular, it can be taken on the spot, and I understand it is quite reliable. I feel that the hon. member for Lake Centre has done well to impress upon the government that it is urgent that action be taken along this line.
It is not good enough to suggest it will be considered in another year, for as has already been pointed out, 1,800 Canadians die each year as the result of traffic accidents, and a very large percentage of them are due to drunken driving.

Criminal Code
I was interested in the answer the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) gave to the hon. member for Lake Centre on May 3, in which he indicated that some consideration was being given to the question of drunken driving, but he pointed out at that time that the inquiries being made of the provincial attorneys general did not relate to these intoxication tests. I am very sorry that is so.
I hope that even the amount of discussion that Your Honour is permitting on this occasion will persuade the Minister of Justice that the time for action in this field is long overdue. I am sure that those of us who are expressing these views are expressing the views of a great many Canadians, and I earnestly hope that the minister will reconsider the matter at this session of parliament.
As I sit down I want to say to the Minister of Justice it seems to me more logical for us to be making these suggestions to him now when he is before us with his amendments to the Criminal Code, than it is for those suggestions to be buried in speeches on the address or on the budget, which he may or may not happen to hear. Now we have his ear, and I hope that we have it to good advantage. I hope that he will realize we are speaking for the Canadian people when we ask that action be taken at an early date to strengthen our Criminal Code, so that something can be done to reduce the amount of drunken driving.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I be permitted four sentences to close the debate on the second reading?


Clarence Gillis: Before the minister closes the debate I should like to ask him a couple of questions.


Alphonse Fournier: In committee.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have already said I think the business of the house would be advanced if we had second reading now. Questions could be asked in committee and the minister could make his reply in committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I might close this drunken-driving episode, all I am interested in putting on the record in reply to the material that has been put on by the opposition is that we have had this matter under the most careful consideration.


Mr. Lennard:: When?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For many months past in this committee, and in consultation with provincial attorneys general and law officers; and I am entirely prepared to come here and satisfy this House of Commons that we have given it adequate consideration, and give my reasons why we are not bringing down an

amendment now. I would not be in order on this occasion in doing so. When the time comes, I am quite prepared to debate this very issue for just as long as any member of the opposition wishes to debate it-


John George Diefenbaker: People get killed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and take issue with many of the statements of fact of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and controvert them, and prove that so far as certain provinces are concerned they are not correct.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not mention anything about any province.


Clarence Gillis: May I ask a question, because I have a lot of non-legal opinions to express with regard to the Criminal Code, particularly about things that are not in it at all. Will the minister give us the assurance that when the first item in his estimates is called we will be permitted to discuss amendments or additions to the Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no hesitation in saying that when my estimates are before the committee, if the hon. member wishes to urge upon the Department of Justice that there are certain things which should be in the Criminal Code, but which are not there, we will have no objection to hearing about them. We are always delighted to have suggestions.


George Alexander Drew: Too late then.


Mr. Robert Fair (Baffle River):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the fourth party in the house, I do not think it would be fair to rule us out, or to prevent our making a few observations about drunken driving. I would say that we are very much worried about the turn of drunken driving in the last few years, and we believe amendments to our Criminal Code in respect of drunken driving should be made at this session, without waiting until next session. Then, such amendments should be enforced for the protection of human life in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Viau in the chair.
On section 1-Paragraph repealed.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I suggest there should be some explanation from the Minister of Justice as to why these sections should be repealed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of sections 1, 4, 7 and 21 is to repeal part III of the Criminal Code, which has to do with the maintenance of order in connection with public works. These were defined as including any railway, canal, road, bridge or other

ork of any kind in any manner constructed : carried on by the government of Canada, : of any province of Canada, or under any lunicipal corporation or any incorporated jmpany or private enterprise.
By part III of the Criminal Code certain ther sections of the code were brought into fleet, so far as the maintenance of law and rder was concerned upon these public *orks, so defined. The reason we are now ;eking the repeal of part III, and the con-2quential repeal of other sections of the ade, is that part III is- obsolete. The last me it was invoked was in connection with le building of the Hudson Bay railway, in 328. It has never been invoked since then, nd it is considered now unnecessary. It is lerefore asked that it be repealed.


The Chairman:: Shall section 1 carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No. I am not satisfied rith the minister's explanation at all. Was e explaining section 1? -because he was sked about it, and the purpose of it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; perhaps the hon. member id not hear me, but-


John George Diefenbaker: I heard it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Sections 1, 4, 7 and 21 are all ;lated, and I was explaining the effect of le four of them. So far as section 1 is con-srned, it repeals paragraph (46) of subsection
of section 2 of the Criminal Code, and is ^sequential upon the repeal of part III, rhich is effected by section 4.


John George Diefenbaker: What does part XII deal *ith?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Part XII refers to part III, in jetions 608 to 618 of the Criminal Code, rhich relate to the search and seizure of *eapons and liquor, in places where part III as been proclaimed in force. In other words, :t us consider the Hudson Bay railway; if ley wish to maintain law and order in con-ection with the construction of the railway ley proclaim part III, and when that hap-ens these sections 608 to 618 deal with the tatter of seizing and searching for weapons nd liquor in connection with that particular 'ork of constructing a railway.


John George Diefenbaker: But why do these sections 18 to 618 apply only to the Hudson Bay
lilway?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They do not apply only to the [udson Bay railway.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the purpose of spealing them, then? I have not had an xplanation yet.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Part III is written into the Criminal Code for the purpose of maintaining law and order in connection with the construction of public works, the definition of which I have just indicated. When part III is proclaimed, then certain other sections of the code, for example sections 608 to 618, are made applicable to the search for and seizure of weapons and liquor, in those places in which part III has been proclaimed in force.
Then, another part, namely part XXII, makes provisions against certain proceedings by way of section 1132. In other words, when the proclamation is put into effect, certain sections of the Criminal Code are made available for carrying out part III in connection with the public works in respect of which it has been proclaimed.
Since part III has not been used for many years, and is now considered obsolete, we are seeking to repeal it. Then, in consequence of that repeal, we have to repeal these references to certain other sections of the Criminal Code which applied to the operation of part III in connection with public works projects.


John George Diefenbaker: Why repeal insignificant sections like these, when there are major sections which should be amended? The minister made quite a speech a while ago about wasting time; apparently that is going to be the refrain we shall hear. If there is any good reason why parliament should take up its time repealing the odd section, which is as unimportant as the minister has indicated in this instance, then I cannot understand what that reason could be.
Was the repeal of this section asked for by the minister? Who asked for it? Here, on the one hand we are asked to repeal a section which is obsolete, while on the other hand we have a commission sitting-and it has been sitting for fifteen months-the main purpose of which is to remove these obsolete sections. Yet we find the minister bringing these sections before parliament, and asking us to repeal them. Why do we have this haphazard method of revision? I cannot understand it. The minister made his little speech a while ago. I raised three matters that are important to Canada and all we get from him is the brush-off. He comes along and produces the repeal of a section that has been obsolete since 1928.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is my hon. friend opposed to the repeal of obsolete sections?


John George Diefenbaker: Opposed! I think it is the most ridiculous, haphazard interference with the Criminal Code. Instead of trying to revise it and accept suggestions from parliament, every year we have had this

Criminal Code
picayune selectivity on the part of the minister during his term of office. He comes along with these little insignificant sections as though the criminal law were being amended, and when matters such as drunken driving and imprisoning people because they have not the necessary money to pay their fines are brought up they are brushed aside. I cannot understand such action at all.
What is the purpose of repealing this unimportant obsolete section instead of dealing with important matters? Since the hon. gentleman has been Minister of Justice, each session, with one exception, little insignificant picayune sections have come up for attention. And that one exception has not been proclaimed yet. Who asked for this? What is the purpose of having this one section repealed? There are certainly a good hundred sections that are obsolete. So far as such sections are concerned, why do you not wait until the commission has made its recommendations, and in the meantime deal with matters that are of substantive significance in order to protect the rights of people and to assure the perservation of life and property? Look at section 1:
Paragraph (46) of subsection one of section two of the Criminal Code, chapter thirty-six of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is repealed.
There are any number of other obsolete sections that remain in the code. What was the impelling motive that caused the minister with the tremendous advances that have been made in technological jurisprudence in the last few years, to bring in little sections like 1, 4 and 7?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And 21.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the impelling motive?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can answer my hon. friend in about twenty-five words. We set up a revision commission to revise the Criminal Code, and my hon. friend spoke of that commission in terms of the highest praise just a short time ago.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not all they suggested.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of course not. The commission has a gigantic task to perform. It is engaged in revising a criminal code that has not been revised since 1892. I do not initiate these things. They come to me through the regular routine from the drafting officers of the department who, by way of assistance to the commission in its task, are anxious to clear out of the way any of these obvious changes that should be made, and thus the commission will not have to spend its time considering such matters.


John George Diefenbaker: You have certainly
brought forth a mouse.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that is the common-sense, prudent thing to do. I cannot understand my hon. friend's attitude. He thinks it is ridiculous to bother with this section at all. Then let us repeal it and get it out of the way. There are one or two others like it but most of these amendments are fairly substantial.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think if there were no part III in the act the minister would be introducing part III at this time if he were performing his duty. What part III provides is a special procedure to prevent the possession of weapons and liquor in the neighbourhood of public works where such things may be dangerous. Surely this is a step that does not require elaboration at a time like this when sabotage of our great electrical plants would be the very first act of those who would seek to destroy the economy of the country. If we had no such provision in the act I would imagine that what those who are aware of the kind of threat existing in different parts of the world today might well seek to have introduced into the act would be a provision which would make it possible for the government to declare that in the neighbourhood of certain vital public works there should be no arms or alcohol. This section can deal with the type of public works where one or two men can put hundreds or thousands of people out of work simply by the sabotage of these great producing enterprises.
This is not just the sweeping away of dead legislation. It is a bald statement to us, without any supporting evidence, that a section which has not been used for a long time should be brushed aside and made ineffective at the very time that it may conceivably be most useful. One of the most remarkable things about the last war was that through the effectiveness of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the intelligence branches of our military services no major act of sabotage succeeded in this country. We must remember, however, that at that time we were fighting an enemy which had no effective fifth column in Canada. Today the only possible enemy that Canada faces is one with a highly organized fifth column about which the government will do nothing effective. We need a law such as would make it possible for the government to deal with these people if a situation should arise short of war when these traitors to Canada might decide that the time had come for them to cause trouble by interfering with the operation of our great electrical plants, waterways, or anything of that kind that is vital to the development and maintenance of the economy of Canada.

The minister has given no reason for the repeal of part III except to say that it has not been used for many years, and then only in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. Today we see a situation with which we were never confronted before, a situation in which it may be necessary for the government to have the power to take immediate action to deal with those who are openly opposed to the survival of our economy and free system. I would say that if we did not have part III in the act today we should now be advocating it, and I hope the minister will immediately drop the proposal to repeal it and to carry out the other repeals associated with it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think my friend is suffering from a complete delusion if he thinks that part III ever had or now has any remote connection with sabotage. The presence of part III in the act is easily explicable. It was put there for the purpose of preventing the consumption of liquor and the possession of weapons in mining and railway camps in order to preserve peace in such places. In a sense it was an imposition to that extent upon the workmen engaged there. It has been found since 1928 that the ordinary provisions of the Criminal Code for the maintenance of law and order are quite sufficient for the purpose of maintaining law and order in such camps, and having regard to the fact that there has never been any occasion, in spite of the large amount of public works under construction since 1928, to proclaim this particular part of the code, there seemed to be no purpose in continuing it.
With my hon. friend's sentiments concerning the prevention of sabotage I would be the first in this house to agree. Certainly I think we should prevent sabotage, but that has nothing to do with part III. In the experience of the law officers of the crown, not those of the Department of Justice but the departments of the attorneys general of the various provinces, part III has not had to be invoked or proclaimed since 1928, nearly twenty-five years ago. They have found no difficulty in maintaining law and order in camps of this sort under the ordinary provisions of the Criminal Code. That being so it is considered wise now to drop it. The method of dealing with sabotage comes under an entirely different branch of the law, and on the proper occasion we shall be glad to go in great detail into the question of the adequacy of the provisions now available to prevent sabotage.


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot quite follow the action of the minister in altering the law with regard to the possession of weapons.
Criminal Code
He mentioned part III, which is entitled "Respecting the preservation of peace in the vicinity of public works," and a public work is-
-any railway, canal, road, bridge or other work of any kind, and any mining operation constructed or carried on by the government of Caada or of any province of Canada, or by any municipal corporation or by any incorporated company, or by private enterprise.
Then under the heading, "Weapons":
144.	On or before the day named in such proclamation-
That is the proclamation of the governor in council to which the minister made reference.
-every person employed on or about the public work to which the same relates, shall bring and deliver up, to some commissioner or officer appointed for the purposes of this part, every weapon in his possession, and shall obtain from such commissioner or officer a receipt for the same.
145.	Every weapon found in the possession of any person employed, as aforesaid, after the day named in any proclamation and within the limits designated in such proclamation, may be seized by any justice, commissioner, constable or other peace officer, and shall be forfeited to the use of his majesty.
Then, Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me to refer to subsequent sections, because apparently the rules regarding the possession of weapons are to be relaxed, the next is paragraph 2 which repeals subsection 1 (6) of section 119, which provides that any alien who-
-has in his possession any pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle or other such firearm or any ammunition for any such firearm without having a permit in form 76B-*
-shall be guilty of an offence. Why should that be repealed? Then the next one to be repealed is subsection 3, which reads:
In addition to the registration provided for in subsection two of this section there shall be, similarly, a general registration of all revolvers and pistols during the period between the first day of March and the first day of July in 1945, and during the same period every five years thereafter.
Why should the minister be so anxious to get rid of these sections dealing with weapons such as revolvers, pistols and the like? Certainly I can see no reason for relaxing the regulations governing these things. Only within the last few days in the city of Montreal a member of the R.C.M.P. was killed by one of these people carrying a revolver; yet now we are going to remove the provision for registration between March 1 and July 1, 1950. I do not understand why in amending the Criminal Code these sections dealing with revolvers and pistols, seeing that they are not in the hands of aliens and assuring that a proper check be made within the law, should be repealed. Who demanded this? Who asked for it?

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wants that question answered, it was the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; and what was the reason given?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be very glad to tell my
hon. friend. I do not know how many sections or clauses we are going to deal with at one time, but it makes no difference; I am quite prepared to deal with six if my hon. friend wishes. The reason we are repealing the two sections to which my hon. friend has referred is that section 119 of the code, which is the law of this country today, requires all persons in Canada, subject to exceptions in section 129 having to do with military, peace officers and so on, to have certain permits with respect to firearms such as pistols and revolvers. For example, there must be a permit to carry one; there must be a permit to sell one and a permit to buy one and a permit to resell one. Paragraph (b), imposing an additional requirement upon aliens to have a permit in form 76B for any firearm such as a pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle or ammunition therefor, subject to the exception in favour of sportsmen passing through Canada, contains duplication in view of the permits they are required to have, just like everyone else in Canada, under section 119. Since there is a duplication those in charge of enforcement think it is not very intelligent, and they desire to have it repealed.
As to the registration every few years, as I have already indicated the law at the present time requires me, as soon as I purchase any of these weapons, to have a permit to buy them and a permit to carry them; and I must register them. If I sell them I must have a permit, and the person who buys them must have a permit. By the enforcement of all these provisions, if they are all lived up to, a complete record is kept of the ownership of every revolver and pistol in the country. John Doe was the first owner. He got a permit to resell it to Richard Roe; and you can follow the course of that weapon throughout, always providing that those concerned in these transactions complied with the law. The result of this general re-registration every five years, at a great deal of expense and extra work, has not been very satisfactory. This is indicated by the fact that of 227,510 firearms registered in 1939, some
45,000	remained unaccounted for at the time of the 1945 re-registration, in spite of intensive efforts to trace them.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask how many of
those were revolvers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot give my
hon. friend a breakdown, but the total unaccounted for was 45,000. Supposing we 
maintained this system of re-registration an an inquiry should come in from the polic department in Vancouver, let us say, as to gun bearing a certain serial number. I order to reply we would have to go back t the first general re-registration of 1939, the to the next re-registration of 1945, then to tb next general re-registration of 1950, and i all the intervening registrations, before vc could reply to this wire which might have t do with the apprehension of some crimini and might have to be answered quickly : the matter were to be properly attended ti After careful consideration the commissione of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wrol me a letter, which I shall be glad to read 1 hon. members if they are in any doubt o the score, to the effect that these re-registrs tions served no useful purpose and used up lot of time and money when we require peopl to have permits to buy, own, sell or resell. B that means we have the facilities for mair taining a continuous record of all the gur in the country, with one proviso that r human being can take care of, and that is tl proviso that people will comply with the la\


John George Diefenbaker: But 45,000 disappeared i five years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They did not disappear at ai What happened was that John Jones ha registered a gun in 1939, and did not see ( did not pay any attention to the re-registr; tion notice in 1945, and that particular gu would not be re-registered in 1945. The: were 45,000 of that sort.
I make this point: If you require John Dc to register a gun in 1939, and he has to ha\ a permit to buy or to sell one, that is regi: tered and stands on the registry in the narr of John Doe. Now let us suppose that i 1945 it still belongs to John Doe. You loc up the record and there it is registered in h name, whether or not you have re-registratio: When he sells it he has to get a permit, ar the application for that permit discloses ' whom he is going to sell it. The chap who going to buy it discloses on his applicatic for a permit the person from whom he going to buy it. By means of this quite rig: system, a registry is built up which indicate those who own guns at every point of tim In this step we have taken we are followir the example of the United Kingdom whic has a much more rigid system of weapc registration than is prevalent anywhere c this continent. I think that is the answer the points that were raised by the memb for Lake Centre.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman, the minis! seems insistent upon trying to create tl impression that section 1 has an entire

different meaning from that which it has. He seeks to convey the impression that this reference to camps or mines or something of that nature-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Are we back on the other section now?


George Alexander Drew: We are on the same section with which we were dealing. We have not left it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Lake Centre was off it.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not off it at all. I mentioned the other points in connection with it, since they all had to do with the apparent solicitude of the minister to get rid of this section.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: As I understand it, the hon. member had permission to deal with the two other sections because of their relationship to section 1.


George Alexander Drew: That is right. There was a continuity in these sections, because they all dealt with the removal of certain requirements in connection with weapons. Sections 2 and 3, which were particularly under discussion, have to do with the relaxation of certain provisions with regard to pistols and weapons of that kind. The point I wish to make in regard to section 1 of the amending bill is that it is not limited to any particular kind of enterprise. It is any public work, and would include a hydroelectric plant. It would include a gas-operated plant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not a hydroelectric plant.


George Alexander Drew: Why not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Because it is not so defined. I shall read, if I may, the definition:
"Public work" includes any railway, canal, road, bridge or other work of any kind . . .
The application of the ejusdem generis rule would exclude a hydroelectric plant. A railway, canal, road or bridge are all means of communication, and give meaning to that section, so it would not include a hydroelectric plant.
In any event, the substantial answer to all of these observations and arguments that are being put forward is that at this moment part III is not in effect in any part of Canada, because it has never been proclaimed. There has never been any demand for it. Its obsoleteness is indicated by the fact that no person has asked that it be put into effect. It is not, as the leader of the opposition would indicate, that we are taking away some protection which is now being had. It is not being had because no person has asked for it. Since we have something on the statute book for which no person has asked
Criminal Code
in twenty-two years, we think it is sensible to clear this debris out of the way in order that the commission can get on with its work.


George Alexander Drew: There is no use, perhaps, in bandying words back and forth with regard to the definition, except that the English language is reasonably simple. "Public work" is a clearly definable thing, and in order that it should be extended beyond certain things not included in public works, in this particular case it is declared to include a railway, canal, road bridge or other work of any kind. Obviously that would include any public work in the ordinary meaning of that term. I shall not even attempt to contend that any other meaning can be given it because it is so obvious. The words "public work" indicate something that is known by every alderman in every municipality, and every member of every legislature. It is something that is known in every part of this country. The reference to railways, canals and so on is to make it clear there is no limitation, and this extends it beyond the ordinary scope.
My point is that at this time, far from doing anything that would make it easier to have weapons around any public works, we should be strengthening the law. Let us recognize one thing that we have not been prepared to recognize. Rifles and shotguns, no matter what other purpose they may have, are sporting weapons and are used for that purpose. It is because they are used for that purpose that there is a desire to make it reasonably easy for people to have them. Revolvers and pistols are in an entirely different category. It is only within a limited field that they may be regarded as competitive or sporting weapons. The great majority of crimes related to the use of weapons are related to pistols or revolvers. The crimes that are unsolved, the crimes in connection with which we can all remember the most terrible tragedy, were crimes that were only made possible because of the ease with which pistols and revolvers can be concealed. It is only rarely that you read of murders being committed with rifles or shotguns. There are cases, of course, but those are usually premeditated. The murders we read of where people have been picked up in automobiles, where someone in a store has been shot, where someone on the street has been shot in connection with some robbery, are almost invariably committed by persons carrying a pistol or revolver. I believe that far from being more easygoing about the carrying of these weapons, the time has come to tighten up the law in

Criminal Code
this regard. Unless a person shows some good reason for having them, he should not be allowed to have them at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Forgery and penalty.
William F. Carroll: I fear, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is going to create a lot of trouble and difficulties for crown prosecutors. The code specifies about fifteen or sixteen ways- I do not know how many-by which one can commit forgery.


An hon. Member:: Forty.


William F. Carroll: Forty, my friend says. This amendment makes it a general offence. That, of course, was done, I have no doubt, in order to avoid all the difficulties in connection with counsel getting up on every occasion and asking for particulars of the crime of forgery that was charged. I have nothing against it myself, as I never intend to practise criminal law especially again. But I am going to suggest that it is going to take up a lot of time of the criminal courts in cases of forgery when defence counsel gets up and says, "I want particulars of this thing." At the present time particulars are included in the charge of forgery that is laid. I would not think that any attorney general of any province, if he has ever practised before the criminal courts in charges of forgery, would be in favour of an amendment of this kind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend, I may say that this amendment was approved by the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada at their 48th meeting. This is a conference on which there are represented all of the departments of the attorneys general of the various provinces of Canada and the federal Department of Justice. They are supposed to be experts in their field. In their view the amendment is advisable. In addition to the awkwardness to which the explanatory note on section 6 of the bill refers, the explanatory note says:
Sections four hundred and sixty-eight, four hundred and sixty-nine and four hundred and seventy specify over forty separate instances of forgery. It is unnecessary and cumbersome to particularize in this manner and the three sections have therefore been combined into one.
In other words, I think my hon. friend would agree that the prosecutor in these cases is, by the nature of the present law, called upon in the indictment to specify which particular one of the forty different varieties of forgery is the one involved in that particular case. Then if he does not bring along evidence to support that particular kind of forgery, there are certain handicaps which

flow back upon the prosecution. By this group of experts it was thought that it was advisable to do away with all of these forty varieties and to have just one crime of forgery which would be applicable to any type of forgery at all.
Another of the difficulties that arise here is that under one of these sections the person convicted could get life imprisonment, under another section he could get fourteen years, and under another he could get seven years. If therefore you picked on one of the forty varieties that happened to be under the life imprisonment section, and all that you could prove was one that was under the fourteen years section, a quite unnecessary hiatus was created just by the terms of the legislation. It is in order to avoid all that and to simplify the criminal law that the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada recommended this amendment.


William F. Carroll: My point is that it is going to take an hour longer to try every case of forgery, with the defence counsel getting up and asking for particulars which in every case the judge will force the crown prosecutor to give. You say that it does away with particularizing, but it does not; because in a case of this kind there is not a judge in the country who would not force the crown prosecutor then and there to give particulars of the kind of forgery it is, and he is confined to that in his case. That is the point that I am making.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to endorse all that the hon. member for Inverness-Rich-mond (Mr. Carroll) has just said. Let us assume that you are a crown prosecutor and you draw up your charge or indictment, depending on the province in which you are, and that you charge that so and so, between this day and that day, at a certain place, did commit forgery. That is permissible under the wording of this section as it now stands. Any defence counsel who knew beans about his business would first of all apply for particulars. Remembering that once particulars are given they become part of the charge, you find that you are right back where you are now, with the various divisions which are named. It is all right to say that there are forty different kinds of forgery; there might be more. But certainly any defence counsel who knows his business will have you choose one of those forty varieties. And it must be kept in mind that now, in stating your particulars, you have got to state them in such a way as to come within this general section, whereas before you could say he was

in breach of the section because the prosecution had set out the particular kind of forgery that he was committing.
I am going to agree with the minister in this. I wish we could simplify things. But I am much worried that by trying to simplify them, in setting out the sections of the Criminal Code, we are not succeeding in doing so. I speak not as an authority but certainly with some experience in these matters. I have convicted many people of forgery. Fortunately, on the other side of the picture, I have had the odd one who was perhaps not convicted. But I know this. Any lawyer in the world who was defending someone on a general charge of forgery, and who would proceed without having the most exact particulars, should have his gown taken from him and should never again be allowed to defend anybody in any court whatever.
However, as always here, we are largely in the hands of the minister who has been advised by various persons in the various provinces in Canada. But the fact that a man is an attorney general-and I speak from experience-does not mean that he knows anything about the criminal law. Let us stick to the practical situation. That is just what it amounts to. I can remember what happened in certain cases. Let us take a charge of conspiracy, under the section dealing with conspiracy, which had to do with prices and so on. I went through two or three courts two or three times to find out, and I had to draw those particulars; I was on the prosecuting side. It was a difficult job; and as has been said by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll), our experience is that the courts will always grant particulars. They always should. Why? Because the liberty of the subject is at stake, and he is entitled to know, to the last detail and comma, what it is the crown intends to prove against him. I have excellent support in the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, but I hate to put myself up against the so-called experts, and I do not use that word derisively at all. It is all right to sit back, but when you get down there in front of that judge and jury, I know what happens. You give particulars. The minister had something to say about the different penalties. Of course there should be different penalties. Some forgeries are infinitely more serious than others. Let us assume that the forgery is of the type where a crown document or something of that kind is forged. Of course the most severe penalty should follow. Whereas if it was merely the forging of a little $5 cheque, which has become almost a diversion in some parts of the country, it would not be treated really with great seriousness; or if it were 55946-188
Criminal Code
the signing of somebody's name to a subscription for a magazine or something of that sort it would not be quite so bad. Certainly there should be differences in penalties.
There may be some logical support for the argument that in dealing with crimes infinitely more latitude should be given to our judges.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is what this provides.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If that is the minister's idea, I do not know why we should stop with forgery. We have a great deal of work in front of us in dealing with many kinds of crime. I would be inclined to agree with him as to more serious crimes. Let us take assaults. The language of "common assault" covers every kind of assault. You may tear half a man's head off, or you may just put your fist toward him or point your finger at him and it is common assault, but some are much more serious than others. Our code has provided for that in the section dealing with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. What is it when you draw blood, and so on?


An hon. Member:: Grievous assault.


Arthur Leroy Smith: There are a number of degrees that are provided for by the code, and I have never yet heard any complaint about them. In advocating this change I wonder whether the Minister of Justice is not putting our courts and counsel into much greater difficulty than they are now.
Perhaps I should say this. I agree with him in that I do not like to see people who are obviously guilty get off on highly technical grounds. We all know that is a bad thing in the administration of justice, but you will never cure it.
The fact is that these various kinds of forgeries have been worked out down through history, and they all stem from the administration of the criminal law in England. They have all had a great reason behind them. It does seem to me to be a mistake for anyone in this house to rush hurriedly into the elimination of a practice which through experience has proven to be good. It is something that requires, let us say, hesitancy. I do not use any stronger word than that. However, I am bound to say this, I am not going to vote against it. I assume that the minister has given it careful consideration; I assume that he has had the advice of a lot of big names behind him; but a little police court lawyer like myself

Criminal Code
is telling him that he is looking for trouble right through the piece in passing this kind of legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Adjournment of hearing.
John George Diefenbaker: The amendment is to provide a method by which a justice conducting a preliminary inquiry may remand a person appearing before him, for mental examination. Paragraph (f) reads: where In his opinion there is reason to believe that the accused' person is mentally ill, order that the accused be remanded in such custody as he directs for observation for a period not exceeding thirty days.
Who asked for this? Is it at the request of any attorney general?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This amendment was approved by the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation in Canada, criminal section, at their 1948 meeting.


Mr. Blair:: Does this not seem to be a dangerous type of clause? It leaves the finding of this to the justice. It does not say on the evidence of competent authorities; it says, "where in his opinion." If a justice has the power to commit any person to a mental institution on his own say-so without the evidence of psychiatrists, it seems to me a very serious thing. There is nothing in the clause about calling any witnesses. It says, "where in his opinion." I submit that would be a very dangerous thing to put in the possession of any justice. The justice himself might be suffering from delusions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps my hon. friend is not aware of the fact that in some provinces at the present time persons who are accused of indictable offences and about whose mental condition some question has been raised are subject to mental examination under provincial statute. There is a procedural difficulty that arises here which is the occasion for this amendment, because, when these people are subject to an examination under provincial statute, the Criminal Code provides that in the case of a preliminary inquiry they can remand only for eight days. In most of these cases it requires more than eight days to conduct a proper examination of these people whose sanity is suspect. This section enables the judge, who is in charge of the preliminary inquiry, to give a remand not for the eight days provided in the Criminal Code but for a period of thirty days.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is the minister quite right about that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is not the eight-day remand only for people who are in custody?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, now; persons on bail can be remanded for any length of time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will give my hon. friend the section of the code. It is section 679, subsection 1, paragraph (c), which reads-


Arthur Leroy Smith: Do you want to bet any money?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; I will bet you $5.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hope I may be forgiven for that. That is a breach of our rules. It is my fault, not yours.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The section reads:
A justice holding a preliminary inquiry may in his discretion
(c)	adjourn the hearing of the matter from time to time and change the place of hearing, if from the absence of witnesses, the inability of a witness who is ill to attend at the place where the justice usually sits, or from any other reasonable cause, it appears desirable to do so, and may remand1 the accused, if required, by warrant in form 17: Provided that no such remand shall be for more than eight clear days, the day following that on which the remand is made being counted as the first day;
(d)	order that no person other than the prosecutor and accused, their counsel and solicitors shall have access to or remain in the room or building in which the inquiry is held, if it appears to him that the ends of justice will be best answered by so doing;


Arthur Leroy Smith: You had better pay up, had you not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Mr. Rowe:: It is a good thing we followed our rules, or you would have lost your money.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is the law.
On a preliminary hearing the justice may remand the accused for a month, if he wants to, provided he is on bail. If he is in custody it is a different thing. The main reason for the eight-day limitation is that the man is in custody. That is the original reason for the section that the minister has just read. The last part of the section that the minister read is the part that makes it so plain. The position I took with the minister is quite correct. I have spoken to it dozens of times. Probably I was present when it was argued out some years ago, and it has been followed ever since, that the person having authority to hold the preliminary inquiry can make a remand-I do not want to make it too big- for thirty days, if he wants to, if the person is on bail. If the person is in custody, eight days is the limit.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, all I can say about that is that, if my hon. friend is right, the conference of commissioners is wrong. The express reason for this amendment recommended by them at their 1948 meeting is to provide for a thirty-day remand where there is now a remand for only eight days. If that necessity did not exist, this amendment would not be asked for.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is where a man is in jail.


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: By consent it can be extended, but otherwise it cannot.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I suggest to the hon. member for Yorkton that a man whose sanity is suspect cannot give consent.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I should like to say a word about sanity. I wonder if the law in the various provinces is the same as it is in Alberta. It may appear from certain indications, and from proper evidence, that a man is mentally ill, of unsound, mind. My memory is that at the present time, on warrant of the attorney general, he may be committed to a mental institution.
This has always worked out very well. A moment ago the hon. member for Lanark said something which gave me some concern. It may be that in provinces like Ontario and Quebec, where the population is dense, you always have persons conducting preliminary hearings who have had a good deal of experience and who are capable of exercising the most excellent judgment. However in those areas from which the hon. member for Yorkton and I come-and one could include the whole of the north country-we have a different situation. In those areas we may have justices of the peace who, in their normal lives, are merchants, real estate men or blacksmiths; they may have many occupations, and let no one think that I am criticizing any of them. The country was built up by the fine services rendered to our courts by those men of good common sense.
It does seem rather strange however that inexperienced persons should be able to remand individuals for thirty days for a mental examination. Surely some better provision than that is required-and I am hoping that the hon. member for Yorkton will support me in this. It does seem to me that the suggestion that has been made gives altogether too much authority to some of our justices of the peace, when they are permitted to remand persons requiring such examination for a period of thirty days, without first having laid down some conditions, or the provision that the attorney general issue a warrant.
Criminal Code
I am not suggesting that I will vote against this, but I am wondering if the Minister of Justice has given the matter as serious consideration as I am sure he thinks it deserves.


William Gourlay Blair: As this stands, it may be left in the hands of a justice of the peace where, in his opinion, it is proper to do so. No one has been called in, and I am suggesting that the provision whereby a justice can send a person to a mental institution for thirty days, for examination, would seem to be placing a great deal of power in his hands.
If the section read, "when on the evidence of a competent authority" or something of that kind, it might be understood that such power could be given to a magistrate. But there is no mention about examination, or anyone being called in. It refers only to his opinion, and that seems to be giving the magistrate a great deal of power.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that in some provinces, under provincial statutes, this power is now exercised; and it is in that connection that this provision is inserted, so that there can be no question as to the length of time during which a justice can remand a prisoner.
I believe there is some merit in the point raised by the hon. member. But the man would be remanded for observation; it is not as though he made a finding as to sanity. The remand is for purposes of observation by people whose evidence as to mental condition would not carry any weight unless they were competent in their fields.


William Gourlay Blair: But it leaves a stigma on the man involved.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps not
throughout the whole of Canada, but certainly in some parts of it, the term "jail" or "place of confinement" includes mental institutions. That is the only place to which a person of this kind would be admitted.
Use is made of the word "certify" rather generally in respect of people who are mentally ill. Then, when a person is charged, a magistrate can act only on the advice of two physicians. That is the only way in which even the wildest lunatic can be sent to a mental institution, which is a place of confinement. Then he can be released only on an attorney general's warrant.
I quite agree with the hon. member for Lanark that to have a situation such as he has described, wherein a justice of the peace may do something as a result of his opinion, and without prescribing that there shall be evidence from which he could form such an opinion, is carrying things altogether too far,

Criminal Code
and putting too much power in the hands of a man who, honest as he may be, perhaps is not trained to understand insanity.
We know that insanity is a most peculiar ailment. It has never yet been defined satisfactorily by any psychiatrist in the world. In fact, when I cross-examine a psychiatrist my first question always is: What is insanity? I have asked that question dozens of times, and I have never yet heard one psychiatrist who could answer that simple question in any other way than, "It is a departure from the norm." And then the question comes, "Whose norm-mine, yours or somebody else's?" It does seem to me that before a person can be put away for thirty days some other protection should be given. Remember, those in mental institutions are permitted to see their friends only when the people in charge give permission. Their rules are even more strict than those which prevail in the jails. That is necessarily so, and I am not arguing against it.
I do suggest with the greatest respect however, that some further consideration should be given to this matter. In Alberta we have about eight hundred justices of the peace, and in Ontario I suppose they are numbered in thousands. But to place in the hands of an inexperienced man the power to put you or me away for thirty days-true, in order that we may be examined, which is a splendid thing, but without some evidence that we require examination-seems to me to be going altogether too far in dealing with t>he tenable problem you and I know insanity is these days.


Alan Carl Stewart: I regret that I have to agree with the hon. members for Calgary West and Lanark, but I like to be frank about these matters. Those of us who have had experience with the justices of the peace in our province-and I think possibly the same applies to Manitoba-have not very much confidence in some of them. Any lawyer who has appeared before them knows the difficulties with which he is faced. The practical effect of the section is simply to give power to a justice of the peace to declare anybody who is a mentally fit person to be remanded to an institution. I do not know why you are introducing the section, but under it a justice of the peace can remand anybody. If the hon. member for Calgary West came before a justice of the peace I could urge that he be examined as to his mentality. He might strenuously object to it. He might say that he did not want a remand and that he was mentally sound, but the justice of the peace could remand him under this section, and keep on remanding him. I rather think the section should stand unless there is some explanation. Frankly I must say that I have

always believed in the system of using magistrates. These men are schooled in law, know their law, and when you come before them you know that, so far as evidence or law is concerned, your client is going to be treated fairly. In the province of Saskatchewan ninety per cent of our justices of the peace never knew any law and never should have been appointed.
Mr. Gar son: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment were capable of the interpretation which has been placed upon it I do not think for a moment that it would ever have been approved by the conference of commissioners on uniformity of legislation which, as the hon. member for Calgary West knows, is not made up of attorneys general but consists of the legal advisers of the attorneys general, men who for the most part have a special competence in this field.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, but they are all prosecutors.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not by any means.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, they are.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know some of them very well and so does my hon. friend. Is Murray Fisher a prosecutor?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I mean they have that complex.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am' sure all hon. members who have spoken will agree that what one has to keep in mind is that the laws with regard to the establishment of mental institutions, treatment therein and mental diseases are all provincial statutes. Under these laws the greatest possible protection is given to the subject so that he cannot be adjudged to be insane or in a sick mental condition until he has been carefully examined according to the routine laid down in the provincial laws.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Suppose he is not insane; he has served thirty days.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The custodian into whose hands the justice of the peace would remand such an individual would be a competent person under the provincial statute.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A mental
hospital.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: An insane
asylum.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let us assume that a given justice of the peace may have been in error in his reaction to the appearance of the accused, that he wrongly thought that the accused should be subject to examination, and that he wrongly, if you like, remanded him into such custody. The immediate reaction

would be that he would be declared to be perfectly sane, would come back, and the trial would proceed. Actually, as those who have been practising criminal law to a much greater extent than I have know-I do not pretend to be an expert in that field at all-in most cases this is a device which is employed not against the interests of the accused but for his protection. Insanity is a defence that may be raised, and the only way in which he can be found to be in that condition is not by compliance with any law this parliament may pass, because that does not happen to be under our constitutional jurisdiction. It is the provinces which declare what mental diseases shall consist of, and who shall decide as to what they consist of.
At the present time in some provinces persons accused of indictable offences who are appearing before magistrates on preliminary hearing are being remanded into such custody, but they run into this procedural difficulty. It is to cure the procedural difficulty beyond any peradventure that these people- and I mean this in no offensive sense at all -have made a point of studying this matter, in order to discharge their heavy responsibility of coming to an agreement and recommending it for consideration by the Department of Justice, as I am now recommending it for consideration by the House of Commons. After careful study of this matter I seriously recommend the section now before you. If I thought for one moment that the section was susceptible of the interpretation placed upon it by the hon. member for Lanark, the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Yorkton, I would not think of bringing it before the house.
It seems to me, however, that it is a wise thing to regularize the procedure in preliminary inquiries, and any findings as to mental disease in connection therewith must be carried out by the properly qualified people within the provisions of the provincial statute.


Arthur Leroy Smith: But a justice of the peace can do it if in his opinion he thinks it should be done.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He simply remands him into the custody of properly qualified people.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Let us say that the man is all right. I am sure the minister has been up against this case many times just as most of us have. You know that our jails at times have held innocent men, although frankly I do not know very many. Let us say you go down to the jail and talk to a fellow through the bars. He says, "They cannot put a man in jail for this, can they?" You say, "No, they cannot, but you are there
Criminal Code
and I am here." What you are giving the justice of the peace power to do is to put that man away for thirty days. Let us say that at the end of thirty days everybody finds he was perfectly sane and that he was wrongly accused. Here we have the legalized incarceration of an innocent man for thirty days, and there is not a thing that he can do about it civilly or in any other way because the justice of the peace says "In my opinion he should have been remanded to that institution."
I have been very moderate in my remarks, and if in what I have just said I have made a single misstatement or drawn a wrong inference I hope somebody will tell me. As the hon. member for Yorkton said, we are placing in the hands of an individual the power to put an innocent man away for thirty days. There is not a thing he can do about it when he gets out, no matter how innocent circumstances may have proven him him to be. That is my last word.


William Gourlay Blair: It seems to me that the section should have some such words added to it as "if in the opinion of competent witnesses". A man is sent to a mental institution for thirty days. If I were sent there under such circumstances I would always feel that there was a certain amount of stigma about having been in a mental institution. I should like to point out to the minister that so far as the Criminal Code is concerned the question of insanity complicating murder cases has not been revised in over 110 years. The whole Criminal Code reeks of a lack of knowledge of psychiatry as a new science. Nothing has been done in that regard in 110 years. We are still following an outworn piece of legislation.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The Macnaugh-ton case.


William Gourlay Blair: The proposal contained in this section is retrogressive. A magistrate without knowledge of psychiatry is given the power to decide that in his opinion a man is acting in a peculiar way and, as the hon. member for Yorkton has said it may work both ways. I am particularly concerned about the innocent person who is sent there and has that stigma placed upon him. If we could add something like "upon the evidence of competent witnesses" that would clear up the whole business. Then no magistrate could send a man to a mental institution for thirty days if that man were innocent as far as insanity is concerned. It means something in that man's future.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not like to protract this
discussion unduly, but there are some excellent criminal lawyers here in the persons of

Criminal Code
the hon. member for Calgary West and the hon. member for Yorkton. I put it to them, and I hope they will correct me if they think I am wrong, that here we are talking about the preliminary inquiry of an accused charged with an indictable offence, that is, an offence of some seriousness. He has this charge against him, and it may be that the only defence available is the defence of insanity. So I put it to my hon. friends whether, in the actual conduct of these preliminary inquiries, in nine cases out of ten it is not likely to be counsel for the accused who will ask for this remand.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Very often; but
in my experience any counsel who on a preliminary hearing calls the accused person to give evidence is nothing but a fool. I understand the minister, however; I have asked the crown to do this in the case of men I thought were a little queer, but I have had them examined by two doctors.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Take the case of some poor
chap who has no money, who faces a very serious charge and who appears to be mentally unbalanced. What is more reasonable than that his counsel should say, at this early stage of the proceedings, "Remand this man into the custody of a mental institution and have him checked up. If he should be insane, that is an end of the matter."


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then why not
say "at the request of the accused" if that is what you mean?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am dealing with this section
as it comes to the department from people whom we regard as highly competent to recommend it to us, and who have given very careful consideration to it.


Mr. Adamson:: I just want to suggest that
in section 1054 of the Criminal Code, dealing with the sexual psychopath, you must have two psychiatrists in order to sentence the accused. Why in this case would you not recommend psychiatric treatment or study as well?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But that is precisely what the
magistrate has power to do, remand him into the custody of the people who under provincial statute have power to ascertain whether he is fit to stand trial. You do not remand him to a garage keeper, but to those who under the provincial statute have power to declare him sane or insane.


William F. Carroll: In my province no mental hospital will accept a patient on the authority of a justice of the peace, so that is out as far as Nova Scotia is concerned. The only thing a justice of the peace can do is have a man examined by two doctors, whether they are

psychiatrists or not, and it is those doctors who declare whether he is a fit subject for the institution. He will never get into it by the decree of a magistrate or anyone else. He can only be sent to the institution on the authority of two medical men.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I have neither the knowledge nor the experience to comment on the legal point involved, but I have listened to this discussion and have been struck by one or two things I should like to place before the committee very briefly. We have had a competent physician and at least three competent counsel express the view that there are great differences about this. The minister has been frank enough to say that he has not the experience in criminal law of the hon. member for Calgary West or the hon. member for Yorkton, and if I may say so with respect he is probably quite right; he has been occupied with other things. But now apparently this is to go through.
What has the minister given as a reason for its going through in spite of these difficulties? I took down what he said. It is going to be put through regardless, apparently, because it has been recommended by people who in the opinion of the minister would not have recommended it if it had not been right. These people are not here; they have not heard this discussion. It is conceivable that if they had heard it they would have changed their minds; there is no certainty about that. Then the minister said that if he thought for a moment this could have the result that has been stated by people who he admits are more competent in criminal matters, he would not put it through. So we have it supported by the silent evidence of people who are not here. The minister assumes that they would not change their views if they were here, though that cannot be proved. But notwithstanding his modest disclaimer of knowledge, the minister still undertakes to say that these other views are wrong, because he admits that if he thought for a moment there was anything in them he would take a different view.
I just want to ask this. Are these bills that come before us here like the laws of the Medes and Persians in that they cannot be changed; or when we come into this committee do we undertake to discuss these matters? I want to tell the minister that even in the short time I have been in this house I have seen ministers of justice who in these circumstances would say, "I will take another look at this and not force it through."


George Alexander Cruickshank: I would like to ask one
question, if I may, and I am speaking as a layman. Would the same examination, of

which we have heard so much from the other side, be given members of parliament?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


William Gourlay Blair: I desire to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, which I am preparing now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not let it
stand for a while?


Alan Carl Stewart: I think the minister might consider the fact that justices of the peace in different provinces have different qualifications, as he knows. Down east it may be that they are usually qualified lawyers; I do not know. The minister has said that this is being done on the recommendation of the bar, in the interests of uniformity of law enforcement, but I think he might seriously consider adding some such words as "on the application of the accused or his counsel." Under our own mental act in Saskatchewan I have had difficulty getting people out who had been wrongly committed because there, as the minister knows, relatives can go and commit them. We do not want anything like that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I understand, the hon. member for Lanark wishes to submit an amendment, so we had better let this section stand for that purpose.
Section stands.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Using evidence taken below.


John George Diefenbaker: In some states of the union now evidence is taken by recording machines, and I have seen references by some judges in Canada to the fact that under our law the use of such machines is not permitted.
Has the minister considered making the necessary amendment to permit the taking of evidence in that way?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not so considered. Ordinarily representations upon a matter of that sort would come from those who have charge of the administration of justice in the provinces. If they felt that recording machines of that sort would be more effective than court stenographers, and felt an amendment to the Criminal Code would achieve that result-


Mr. Blackmore:: Will the minister speak more loudly, please.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Lake Centre asks whether we have considered substituting recording machines for court stenographers.
Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: No, allowing the use of
recording machines.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Allowing the use in Canada of these recording machines to take the place of court stenographers. My reply is that in matters of this kind which have to do with the administration of justice carried on under the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces, we ordinarily do not enforce upon them any new methods for which they do not ask. I think I am right in saying that we have received no representations from any of the attorneys general requesting permission to use such machines.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Sections repealed.
John George Diefenbaker: I believe the move made in section 18 of the bill is a good move. It does away with the moiety provisions. I am interested in knowing when the suggestion was first received by the minister for the removal of these several sections. Over the years they have constituted on occasion an invitation-I shall conclude my remarks there-that has not been conducive to the best administration of justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this is a case where I believe the department can take some credit. We share the views of the hon. member, and we are asking for the passage of the amendment to do away with moieties. So far as I am aware there have been no representations by anyone. This is an original idea of our own.


John George Diefenbaker: To what extent have these sections applied? Has there been a distribution of moneys during the past year under these several sections?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think so. These moiety sections have not been of very frequent invocation in this country. As my hon. friend knows, there were some countries in which people made their living by this sort of thing, but so far as I am aware that has not been true of Canada. While we affirm it is an excellent principle to abolish these moieties, the hon. member might take this as another example of an obsolete section which is being eliminated.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it was not obsolete. It was used quite frequently.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
On section 19-"Attorney general" for "Minister of Justice."
Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to point out to the minister that section 19 makes it necessary for a psychiatrist to be in court before sentence can be passed upon a criminal sexual psychopath.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before it is established that he is a criminal sexual psychopath. I believe if the hon. member refers to the relevant provincial statutes he will find it requires two psychiatrists to establish the insanity of a person.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I believe it is a good clause, and I am in favour of it.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says it is a good clause, and I recall all the approbation that was given to it when it was introduced and passed in 1948. Since that date, how many persons have been declared criminal sexual psychopaths, and liable to indeterminate sentence? To what extent has the section actually been used?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not to a very great extent. The number of sentences of an indeterminate character-I do not think I can give the number from memory-I believe would be less than half a dozen. It depends a good deal on the attitude which is taken by the prosecutor in individual cases. We provide the law, but the use that is made of it depends upon the policy of the prosecution which is carried on in the individual provinces. It is the same with regard to the amendment to section 207 of the code concerning crime comics; we provided the law but whether or not it is invoked is another matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Commencement of sentence.
Arthur Leroy Smith: Will the minister give us a brief explanation of this section? Perhaps I may ask a question to simplify it. Is the object of this section to make sure that, in all cases, sentence shall begin from the date it is imposed? Is that what is sought here? Perhaps I should speak of the exception. In the event that someone appeals, and his appeal is dismissed, as we have it now his term does not begin until the date of the dismissal of his appeal. As I understand, that is the law at the present time. Does this alter that situation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not believe I can answer the question in quite the simple terms in which the hon. member has put it. The present provisions relating to the commencement of sentences are now found in the Criminal Code itself, section 1019 (2), the

Penitentiary Act, 1939, sections 47 (2) and 49 (4), and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, section 3. These provisions, by reason both of their dispersement and of overlapping, are confusing and it is desirable that such provisions be consolidated in one place. The purpose of the present amendment is to consolidate them all in one place.
Clause 20 accomplishes this by inserting a new section, 1054B in the Criminal Code, and the existing provisions are repealed by sections 17, 22 and 23. Section 20 thus effects a consolidation without making any material change in the present law. It does, however, clear up one point in connection with applications for leave to appeal. In some cases the code confers upon an accused person the right to appeal without leave; for example, in the case of a person convicted on indictment who desires to appeal on a question of law alone. In other cases the code confers a right of appeal subject to obtaining leave of the court of appeal; for example, an appeal from sentence or an appeal on the question of fact alone. Section 1019 (2) now provides that the time during which a convicted person is on bail pending the determination of any appeal, and the time during which he is detained in jail pending the determination of an appeal, shall not count as part of his term of imprisonment. The new section 1054B makes it clear in subsection 5 that an application for leave to appeal is to be considered in the same light in this regard as an appeal itself.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Shall time spent awaiting
trial be considered?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Awaiting trial of an appeal?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No. When a man is arrested and held without bail until his trial, which may await the assizes for two or three months, is that time considered?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The time he has spent in
custody awaiting trial is taken into account by the judge when he imposes the sentence. This present section deals with what happens to him after he has lodged an appeal against that sentence. It is the time that he is in custody awaiting the hearing of the appeal.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Are the sections of the other act going to be repealed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On section 24-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this section is carried, can the minister tell me whether part XVI of the Criminal Code, which was adopted in

1948, has yet been proclaimed? That is the part headed "Summary trial for certain indictable offences". The matter was under discussion last fall, in September; and at that time it had not been proclaimed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry, but I was engaged in conversation with my colleague, and I did not catch my hon. friend's point. It was with regard to part XVI, was it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Part XVI has always been in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. The matter was under
discussion here on September 27, last fall. At that time the minister indicated that it had not yet been proclaimed. It had been passed only the year before.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I get the point of my
hon. friend's question now. Certain amendments with regard to this part were passed at the last session of the house.


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In 1948.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, in 1948. Before they went into effect, we wanted the municipalities and organizations to be thoroughly aware of what their purport was; and they have not been proclaimed until that condition has been satisfied. I think at the present moment they are not in effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not yet proclaimed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not yet proclaimed.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the clause carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No, I do not
think we should pass clause 24 just at the moment. You will find that it has a provision bringing this act into effect on the first day of May, 1950. I do not think the minister would want to carry that provision.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, of course not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We had one
section that has been allowed to stand, and I think this one might stand also.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This clause was put into the bill at the time it was introduced in the Senate, in the expectation that it would go through there, come here and be dealt with before the first of May. Now that it has not been dealt with by the first of May, we should delay it, I should think, until July 1 at any rate; and I think we had better leave it here, and we can ascertain the proper date.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was merely trying to tidy it up. I knew that the minister would not want it to pass in that form.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The point made by my hon. friend is quite right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not let
this clause stand along with the clause that has already been allowed to stand, and it can be amended at that time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All right.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Clause 24 stands. We shall now revert to clause 9.
On section 9-May remand for observation.


William Gourlay Blair: I move:
That subparagraph (f) be amended by deleting from the first line thereof the words "where in his opinion" and substituting therefor the following: "when requested by the accused or where in the opinion of at least two competent medical experts."


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am going to suggest that the amendment stand along with the section. As I understood the minister a few minutes ago, he was going to have another good look at the section itself and see whether or not he wanted it to go through. Unless someone has something more to say, there is not much object in our discussing the amendment when it may be that in fact, on contemplation, the minister may want to alter the section itself. I think the hon. member for Yorkton would agree with me that we thought it was going to stand until it could be re-examined.


Mr. Fulton:: The minister never said that.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That being so, we do not want to press the amendment now or to press the section. If we do, no one will have had a chance to re-examine it on the points we raised a while ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister never said he would let the section stand.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Oh, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not yet.


Alan Carl Stewart: The proposed
amendment is not in legal language; it says "where in the opinion of two medical experts". That is not legal and has no effect.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I want to be put right on one question of fact. My memory is that this section was allowed to stand, and the Chairman said "stand". I am right in that, am I not, with regard to section 9?


William Earl Rowe: Surely.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then let it stand. I should like to talk to the minister about it.


Alan Carl Stewart: Unless the minister would agree with the words of the amendment "or is requested by the accused".


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why not let him
take a good look at the whole thing?
2980	HOUSE OF
War Veterans Allowance Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the better way would be to let the section stand in the bill and report progress. Then we will look at it again. We have every desire to give heed to the suggestions that have been made; and if they are weighty, we should give them weight.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall section 9 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 180, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Newfoundland veterans.
Mr. Pearkes:: Many representations have been made in previous discussions on this bill that some of the benefits should be extended to other classes of veterans. Since those representations were made I am sure the minister has had time to discuss that matter with his colleagues, perhaps, or anyway to form an opinion. Will he say whether he is prepared to make any further extensions of these benefits to any of the other classes of veterans, as recommended during the previous discussions on this bill?


Mr. Gregg:: No, Mr. Chairman, not in this bill.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am sorry that cannot be done; but if the minister has definitely decided upon that and assumes the responsibility for not extending these benefits, then may I say that, in my own personal opinion, we should try to get passed through as soon as possible what benefits are now being offered to the imperials or to the men who are already covered.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I wish to ask the minister a question, but I do not know whether this is the proper section under which to ask it. If I am out of order, and I seldom am, I should be glad to know. Every responsible veterans' organization that I know of has made recommendations in connection with this matter.
I am pleased that allowances have been made to imperial veterans; but I am particularly anxious to know whether this is the clause under which I should discuss the imperial veterans' widows. I should like to see them afforded the same treatment under the act as Canadian veterans receive.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman; as discussed before, the widows of British and


allied veterans of twenty years' residence in Canada will become eligible under this bill, and will be treated in exactly t'he same way as widows of Canadian veterans.


Mr. Green:: And the minister has not deviated at all from his original position, which was that unless the imperial veteran had been alive in Canada for twenty years the widow could not qualify. That is still the position?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct. That is the position I took when the bill was first introduced, and that is the position, I contend, which is the correct one with relation to those now eligible under the bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I may be a little dense, but I should like a little more explanation from the minister through you, Mr. Chairman. Probably I have not grasped it as I should have. I have been speaking for my own Legion, and I believe for the Legion of the province of British Columbia. We think that wives of those imperial veterans who resided twenty years in Canada should have the same consideration under this particular act as the Canadian veterans. Some of us have been very fortunate in our marriages; some have not been so fortunate. Some may have been married only nineteen years. We have had so much legal discussion tonight that I have become almost legal-minded. I cannot put my point in legal language; it would be too involved. The point I am trying to make is this. A married veteran may have been in Canada twenty years, but he may have been married for only nineteen years. I want to be corrected in this if I am wrong. I have listened to the hon. member for Lake Centre and a few other hon. members taking part in legal discussions tonight and I am beginning to believe that I am legal-minded, but I am not. My contention is that we want every imperial veteran or a veteran of any other allied country who has resided here for twenty years to be accorded the same treatment under the War Veterans Allowance Act as a Canadian veteran. I think the Legion of British Columbia, and certainly my own branch, believe that the widows of the imperial veterans should have the same treatment as the widows of Canadian veterans. Am I wrong or am I correct in my assumption?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member for Fraser Valley is exactly correct. The benefits accruing in this case flow to the wives or the widows through the veterans. The veteran is the person to be recognized; and the wife of the British or allied veteran in Canada twenty years who may have been married after ten years in Canada, but who

otherwise qualifies, would be eligible if she became a widow just the same as the Canadian-born veteran married ten years ago.


Frank Exton Lennard: I regret that some consideration has not been given to widows of those imperial veterans who came here over twenty years ago. I do not want to cite any particular case, but I know of several cases. I know of one case in particular where the veteran came out here in 1922. He lived here for twelve years and then died. He left his wife with small children. She struggled, and through her own efforts raised those children. Now she is denied this pension because she was not fortunate enough to have her husband live for twenty years in this country. I think it is a shame that a case like that has not been given some consideration.


Mr. Brooks:: I agree with the other hon. members who have spoken. There is one question I should like to ask the minister. Why is it that we stick to the twenty years? I do not see any logical reason why it should be twenty years. I think it was because we followed the Old Age Pensions Act which required that a foreigner had to be in this country twenty years before he qualified for an old age pension. In studying the old age pensions acts of other countries I have found that they do not require the same length of time. If an alien enters into any of those countries and takes out citizenship within five years, in most of the countries he qualifies for the old age pension. I do not see any particular reason why we should stick to the twenty years. We are amending the act. It seems to me that a shorter time should be specified, which would permit the widows of those imperial veterans to receive the benefits which their husbands would have received had they been here a certain period of time. I should like the minister to explain why twenty years was selected as the time.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member for Royal is the first person who has suggested that the time should be less than twenty years. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra took up the suggestion the other night, looked at it, and then discarded it.


Howard Charles Green: No, I did not.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Put it to one side; I will put it that way. To answer my hon. friend directly, the reason the twenty years has been taken is that all those who have been interested in this question for the last ten years felt that twenty years was a reasonable period of time. It was a period of time, more or less taken by rule of thumb, that it was felt would 55916-189J
War Veterans Allowance Act be fair. From 1920 to 1930 the greater number of these men came to this country. There were a comparatively small number between 1930 and 1940. Then of course the larger group that has come in since the end of the last war will be for somebody else to worry about some fifteen or twenty years hence.


Howard Charles Green: Of course the picture is that the veteran who came here in 1920 and then died before 1940 left his widow in this position that she gets no help.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Quite right.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to get that point cleared up because it is pretty sticky. I refer to the point that the hon. member for Royal made reference to and the one that the hon. member for Fraser Valley is not clear on. No matter when the imperial veteran married, if he was in this country for twenty years, his wife is eligible; but an imperial veteran may have been in this country for nineteen years and six months and then passed on. His widow is not entitled to this award, although she may have been here all her life. I would like to know how many are affected. I myself think that it is a pretty rank piece of discrimination. I wonder whether the minister has any figures on the number that would be affected. I imagine there are few. I believe the amendments are all right as they are, but there is that one point that sticks out, and there is a lot of resentment over it. Can the minister tell us how many are being dealt out under this regulation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have no figures for the simple reason that the two national organizations that made the survey of this question did not expect those particular widows would be eligible; consequently they did not take them into consideration in making their survey. They made the survey of those veterans who had, it was estimated, the twenty years' residence in Canada, and based their recommendations and their estimates on that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a
further question through you, Mr. Chairman. I think the Speaker allowed a lot of leeway in some of the legal discussion tonight.
(Inaudible interruption.)
They may not be interested in veterans over here, but I am. Discussion was allowed tonight which might not have been particularly relevant. However, I should like to be permitted on this section to refer to allowances to war veterans. Permission was

War Veterans Allowance Act allowed the leader of the opposition, and the leader of one of the other so-called parties on another matter.
I should like to know if I am allowed to discuss what I consider would be proper allowances under the War Veterans Allowance Act to either Canadian veterans or imperial veterans, under the new amendment. May I discuss that on this section?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It is not in order on this section.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It was in order for those people over there tonight, on legal matters.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-"Veteran" defined.
Howard Charles Green: Under this section is it clear that this covers veterans who served in the South African war?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Would the veterans of any other wars be covered?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think there are any other wars that would be applicable in this case. Anyway, that is why it was made to apply prior to the official date of the end of the second great war, so that it will take in the few remaining South African veterans.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And the veterans of the Riel rebellion; there are a few left. Does it cover them?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, if eligible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Certain deductions not to be made.
Howard Charles Green: This is the section which provides that moneys received under a pension shall not be considered in arriving at a figure for war veterans allowance. Can the minister say what provisions are made in his department for cross-checking between the pensions branch and the veterans allowance branch? On one or two occasions difficulties have arisen in that pension has been increased because the disability of a veteran has become greater; he has received additional money as a result of that increase; at the same time he has been drawing war veterans allowance, but no prompt notification has been sent from the pensions branch to the war veterans allowance board.
The result has been that perhaps a year or eighteen months later the veteran has suddenly been faced with a notification that he has been overpaid. Then of course deductions have been made from his allowance,


and a great deal of suffering has been caused which could have been avoided if there had been some system in the department whereby, the minute a pension was increased, notification had gone to the war veterans allowance board so that the allowance could be adjusted accordingly.
In some cases which have come to my attention veterans have received this increase, have thought they were entitled to it, and did not realize that it was going to affect the war veterans allowance. Then they were faced with a demand for several hundred dollars, perhaps a year or two later.
The income of such a veteran is limited; he can receive only a certain maximum; if he gets part of it in pension, then he gets that much less in war veterans allowance. So when this notification comes he is on a fixed income, and faced with repayment of several hundred dollars. I believe a difficulty of that kind could be avoided by a more efficient exchange of information between these two branches of the minister's department. Have any steps been taken to bring about such an exchange?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the planning that is taking place now active steps are under way to obviate the difficulty pointed out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have had cases of my own that I have had to look after, affected in much the same way. For instance, a veteran's wife has been faced with sudden and serious illness, and the veteran has been called upon to make payment back, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said. These sums have been deducted all at once. Still he has to pay doctor and hospital bills.
It is not reasonable that they should be called upon to make these refunds. If a man is entitled to war veterans allowance, it is because he needs it and because he is incapable of earning a full livelihood for his family. He is receiving it owing to the shortening of his life and earning ability through war service. It is most unreasonable to deduct from that man, as has been done in the cases I have had brought (to my attention. His wife might require the expenditure of large sums of money each month for medicinal purposes; yet the veteran all at once has these sums deducted. Further consideration should be given to this.


Howard Charles Green: One further question. Has there been any change in the treatment regulations in so far as war veterans allowance recipients are concerned? My understanding is that until a year or so ago they were allowed into hospital in most cases under class 1-A. Now they are allowed in under class 5-B, which means a great deal of difference in the

amount of allowance that goes with the treatment. Formerly, apparently, there was what was known as an adjunct treatment ruling. It was not set out in the regulations, but merely in the instructions. Within the last few months a change had been made so that they do not get this class 1-A treatment in as many cases as they did formerly. Why was that change made?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to discuss that more fully when my estimates are being discussed. But if a veteran is entitled to class 1-A treatment he gets it. Otherwise, if he comes in under war veterans allowance, he comes under the appropriate class.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister check that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to ask a further question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: It is eleven o'clock; shall I report progress?


Alphonse Fournier: We have given quite a lot of time to this, and I think we could finish it in a few minutes-unless there is going to be a long discussion on it. I am asking that the house give its consent to continue. There are only three more sections, and I do not think they are contentious.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Does the committee give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will try to be brief, but I entirely disagree with the leader of the house when he says that a lot of time has been taken on this. I heard a lot of time wasted tonight-


Alphonse Fournier: You may call it eleven o'clock, please.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has consulted the leaders of the different parties concerning interim supply. Tomorrow he will move to go into supply and ways and means with the object of having interim supply granted by the house. We will not, after we go into supply, call any new department. If later in the day we wish to go into supply we will move the formal motion on which there may be a debate, amendment, or any other procedure. After interim supply has been voted we will take Bill No. 222, an act to amend the Cold Storage Act; Bill 82, an act to amend the Criminal Code; then resolution No. 8 on today's order paper in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. If time is left we will take up Bills 249 and 89.


George Alexander Drew: I thought that it was the intention to deal with the motion to go into ways and means now standing on the order paper.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, but I have been told by the Minister of Finance that the motion to go into supply will have to precede the other motion because if we got into ways and means we would not have anything before that committee.


George Alexander Drew: Is it the intention to call ways and means after dealing with interim supply?


Alphonse Fournier: Immediately after
going into supply and having the two resolutions concurred in, we will go into ways and means.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
298S
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 30, 1950