1953-04-20

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members would wish me to mention at this time that we are honoured today by the presence in the diplomatic gallery of His Imperial Highness the Crown Prince of Japan. I am sure we are all unanimous in wishing to extend to him a most warm welcome on this occasion. His Imperial Highness is visiting Canada on his way' to London to attend the coronation of our own beloved sovereign Queen Elizabeth. The devoted affection we all have for our own sovereign makes it quite easy for us to understand the high regard in which his illustrious father and the imperial family are held by the people of Japan.
His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Japan is a symbol of his state, and of course the history of the relations between Japan and the western world was darkened by heavy shadows during the tragic years of war. But that is now something of the past. I think that the presence here of His Imperial Highness the Crown Prince, and the important mission on which he is engaged at this time, is a happy confirmation of the fact that those tragic years were of short duration and were, in fact, repugnant to the intimate feelings of all the peoples of the nations who were engaged in war during those tragic years. This mission of His Imperial Highness is a happy omen of better relations between our peoples, and of a more effective and keener desire in all our countries to work together for the welfare of the whole free human race.
We are most happy to welcome His Royal Highness and to say to him that we hope he is enjoying, and will enjoy, his visit throughout Canada, and that he will take back to his country the knowledge that there is a genuine good will towards his country in this land of ours which, like his own, borders on this great highway of the Pacific ocean which has been, and will continue to
be, a highway for the maintenance of political, economic and trade relationships that will be mutually beneficial to our two peoples.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in extending a hearty welcome to the Crown Prince of Japan who in himself here today expresses the similarity between our own monarchical system and that which he represents. As the Prime Minister has already said, the relationship between our respective nations has had its unhappy period. It would also be well to remember that we had an earlier period of alliance in which our relationship was warm and friendly. It is part of the genius of our free system, which is now represented in the parliamentary system of Japan as well as that of Canada, that out of conflict we seek friendship in the years afterwards.
I would hope that the visit on this occasion of His Imperial Highness to this country may emphasize in the minds of the people of his own nation as well as of ours that, with the lessons of the tragic years still clearly in our minds, we are seeking to build stronger understandings of the value of freedom.
We recognize the great achievements of a nation which has reached a proud position in the world as a producer of goods of high quality. We recognize the industry of the people of Japan. We recognize their loyalty to their own traditions. In extending this welcome today to His Imperial Highness, who is part of the system of democratic monarchy which has been established in Japan, we earnestly hope that during the future these nations may come closer together in striving for great achievements along the paths of peace.



TABLING OF REVISED INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table two copies of an agreement revising and renewing the international wheat agreement. This is, of course, the document signed on behalf of Canada in Washington on April 13. Printed copies of this agreement cannot be made available until after the period of signing ends a week

Questions
hence. I would therefore suggest that the agreement be printed in Votes and Proceedings for the information of hon. members.
I may say at this time that all the exporting countries have signed the agreement and that more than 50 per cent of the wheat, by quantity, included in the agreement has been signed for by the importers. Therefore there definitely will be a wheat agreement over the next three years.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	What is the total number of merchant ships owned by Canadians?
2.	How many seamen are employed in manning these ships?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	391, with an additional 96 on United Kingdom registry, and manned by United Kingdom crews.
2.	18,231. The number of seamen employed in manning the 96 ships on United Kingdom registry is not known.



NAVIGATION AIDS, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. Higgins:: Has a decision been made to give Newfoundland priority in the rehabilitation and' modernization of aids to navigation?


Mr. Benidickson:: No. Since union, the department's annual program for the Newfoundland district has been a substantial one, the work has been prosecuted as rapidly as was practicable and creditable progress has Deen made in overtaking the very substantial amount of rehabilitation work that has to be done in that district. That policy will be continued.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES POWER COMMISSION

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many men are employed by the Northwest Territories power commission, Snare river. Northwest Territories?
2.	Are they entitled to holidays with pay after a period of service? If so, has consideration been given to placing them in the same position as power-house operators, linemen and other employees?
3.	Is payment made to them for overtime? If so, what is the rate for overtime?
4.	What arrangements are made for providing moving picture shows and other entertainment?
5.	Who operates the moving picture shows and what is the price of admission?


Mr. Winders:: 1.	Eleven.
2.	Employees paid on a monthly basis receive holidays with pay after a period of service. Employees paid on an hourly rate basis do not receive holidays with pay.

3.	Overtime is paid to the power-house operators and hourly rate employees where they are required to work longer than the standard working day. Overtime pay is paid at the same rate as their normal pay.
4.	Films are rented by the Northwest Territories power commission and shipped to the Snare river plant at the expense of the commission. A new program is supplied weekly.
5.	The films mentioned in question 4 are shown on the projector owned by the Northwest Territories power commission at Snare river which is operated by the members of the staff. There is no price of admission.



IMMIGRANTS SETTLING IN NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Of all immigrants entering Canada in 1952, how many settled in Nova Scotia?
2.	What percentage of Canadian immigration in 1952 would this represent?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	2,702 immigrants gave Nova Scotia as their destination.
2.	1-7 per cent.



ITALIAN IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Balcom:: How many Italians were admitted to Canada in (a) 1951; (b) 1952?


Mr. Harris:: (a) 24,532; (b) 21,554; these statistics are by racial origin.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, WINNIPEG

Mr. Sinnoli:: 1.	Are plans and specifications completed for the new post office building in Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	If not, when are plans and specifications to be completed?
3.	What is to be the type of construction?
4.	Is Tybdall stone to be used or specified?
5.	Have tenders been called for construction?
6.	If not, at what date are tenders expected to be called?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I notice a typographical error in part 4 of this question. It should read "Tyndall", which stone is similar to that used in this building.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Stand.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What was the original cost of the Sussex street property purchased as a residence for the prime minister?
2.	How much has been spent to date in repairing, rebuilding and furnishing the properties?
3.	How much has been spent to date on lawns, hedges, parapet wall, etc.?
4.	How much has been paid to date in salaries and other expenses for domestic and other help?

5.	What is the total government cost of the project from the date of its purchase to the 31st of March, 1953?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Gordon Francis Higgins: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents since 31st of March, 1949, which have passed between the government of the province of Newfoundland and/or any person or persons in Newfoundland and the government of Canada, dealing with the application of term 39 of the terms of union between Canada and Newfoundland.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the consent of the house to delete the words "and/or any person or persons in Newfoundland". I do that following discussion with the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley).


Mr. Bradley:: In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add also that the motion would have to go, as far as we are concerned, subject to obtaining the consent of the provincial government for the production of these documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the motion carry subject to the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) and also by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.



FISHERIES


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve and confirm the convention between Canada and the United States of America for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the northern Pacific ocean and Bering sea, signed by Canada and the United States of America in Ottawa, on the 2nd of March, 1953, and to provide for the carrying out of the provisions thereof.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister seen a press dispatch from Ottawa in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 17, captioned:	"Plan to work out allocated
purchase system with C.N.R." If so, can the minister inform the house as to the details of the new policy of the C.N.R. to purchase Nova Scotia coal?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisier of Transport):: The hon. member was kind enough
to send me a copy of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which I read a few moments ago. He will recall that during the sittings of the committee on railways and shipping the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch) and himself raised this question, which prompted a statement by the president of the Canadian National Railways. Since then the dominion coal board has decided to conduct a survey on the on-company's service charges of the Canadian National Railways in conjunction with an officer of the economics branch of the transport commissioners' office; and, dependent upon the result of that survey, it may well be that the policy of the Canadian National Railways with reference to purchase of coal will change somewhat. Meanwhile, the Canadian National Railways are purchasing from the mine referred to here-I think it is the Intercolonial Coal Company- additional quantities of coal.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I
inquire of the Secretary of State when I may expect the tabling of a return for which I made previous inquiries which was ordered on February 11? May I also ask whether his attention has been directed to citation 450 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition? If not, I take the liberty of referring him to it now in that connection.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall take immediate steps to secure the production of this return as soon as possible.
RECREATIONAL BUILDING, H.M.C.S. "NADEN";



HOUSING


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: May
I ask when I may have a reply to questions
4076	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that were passed as orders for returns on March 9 and on March 19?



INQUIRY AS TO INITIAL PRICE FOR WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question based on the importance to farmers of knowing the initial price that will be set for this year in order that they may allocate their crop acreage? Can the minister say what initial price will be set for wheat, barley and oats produced this year? If he is unable to do that at this time, can he say when such an announcement will be made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not able to make an announcement at this time. The matter is under study, but there are several difficulties this year which must be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, it is not customary to make an announcement as early as this- it has not been in the past years-but at some indefinite date, when we have been able to analyse the various factors, an announcement will be made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I may point out to the minister the announcement was made last year on April 8.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to you, through the Minister of Public Works. I have sent him a copy. When may the members expect to have a television set placed in Room 16? Is the minister aware that there are several reasons, which I will not elaborate on at this time, why one should be there?


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to transmit to you the question that was asked by the hon. gentleman. Everything taking place in this building is under the jurisdiction of' Mr. Speaker, and I am only the liaison officer between Mr. Speaker and the government. We have not discussed this question as yet, and I have not discussed it with my colleagues. It would be interesting to have a television set, but I have always thought that we would have the installation completed in Ottawa before we would consider
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

that. As to the other reasons that I know, I will await another question.



CONSTRUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement made over the week end by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance at a meeting of the Reform Club in Quebec concerning plans which he said the government has for housing, public works and other developments, will the Prime Minister say whether these plans are included in a white paper or other document? If so, will such document be tabled?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I was not present when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance was supposed to have made the declarations referred to by my hon. friend and I have not even seen newspaper reports of what he said. I shall have to get further information than what has been conveyed or implied in the hon. member's question before I attempt to answer it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: See the Montreal Star of Saturday evening.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 191, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Chairman:: May I point out that this bill has been carefully considered by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and was reported to this house with amendments.
On section 1.


Mr. Green:: This bill was amended rather extensively in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant is going to give any explanation of these amendments.


William Moore Benidickson: The amendments, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra says, are somewhat extensive. They appear in Votes

and Proceedings of March 31, but there is no controversy, as I understand it, in connection with the clause that is now before us.
The committee heard representatives and counsel of the shipping industry, and in particular the British Columbia Tug Boat Association, the British Columbia Coastwise Operators' Association, counsel and representatives of the Dominion Marine Association and some of the individual shipping companies.
The major amendments that were made in committee had to do with radiotelephone equipment. As the bill was originally drafted, it was suggested that radiotelegraph should be compulsory in vessels of the sizes described in the bill. In committee the officials of the Department of Transport indicated that, provided there was adequate radiotelephone equipment, it was their intention to provide exemptions from the telegraph requirements up to certain limits and in certain waters if radiotelephone was carried. The industry made representations that practically all vessels of the size we were concerned with, particularly on the west coast plying in coastal waters, were now equipped with radiotelephone equipment. It was therefore suggested that although radiotelephone equipment up to now had been provided by them on a voluntary basis, instead of requiring them to come and seek exemptions for this large number of vessels we should make radiotelephone equipment mandatory, and then have a higher tonnage limit for the requirement of radiotelegraphy. That I think in essence is the nature of the amendments that were made in committee. The amendments were made after legal and other officers of the Department of Transport consulted with counsel for the shipping companies, and I think that, with the exception of the continuing insistence upon the original radiotelegraph stipulations in the bill in respect of passenger vessels, counsel for the shipping industry and all members of the committee were satisfied with the amendments made.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I could not hear everything the parliamentary assistant said, but I gathered he went a little far in his statements concerning the use of the radiotelephone. As the bill was originally drawn it provided for the installation of wireless equipment, and extended that requirement right down to the tugs on the west coast used to tow booms of logs.
When the committee sat, representatives of the west coast tow-boat industry protested a provision under which they would have to carry on their tugs wireless operators and wireless equipment. I believe they had a
Canada Shipping Act
just ground for complaint on that score. As the parliamentary assistant knows, in the final analysis their tugs were exempted from such provision and, instead, were placed under the provision covering ships on the great lakes and the upper St. Lawrence, in respect of which the primary requirement is the provision of the radiotelephone as distinct from the wireless.
I would not want the impression to get abroad however that the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act have eased up the requirements on passenger vessels to carry wireless operators and equipment. For some time there has been a campaign on the part of ship owners to have the wireless replaced by radiotelephone, the latter being operated by one or other of the ship's officers. There has also been a tendency on our coast to have the wireless operators carry on other work. For example, they might act as pursers or as freight checkers, or in some other capacities.
There is no doubt it was the desire of the shipping companies to reduce so far as possible the number of passenger ships on which wireless operators would have to be carried. As the act will stand when these amendments go through, the primary requirement for a passenger vessel will be the carrying of a wireless operator, and exemptions will be granted only at the discretion of the Department of Transport.
I believe that is the way the law should stand-in other words that wireless operators should be carried unless the Department of Transport sees fit to exempt any vessel, or to exempt certain trips. I hope the department will be most careful in granting such exemptions. Let the officials of the department remember that, in the final analysis, if lives are lost on either of our coasts because of a relaxing of regulations, the responsibility will rest squarely with the department.
We have heard the suggestion, for example, that it should not be necessary to carry wireless operators on passenger vessels plying between Vancouver and Victoria. Some of those ships carry as many as two thousand passengers; and while the radiotelephone may be ample protection in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, there may very well come the hundredth case when, because of there being no wireless operator on a vessel, a good many hundred lives might be lost.
Because of the international convention it is necessary for those ships to carry wireless operators between Vancouver or Victoria and Seattle. But it is suggested that, while they

Canada Shipping Act
have to do that, perhaps the shipping companies could be freed from the obligation of carrying wireless operators between Vancouver and Victoria. I do not believe the department should make any such exemption.
There is the further suggestion that there need not be wireless operators on passenger vessels, so long as they are in the waters between Vancouver island and the mainland. It is admitted that once a ship gets beyond the northern tip of Vancouver island wireless operators should be required. The companies are suggesting however that they should not have to carry such operators between Vancouver and the northern tip of Vancouver island. Let me remind the committee that Hippie rock lies in that inside passage between Vancouver island and the mainland, and that it represents one of the greatest marine hazards on the west coast. I am afraid that some day there will be a terrible wreck because of that rock. In any event there should be no relaxation such as has been suggested. Wireless operators should be required on that trip up to the northern end of Vancouver island just as they are required in the waters lying to the north of the island.
I would point out that last summer there was a very serious wreck on our coast when the Princess Kathleen ran aground and was lost. Fortunately no lives were lost; but the vessel, the flagship of the Canadian Pacific Railway fleet, was a total loss. I understand that at the time of the accident the radiotelephone was of no use. I am told by responsible men that the radiotelephone on the Princess Kathleen was not able to do the job it was expected to do. Apparently nothing was sent out over the wireless because of orders to that effect by the captain.
Certainly the radiotelephone is a great help; but the time has not yet come when it can be relied upon exclusively and the wireless dispensed with or the wireless operator given other work to do. Let me point out again that responsibility for any undue relaxation in the terms of the Canada Shipping Act will rest with the Department of Transport, and I would hope that the department would, be most careful in granting exemptions.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I could not
hear all of the explanation made by the parliamentary assistant. However, it is my understanding that certain modifications or amendments have been made in the bill as it was before it went to the committee. He said also that these changes or modifications were acceptable to the owners and I believe to the officers of the Department of Transport.

In that connection may I ask if representatives of the personnel on the ships appeared before the committee, and did they agree to these modifications? This matter has been discussed by the personnel and crews of ships and sailing vessels for a long long time. I have had much correspondence from and many interviews with representatives of those who sail the ships. They are the people who are concerned because they are the ones most likely to lose their lives in case of accident.
I can well understand that the owners would approach this question, not with the idea of saving lives but with the idea of saving dollars. They could very well agree with the modifications, but are those modifications acceptable to the crews who sail these vessels and who are likely to lose their lives in case of accident at sea? I think we have been most backward in enacting safety measures and certainly the time has arrived when we should make them the best possible.
I should like to refer also to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, that is that the personnel in charge of radiotelegraph and radiotelephone equipment should be full-time employees and should not be asked to carry out any other work. Unless they are full-time employees the possibility is that they may not be on hand to receive a particular message and certainly would not be there at all times to see that the equipment was kept in proper condition so that it functioned at all times.
I am apprehensive of the effects of these modifications. I imagine that all I can do at this stage is to express the hope that the Department of Transport will be most careful about granting exemptions in this matter. We have had some serious marine accidents in different parts of this country during the last few years. When regulations were proposed by the Department of Transport in an effort to prevent such accidents in the future I supported the Minister of Transport as strongly as I could. I felt that if we are going to put the onus on the minister to provide safety regulations at sea he should be supported in doing that by members of this house. I do hope that the lives of the crews on these ships and the lives of the passengers who may be involved were taken into consideration, as well as the cost of the installations.


William Moore Benidickson: Probably I should reply at this point to the hon. member for Vancouver East and assure him that while there have been some modifications of the proposed amendments in the committee, actually the

till as it comes before us from the committee is a considerable advance over the present law. There has been no relaxation in the case of passenger vessels from the intent in the bill as drafted originally. The evidence given in the committee was that most cargo vessels of over 500 tons were voluntarily carrying radiotelephone equipment. This bill makes it mandatory so that these safety measures are considerably advanced from the law as it has been up to mow.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to deal with one or two matters which are of great interest to those who sail the waters of the bay of Fundy. There would seem to be some difference of opinion between members *on the east coast and on the west coast with regard to the value of radiotelephones. I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that on the Atlantic coast and in the bay of Fundy area the radiotelephone is considered to be one of the greatest advantages that the fishermen, the boatmen, and all those who go down to the sea in ships have ever had in so far as the protection of their ships is concerned.
To the best of my knowledge and belief there are only two steamships plying the waters of the bay of Fundy, one being the Princess Helene, which plies between Saint John and Digby and-


William Moore Benidickson: Two passenger steamships?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: -the Grand Manan III, which plies between Grand Manan and Saint John. Of necessity these ships are furnished with telegraphic equipment, but if anything should happen to one of these ships there would be only one other ship in the area which could pick up the message. If anything happened to the Grand Manan III, the only ship in the bay of Fundy that would by able to pick up the message would be the Princess Helene, and vice versa.


William Moore Benidickson: Or a large cargo vessel.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: There are no large cargo vessels in that area. I would point out that 90 per cent of the boats that ply these waters are equipped with radiotelephones. Another great advantage in the use of this type of equipment is that anyone can operate a radiotelephone whereas it takes a trained operator to operate the telegraphic equipment. For that reason I would submit that radiotelephone equipment is necessary in the bay of Fundy area. I would think that the installation of telegraphic equipment in the boats I have mentioned would be a step
Canada Shipping Act
backward rather than a step forward. There would be much more protection afforded by the use of radiotelephones because of the greater number of boats that could pick up a message. It would take an enormous amount of the responsibility off the shoulders of thflse who operate these boats if they knew that they could get in touch with their home offices or with other boats.
I would suggest also that criticism with regard to the equipment on passenger boats is always justified. I feel that these boats should have every type of equipment necessary for their proper protection. I do not want to give the impression that I am opposed to that, because I believe it is right. As has been pointed out by hon. members who have spoken previously, there have been a number of marine disasters in this country in the last few years, which fact clearly indicates that perhaps we should be more severe in enforcing the regulations.
There is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary assistant. There seems to be some misunderstanding between the customs officials in some of the ports in Saint John and Charlotte counties and the officials of the Department of Justice. When this bill was in committee I was given to understand that no effort would be made to force small cargo boats to comply with all these regulations. The particular type of boat I have in mind is one on which there would be a master or skipper or captain and an engineer. These men realize the dangers that may be encountered and they have made provision for their own safety.
Recently a boat from Grand Manan island, whose skipper I know very well, came into Saint John, but when the captain went to get his clearance papers to return to Grand Manan he was told by the customs that they were unable to give them to him until he had got in touch with the steamboat inspector. As I said before, I believe that there is a very definite place for steamboat inspection, but I cannot think of any argument in favour of enforcing steamboat inspection in connection with fishing craft and small cargo boats that do not carry passengers. I would ask the parliamentary assistant and the officials of the department to give this matter their serious thought.
I have received a number of letters and telegrams about this matter, and I sent the minister a copy of one particular letter. So far as the equipment on his boat is concerned, he had fire extinguishers, he had a dory, which is considered to be a lifeboat, and he had covers for the dory to keep out
4080	HOUSE OF
Canada Shipping Act
the winter weather. He had all the equipment that was necessary. When the inspector looked over the boat he suggested that he should have rails and wire cables tor his protection. In the particular type of work that this man carries on it would be utterly impossible to have rails on the bdtit. It would be helpful in some cases but in the sardine industry it would be impossible to have rails and guards of the type that would satisfy the steamboat inspection service.
I ask the parliamentary assistant to go into this matter very carefully because I feel it would impose a hardship upon these men, who are finding it difficult to get along at this time. If they were forced to purchase, for their own protection, expensive equipment which they feel is not necessary, I believe it would be a step in the wrong direction. I support 100 per cent any regulation to protect the travelling public, but I really believe that fishing vessels and small cargo ships should be exempt from steamboat inspection.


Mr. Gibson:: It is a pleasure to hear a seaman like the hon. member for Charlotte get up and take part in the discussion of the bill. I am also an old-time sailor. I admire the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra greatly as a lawyer and for his common sense. I also admire the hon. member for Vancouver East, whose judgment I am sure is very good in a great many matters; but I think he went a little too far this morning when he suggested that the operators of steamboats were more concerned with the saving of dollars than the saving of lives. I am sure he meant it to be a fair comment but I think he would not care to repeat it after giving the matter due consideration. I do not think it is generally known that the whole concept of safety at sea has changed completely in the last ten years, as the hon. member for Charlotte said, with the installation of radiotelephones on hundreds and hundreds of vessels plying the waters on the Pacific coast. A new era has come into being so far as safety of life at sea is concerned.
I should like to offer to the parliamentary assistant another comment which I hope will be of value to his department. I must say that these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act were brought in with very little notice to the shipping industry on the Pacific coast. As a matter of fact there was almost a panic in the industry when those engaged in it finally learned what the contents of the bill were after it had been printed. When a bill of this kind is introduced in 

the other place and is passed by the gentlemen there it carries with it a certain stamp of approval, and one naturally considers that a body of that kind would give such a bill very mature consideration. But we find that it went through the other place with a minimum of discussion and examination and then came to the House of Commons. As hon. members who were on the committee all know, very substantial changes had to be made in the bill because as first presented to us it was ridiculous so far as the west coast industry is concerned. In making these comments, I do not wish to cast any reflection on the Department of Transport, but I hope they will make the gentlemen in the other place feel that when legislation is presented to them for the first time _ they should give it very careful examination before according it their stamp of approval.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I want to support the hon. member for Charlotte with respect to one particular phase of the bill having to do with wireless telegraphy installations on ships operated by Canadian National Railways in the Newfoundland service. As the parliamentary assistant knows, these particular ships are left out of the descriptions in section 406 of the act. One description is ships carrying fifty or more persons and travelling more than 200 nautical miles, and the second is ships carrying 250 or more persons and going on a voyage.


William Moore Benidickson: Is not my hon. friend referring to the law prior to the proposed amendment?


Gordon Francis Higgins: The amendment merely extends this particular section.


William Moore Benidickson: The hon. member is referring to passenger vessels?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Passenger vessels. Unless
there has been a change fairly recently, the situation is that the purser on the ship operates the wireless telegraphy system. I am thinking of voyages in particular between the mainland and Newfoundland, from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. The purser on that run takes care of the passengers and he has to take care of the manifests. In doing all that work he is a very busy man, and the result is that for quite a long time he is not able to be in the wireless room while the ship is actually en route. There are two factors with respect to that situation. The purser is not only seriously overworked, but I submit there is also a danger to the ship itself and possibly a danger to other ships that may be imperilled and cannot reach this particular ship for assistance.

1 understand that there is a radar system on the ship, and although I am not certain I believe it is also operated by the purser. If he is not there to oversee the radar system, it is not of very much avail. I think that is correct but my information is not of recent date. The last time I remember discussing the matter was about a year and a half ago, and the situation then was as I have described it today. If that is the case today- and I presume it is-I suggest that there should be a separate wireless operator for the ship independent of the purser, and I am not certain that that should not apply to all Canadian National ships in the Newfoundland service. It may not be required on some voyages, but there are a number of long voyages running from St. John's to Labrador in the coastal route, and the purser is an extremely busy man at times. I submit that provision should be made to include the particular type of ships now used by Canadian National in the Newfoundland service.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to say a word or two with respect to the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as I believe there was some contradiction in what he said. He said that it was a fair comment but one which I perhaps would not care to repeat. I do not see why anyone would not care to repeat a fair comment, and I think my remarks were fair comment. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and myself have been looking at the question from different sides. He has been looking at it from the side of the employer and I have been looking at it from the point of view of the workers. There is an easy way in which it can be proved which one of us is right. The records can be searched to find out who have been advocating safety measures and who have been opposing them. I will be quite willing to let my case rest there. With respect to the reasons for opposing safety measures, I shall leave that for the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to explain.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not know whether the
hon. member for Vancouver East is being as fair as I thought he would be. When it comes to ships I think he will agree that it is fair comment to say that he does not know his elbow from the anchor of a ship. He has a very extensive knowledge about many things, but so far as safety of life at sea and the operation of ships are concerned he knows extremely little. He has talked about getting the comments of those who are most competent to judge this matter. If he will discuss it with his fishermen friends as I have discussed it with mine and also with
Canada Shipping Act
his sailor friends, he will find that so far as safety of life at sea is concerned the radiotelephone has made by far the greatest contribution to the welfare of those concerned and, incidentally, to their domestic happiness. I know that has only happened in the fishing industry in recent years. I might tell him that pilots going aboard ships not equipped with radiotelephones very often take a walkie-talkie telephone aboard so that they can make full use of the radar equipment on the ships. In many cases they found it much easier to get into the harbour of Vancouver if they were allowed to talk with the operator on the bridge concerning the traffic which might be coming through. So far as the member for Vancouver East is concerned, I ask him to please give me credit for perhaps not always looking at things from an economic angle. Incidentally, I do not happen to be operating any passenger ships now myself.


Angus MacInnis: I did not take any credit from the member for Comox-Alberni. He was the one who started the discussion reflecting upon my fairness in the matter. Now, he does not like what I said. Well, he asked for it. So far as my lack of knowledge of ships is concerned, the hon. member can come to that conclusion if he likes. As I understand it, a person does not have to sail ships to know something about them, and if it comes to that I imagine my knowledge would be just as extensive as that of the member for Comox-Alberni.
In so far as the other matters he mentioned are concerned, they have nothing at all to do with what we are discussing. I am not denying that there have been some improvements. What we disagree about is, who urged those improvements; who advocated them and who opposed them?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Could we not get into a study of the different clauses? There are several amendments.


Howard Charles Green: There is one point I should like to make. I do not think anyone is questioning the value of radiotelephone. I realize it is used very extensively on the west coast, and it will be used on passenger vessels regardless of whether or not they are required by law to use it. The point I am trying to make, and I think the member for Vancouver East is also, is that we do not want the law which requires a wireless installation and a wireless operator interfered with. We are demanding that the Department of Transport see to it that this equipment, which is designed for saving lives, should not be discarded in favour of the radiotelephone; that is as far as it goes.

Indian Act
For example, the ships of all nations come into these ports, and they have crews that do not speak English. While the radiotelephone may be of great value to those people whose business lies mainly in coastal waters, the wireless is certainly of great value in so far as the ships of other nations are concerned. We do not wish that precaution for the saving of life to be interfered with under the Canada Shipping Act. The way the bill is drawn now, I think it will not be interfered with, provided the Department of Transport does not start issuing exemptions indiscriminately.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Other passenger steamships.
William Moore Benidickson: In connection with section 2, I think I should point out that there appears to be a typographical error in Votes and Proceedings of March 31, in the report of the committee, because it says that,
Clause 2 is amended by deleting subsection (5) of subelause (1) and inserting therefor the following:
This should read subsection (3) rather than (5).


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time? Shall it be read a third time now by leave?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not need leave; second reading was given on a previous day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I do because of the amendments. It is understood that this bill had second reading some time ago, but because of the amendments I am not too sure that the hon. member is right when he says that I could have third reading today without having leave.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not need to argue the point; we will give you leave.


Mr. Harris (for Mr. Chevrier) moved: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. 37, to amend the Indian Act-Mr. Harris-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

On section 1-Loans to Indians.
Mr. Harkness:: Is the minister going to make a statement in connection with this bill?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the amendments are quite simple and can be explained very briefly. Section 1 has to do with adding to the powers of the department the power to grant loans to Indians for the clearing of lands, an authority which the department does not have at the moment and thinks we should have in order to encourage the Indians to break up the lands and put them into production.
Section 2 has to do with adding a section number, that is 92, to the section which gives authority to seize goods which are illegally taken from the reserve. This was a typographical error on our part in not having this section mentioned in the bill which went through the house two years ago.
Section 3 has to do with another legal difficulty. I think I explained to the committee when we amended the bill two years ago that, in some cases, we had found that orders in council had not been passed by the governor in council as required according to a decision of the supreme court at that time, validating the surrender and sale of land. The amendments in the bill at that time provided for the conditions which are now in subsection (a) of section 124. At the time we overlooked the fact that there were still some sales of land which had been made some time before but which were only evidenced by agreements for sale, that is the money had not yet been fully paid, and when the letters patent would be granted eventually they would not be covered by subsection (a). Subsection (b) is, therefore, added in order to validate these sales which may take effect from time to time when the final payments are made and the letters patent granted.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as any improvement in the welfare of the Indians is concerned, I think the first of these clauses is the most important. I am very glad that loans will now be available to the Indians for breaking up the land. As a matter of fact, I should like to see the department handling loans to Indians for farm purposes undertake a more vigorous program which would enable the Indians to make a better livelihood. So far as I can make out, that has not been done in the past.
I am informed that a large number of Indians have had difficulty in getting loans for the purpose of buying machinery and other things which would enable them to

carry on farm operations more efficiently and thus make a better living. I would ask the minister at this time how many loans are now in effect under this particular section of the Indian Act, that is for agriculture and other allied purposes.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a
position to give that information. I had expected to do that on my estimates. I might say, however, that I discovered last year the situation which my hon. friend mentioned, namely that the revolving fund which we had voted for the purpose of making loans was not in use to the extent I had expected it to be. My recollection of the figures is that not much more than half of the amount voted was in use. I explained to the officials of the Indian affairs branch that parliament intended that money to be used if the circumstances were at all justifiable and that if the security looked to be reasonable they need not necessarily look for the last ounce of security in order to aid an Indian. Since that time there has been a liberalization of the terms on which loans are made. However, if my hon. friend would not mind, I would prefer to give the details on my estimates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is agreeable, Mr. Chairman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a question or two
which I should like to ask the minister. While there may be some reservations with regard to some of the amendments contained in the second section of the bill, on the whole I think there is no reason not to support this legislation and, as has already been said, to ask that it be further implemented. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the situation which surrounds another bill, known as Bill Z, which was introduced in the Senate, which has been read the first time, and which received its first reading about the same time as did the bill we are now considering, and was ordered for second reading in the other house. I have not been able to find any record of its having been proceeded with further. If it were passed, I think it would undo a considerable amount of what the government has been trying to do, with the support of this house, in connection with the conditions of Indians. I should like to ask the minister whether he can advise the committee whether that bill has been proceeded with or whether it is anticipated that it will be proceeded with at this session. I hope it will not be proceeded with.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, that was a
private bill introduced by one of the hon. members of the other house. I would have
Indian Act
no control over its future except in so far as I might take a position on it here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has not received second
reading there, has it?


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: In extending loans to the Indians, I wonder whether the minister would consider the encouragement of the credit union as a vehicle for carrying on this work? I notice a steady progress among the Indians in my part of the country, as a result of the great attention being paid to them by the minister and the officers of his department. In many cases we find them becoming quite self-supporting in agriculture in engaging in the cattle industry and the operation of saw mills and in the shipping of produce. There is at Pemberton in the adjoining riding a co-operative which is composed largely of Indians who grade and ship seed potatoes and do so very profitably. As I say, I know of groups of them working in the saw mill together successfully, manufacturing and delivering lumber and sharing the profit in the usual way. The way they could be encouraged would be to set up credit unions throughout the country where large sections of the population are Indian. They have a strong sense of responsibility. I think that it would be a step forward to initiate these credit unions and to encourage them to do their own banking and their own borrowing-always, of course, with the support and encouragement of the department.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The last time I discussed
Indians with the minister I think he informed me that the Indians in the province of Newfoundland were more or less being taken care of by the provincial government. I do not know whether that statement still applies or whether this act will have any application to them or not.


Walter Edward Harris: All we are doing with respect to the Indians of Newfoundland at the moment is to grant them welfare through the provincial government, and through the Department of National Health and Welfare certain action is being taken with respect to their health and the like. The situation is precisely as it was in each of the last three years that my hon. friend has asked me the same question.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Will this bill apply to these
Indians in Newfoundland or will it not?


Walter Edward Harris: My recollection is that the Indian Act, when proclaimed, was proclaimed for the whole of Canada with perhaps the exception of the mainland of Newfoundland; but I would have to check that matter in order to be sure.

Indian Act


Gordon Francis Higgins: If that is so, there is only one
suggestion I would make to the minister. It is that the term "fishing equipment" might not be sufficiently extensive to apply to sporting equipment such as canoes. If that is so, and if there is any doubt about it, I suggest that the words "sport fishing equipment" be used.


Mr. Fulford:: Some years ago the Indians at the Caughnawaga reserve did me the great honour of initiating me into their tribe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Taylor Fulford: Mr. Chairman, others have called me an Indian, but I now have just cause to be called one. The reason I rise at this time is this. These Iroquois Indians recently travelled to the capital of the state of Vermont to plead a case before the legislators of that state, and asking for moneys which they felt were owing them for a period of well over a century and a half. They have sent other' missions down there and met with the same result, namely a decision which was not favourable to their claim. The reason I rise is this. I just wanted to explain to the minister that these Indians are a decent, Godfearing, energetic and hard-working group. They are one of the finest bands in Canada. Their village needs improvement. I was through it a few months ago. If they need money for further development I trust that, under this amendment to the act, it will be possible for them to have it made available.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as loans authorized are concerned, the money in the revolving fund which has been used for loans has been fairly well confined to the purchase of livestock, machinery and things of that sort. I should like to ask the minister whether, by the addition of these words "for the clearing and breaking of land within reserves", it is meant that money will be available only for Indians to buy equipment to be used for that purpose, or whether the money can be borrowed and paid out to a contractor, whether white or Indian, who is in the business of clearing land.


Walter Edward Harris: It is sufficiently broad, so I am informed, to cover any form that clearing and breaking land might take. If an Indian, having had certain land allotted to him, desires to have it broken up and cleared and is not in a position to do it himself, we could lend him the money equivalent to the cost of having a contractor clear it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, I understand that he can borrow the money from the revolving fund to pay a contractor for clearing that land?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.
fMr. Harris.]


John Lambert Gibson: Has the minister with him any figure which would indicate how much money is on loan for fishing equipment for Indians, or would he prefer to answer that question on his estimates?


Walter Edward Harris: On the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Seizure of goods.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister tell us whether this amendment, which is indicated at the end of the clause at the bottom of the page, extends to permitting one of his officers mentioned in the section to make this search without a warrant? That is something which would be important, I think, particularly in so far as the right to make this search off the reserve is concerned. I think we need to give fairly sweeping powers to the peace officers in order to protect the Indians, but I just wonder whether we should go so far-as it, seems to me this goes-as to give the right to enter and search on suspicion without a warrant off a reserve.


Walter Edward Harris: When the act was drafted three years ago, as my hon. friend knows, we discussed this particular section. It is clear that the superintendent and the peace officer should have all the authority which would be applicable in the case of an ordinary police officer. We also said at the time we hoped that it would not be necessary to authorize this authority off the reserve, since the ordinary police facilities would be available there, and that presumably there would be cases where the superintendent might conceivably follow a motorcar and the like, which was creating this offence, and might perhaps overtake it outside the reserve; that with these exceptions it would be expected that we would use the ordinary police facilities where they are available.


Mr. Shaw:: I was going to raise the point that was raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. I am still a bit concerned about this section. It is proposed that any peace officer or a superintendent, or any person authorized by the minister, may enter, open and search any place or thing in or upon which he reasonably believes any such goods or chattels may be found. I have no objection to this authority being extended to the peace officer or the superintendent, but I am surprised that this authority should be extended to any person designated by the minister and to be exercised apparently anywhere. As far as the reservation itself is concerned, I have no objection to any officer of the department, we will say, employed upon that reservation doing whatever is necessary upon the reservation in order to

protect the Indians; but when you authorize any person whom the minister may designate to go into any place off that reservation and make a search, then I for one believe we are going too far. I have enough confidence in the peace officer and the superintendent to think that they can do the job without extending that further authority under this act.


Walter Edward Harris: Our difficulty is that there may not be a superintendent. Superintendents go on vacation and they are ill. Sometimes they are out of office, retired and may be out some time before another is appointed in their places. This is intended to cover an instance of that kind. I have no desire and no intention of appointing anyone who is not familiar with the work that he is bound to do. It is only to cover the cases where you have not a person designated under the section but who is performing the functions of that person that you can designate another person.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It is a fact that a peace officer is always available. The R.C.M.P. have jurisdiction on the reservation and off. It occurs to me that while the superintendent himself may be away, some person upon the reservation, some authority associated with his department, would probably have the power to carry on in place of the superintendent on this kind of thing in places off the reservation. It occurs to me there will always be an officer of the R.C.M.P. available to conduct that search off the reservation. I for one am not satisfied that the power should be given to a person designated by the minister.


Walter Edward Harris: Let me add one word. As my hon. friend knows, the R.C.M.P. are often called to give some evidence in court and the like, and while I admit it is probably making a rather fine point, nevertheless we do believe that there are occasions when all the officers designated here will not be available. It is only in that case that we want to designate some other person, and it would be someone familiar with our work, and presumably a person in our employment, if at all possible, who would be clothed with this rather extraordinary power, which I am sure is not used very often in any event.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister consider meeting the point by writing in a few words? It seems to me it could be met by adding after the word "minister" in line 18 the words: "when a peace officer or superintendent is not available".


Walter Edward Harris: I have no objection to doing that, Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend realizes the difficulty we are trying to overcome. We are trying to overcome the difficulty of making a seizure of goods being taken
Indian Act
illegally from the reserve. You must have persons available to take that action as quickly as possible. Therefore he is imposing upon me the obligation, or rather upon the department, the necessity of sending a wire to the minister from some remote part advising me that neither of these persons is available, and asking me to designate another person. And presumably after that time we may or may not be able to recover the goods.
I would ordinarily follow this practice, anyway. The superintendent and the R.C.M.P. are clothed with the authority under the section. I would normally make a blanket authority, and in their absence the senior clerk grade III, or whatever it may be, in the reserve, would be able to perform this function under this section in their absence. Then it would be left to him to decide at that time in their absence what he should do. But I do not think there would be time for us to take the action he mentions and get the necessary results.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be in their absence, but only in their absence.


Walter Edward Harris: I am quite agreeable to that.


Angus MacInnis: What kind of document would the person making the seizure have so that he could be recognized as having been authorized by the minister to act in a case of this kind? In ordinary civilian life he must have a warrant issued by a court. Would he not need something to indicate that he was authorized by the minister, so that there would be no mistake in the matter?


Walter Edward Harris: That was just my point. I will sign an authority which will refer to this section saying that Mr. Jones is authorized, in the absence of so and so, to perform the functions of the superintendent, and in particular to be clothed with the authority under this section, and in every other way, and that remains in the custody of the superintendent and is there available at any time when the action needs to be taken. We do that under the Immigration Act. I sign authorities for immigration officers to perform certain functions under the act, and it is an authority which is kept in the local office.


Angus MacInnis: Would that authority cover only one case, or would it be an authority for any case?


Walter Edward Harris: Any case under this section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister able to tell us whether it has been necessary to use this authority in the reserve yet?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I could not, but I will deal with it on the estimates.

Indian Act


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would the minister object to an amendment to that section in line 2 so that, instead of referring to a person authorized by the minister, insert "in the employ of the Indian affairs branch", or something to that effect? I fully appreciate that the minister may be able to visualize a situation where the police may not be available and so on. But that just would not happen very often. The same argument could be advanced in connection with the ordinary administration of the law. We might say, every day a case may arise when a police officer may be out of town. Some offence is committed within a town, and by virtue of the absence of the police officer at that particular moment they were not able to arrest the guilty person and security was affected. It does seem to me that under this argument the minister is bringing forth an example which is not very strong. I still feel rather strongly about this authority being granted to anyone, and I would imagine that the minister would be a bit hesitant about taking that authority on himself.


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out that the hon. member was a member of the committee that revised the Indian Act, and I am quite prepared to say that he, and I think perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops, passed this section with that authority in it.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I was not a member of the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought the hon. member was.
. Mr- Fulton: It is true we passed it, but it is now being extended, and it causes me concern. It is being extended to give the right to search.


Walter Edward Harris: We are extending it to the right to search.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The right to search anybody's premises even off the reserve on the mere suspicion that there may be something there which has been stolen from the reserve, or even only used in the process of stealing from the reserve. It is not the answer to say that because we gave you authority in one place therefore we should be agreeable to the extension of the authority. It will make us more reluctant in future to give initial authority, if you follow that argument.


Walter Edward Harris: I follow that argument, but I think my hon. friend should realize that with the power to seize goods which are being used for illegal purposes must go the power to search, and it was through oversight in 1951 that we did not have that power in this section. I am bringing it forward for that purpose.

The arguments which have been used against the use of the words "or a person authorized by the minister" are arguments which were contemplated at the time. I believe if I went over the ground I could find cases in remote areas which would meet my hon. friend's point, when neither police nor superintendent is available, and when we want to have the power.
I think he will realize the minister does not want to give this extraordinary power to anyone who would be likely to discharge it in a manner which would bring about complaints concerning the work of the Indian affairs branch. However, he ought to realize that under the Indian Act, when one is dealing with Indians, and persons who come under the act, he must have all the powers which normally are attributable to police action.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Had the last three lines been in that section two years ago I would not have supported it. I do not want to hold up the bill, but I must say that I do not like the section in the form in which it exists.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Sections 4, 5 and 6 are to correspond with the sections that have been passed.
Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



RADIO ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 337, to amend the Radio Act, 1938.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make a few remarks on second reading of the bill. The main purpose of course is to implement government policy as announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his budget speech with respect to the elimination of the licence fee for private radio receiving stations.
The Minister of Finance stated that the order in council setting the present licence fee of $2.50 would be revoked, effective from April 1. The Radio Act, under which this licence has been levied in the past, requires that all private receiving sets used for the reception of broadcasting must be licensed. So that if the licence fee is abolished it follows that there is need for an amending act.
Where radio receiving equipment is operated for commercial gain, such as commercial

subscription radio receiving systems where sound or television programs are received by a centralized apparatus and retransmitted to different receiving sets on a charge basis, it is considered that the operation of this type of station should be controlled and licensed. Provision therefore is made in the bill for licensing broadcasting receiving stations operated commercially for gain, with the licence fee to be fixed by the governor in council.
Provision is also made in the bill for the transfer to the Radio Act of a section that for some time has been in the Canadian Broadcasting Act, and was section 23 of that act. This section authorized the governor in council to make regulations prohibiting or regulating the use of any machinery, apparatus or equipment causing or liable to cause interference with radio reception. The house will recall that in 1951 section 23 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act containing these provisions was repealed, as it was recognized that the proper place for this provision was in the Radio Act.
However, it was provided that the repeal of the section would not come into force until proclaimed; and it has not been proclaimed until now because, until this time, it was not possible to transfer it to the Radio Act. Thus the amendment to the Radio Act covering the transfer of section 23. The scope of the section has been enlarged slightly to cover the sale as well as the use of any machinery, apparatus or equipment causing or liable to cause interference with radio reception.
There are regulations now in force which were made in 1941, under section 23 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, for the purpose . of controlling radio interference, and these regulations will be continued in force under the Radio Act.
The other amendments in the bill delete the references to private receiving stations where these references are no longer required in the act, by reason of the elimination of the licence fee for private receiving stations.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this bill seems to be one which merits support, particularly that part of it which does away with the necessity for the payment of a radio licence fee by all those people in the country who have radio sets.
As the parliamentary assistant knows, the Progressive Conservative party for many years has been advocating that this licence fee should be abolished, and we are glad to
Radio Act
see that at long last our advice has been followed and that the licence fee is to be done away with.
The other day some questions were asked about the men who had been collecting these licence fees. When we get into committee I shall ask the parliamentary assistant to tell us what steps have been taken to see that these men are continued in the government service. Many of them are veterans, and I would hope it might be possible to give them other work. They have been carrying out a pretty thankless job. Many of them have been doing it for a long time, and we believe they deserve every consideration from the country. I would ask the minister to clarify that point when we get into committee, upon which occasion it will be possible to discuss the sections of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we, too, welcome the introduction of this bill, which is a corollary to certain changes made in other legislation following the introduction of the budget. As has been pointed out, its main purpose is to abolish the necessity for imposing a licence fee on private radio receiving sets. I think we all grinned a bit when the parliamentary assistant said that the purpose of the bill was to implement government policy by abolishing the radio licence fee. He would have been more correct had he said that this bill implements the policy of opposition parties in the house. After all, for many years it has been government policy to collect this licence fee or tax.
However, we are glad to know, and I am sure people throughout the country are glad to know that at long last the request by many people that this nuisance tax be abolished has been met by the government. The other changes set out in the bill would seem to be appropriate, and therefore we are pleased to support second reading.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house also welcome this legislation. That is the reason we brought it in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before an election.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Most of the good legislation is brought in from this side. There is a question I should like to ask, but possibly I will have to wait until we get into committee. I am getting some advice from the rear here on dredging. But I do want to make it clear that we on this side of the house welcome this legislation. After mature thought by myself, representing the group around here, I advised the minister in this connection.

Radio 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-Commercial broadcasting receiving station.
Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant tell us what the fees are to be for these broadcasting stations?


William Moore Benidickson: That has not yet been determined. It would be within the powers of the governor in council to establish the fee. I would point out that one important reason for including this particular type of commercial broadcasting receiving station is to ensure that there will be continuing authority in connection with the erection of masts and that sort of thing which might interfere with aviation.
These centralized systems redistribute by wire lines programs that they receive and generally their antennae occupy high ground. It was felt that when we eliminated the phrase "private receiving station" we should clarify the legislation with regard to the type of receiving station that is developing both in connection with television and sound broadcasts. There is thus a possibility that you might have a private receiving station set up for gain. We have seen this type of thing in airport terminals and other public places where there are two companion screens, one showing a current television program while the other showed advertising. That is a type of centralized commercial broadcasting receiving station that might develop.
Some years ago reference was made in the act to commercial receiving stations. That was put in at a time when it was felt that receiving stations might be set up in theatres for entertainment purposes. That did not develop because the individual programs were too short and the program changes were so frequent that an audience could not be held. But there are other types of receiving station being developed now for gain and the fee itself will be determined by cabinet authority.


Howard Charles Green: Are there any receiving stations under licence at the present time?


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, they are licensed but because they are considered to be private receiving stations we want to make it clear that those that were on a commercial basis and were being operated for gain would be under control. It was necessary that that be particularly so with regard to antennae and things of that sort. rMr. Cruickshank.]


Howard Charles Green: Can the parliamentary assistant answer my question regarding the employees who have been collecting the licence fees?


William Moore Benidickson: A return was made on March 30 in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. In the outside offices away from Ottawa there have been 30 or so employees who were not only doing licence work but more or less were acting in a general stenographic or clerical capacity. They assisted the personnel who were responsible for the supervision of the licences and for checking radio equipment as to quality and general interference. Those people were paid out of the grant for the licence division. Most of them will be retained by the department because of the other work that they were doing. The personnel that they were assisting will have more time in the field to look after interference and the supervision of radio equipment generally. Someone must be on hand in the outside offices.
The department itself has vacancies from time to time, and vacancies occur in other departments of government. Many of the people engaged in the licence division were experts on the operation of calculating machines and they can be employed by other departments. It was not the particular work that they did, but the fact that they can operate these machines, that will make them readily placeable. Some of them are competent stenographers and there is a continuing need for this type of employee in other departments as well as our own.
It may not be possible to place the few female married personnel, but their number is quite small. In so far as the majority are concerned, a few will ibe required for the next sixty or ninety days to continue the moppinig-up of the licence work and the getting back from the numerous issuers of the money they have collected. There will be a few vacancies in our department from routine staff turnover and if we did not employ these people we would have to employ new employees. The civil service commission is co-operating to the utmost and where vacancies occur in other departments they are attempting to absorb these people of the transport department.


Howard Charles Green: What about the men who have been going around actually collecting the licence fees?


William Moore Benidickson: They were on a commission basis for the most part and the necessity of keeping them is eliminated by the elimination of the fee.


Mr, Green:: Could they not be placed in other work?


William Moore Benidickson: It was part-time, casual employment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would it be possible to use some of these officials to check the programs. At 6.45 p.m. on Saturday there was a program on CFRA entitled "Hook, Line and Sinker." Would it be possible to have a check made on that?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Search warrant.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: This reads:
Where a magistrate or justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for believing that a radio station has been established without a licence ... he may grant a search warrant-
Is there not some central registry which would indicate whether or not a man had a licence?


William Moore Benidickson: The purpose of this
amendment is simply to eliminate the search warrant rights that have existed hitherto in respect to the place wherein it was suspected there was an unlicenced private receiving set. Supposing a man did not have an aerial and had not bought a licence, in the past this provision enabled an inspector to be given a search warrant to enter the premises. In so far as radio apparatus other than a private receiving set is concerned, there is no change in the law. Suppose a person were illegally keeping hidden in his premises an apparatus that might enable him to even carry on some subversive type of radio broadcasting; we might not see the exposed type of antenna. That is why the right to obtain a search warrant is taken there. There is no change in the section other than to [DOT]eliminate the right of a search warrant with respect to searching out a private receiving .station.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read ;a third time now, by leave?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Trade with China and North Korea EMERGENCY POWERS ACT



ORDER IN COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO CONTROL OF TRADE BY SEA WITH MAINLAND CHINA AND NORTH KOREA

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to revert to motions and to table two copies in English and in French of P.C. 1953-604, an order in council passed on Friday, April 17, under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act with respect to the control of trade by sea with mainland China and North Korea. This order provides that no ship registered in Canada shall, after the 20th day of April, 1953, proceed to the mainland of China and North Korea without a licence. This order is being passed pursuant to discussions which took place between the British and the Americans in Washington following the visit here of the Right Hon. Mr. Eden, and after those discussions the hope was expressed that we in Canada would pass a similar order in council.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister whether the United Kingdom and the United States have adopted similar measures?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, both countries have.


Howard Charles Green: Is this order identical with the provisions made by the British and the Americans?


Lionel Chevrier: I can say that it is identical with the British order because I have seen it, but I have not seen the American, although I am told that it was the hope of both the American and British governments that this be done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
the minister what effect, if any, this will have on the much discussed ships of the Ming Sung line?


Lionel Chevrier: The Ming Sung position is not altered by this order in council. Under the present arrangement, if my recollection serves me, the Ming Sung ships are still ships registered in Canada and subject to a mortgage, and we hope that it will be possible to collect the balance of the mortgage at some future time.


Howard Charles Green: Have the Ming Sung ships still the right to fly the Canadian flag?


Lionel Chevrier: No. My hon. friend will remember that that exemption has been withdrawn, and that was stated in the house. What is being done is another story. I am not in a position to say what is happening, but I do know that the exemption has been withdrawn and that the ships are still
4090	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act registered as Canadian ships, so that we may be able at some future time to collect the mortgage.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 190, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister if he will not make a statement at this stage? There was quite a discussion in the other place, and I understand that the bill was amended in some particulars there. I think it would be helpful if the minister would be kind enough to make a statement with Your Honour in the chair as to the nature and intent of the bill and as to the effect of the amendments. Then we can consider the details later.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I have no prepared statement as to the purposes of the bill other than the general one that it amends the citizenship act in a number of instances. With respect to the discussion in the other place, my recollection is that there was an attempt to amend the bill in one particular which failed in committee and was not then pursued in the other proceedings of the other place. With respect to that particular point,
I can assure my hon. friend that I propose to have the relevant section stand for the course of the next hour and a half, and it is possible that we may suggest some alternative when it is reached. Therefore my hon. friend can be assured on that score that further consideration will be given.
Generally speaking, the amendments to the act extend to persons not now covered by the citizenship act the right to be Canadian citizens. Furthermore, in the case of persons who lost that citizenship on the first of January, 1947, by reason of being naturalized Canadian citizens who were living abroad for a period of six years and who had not registered and thereby retained their right of citizenship, we have extended that period of six years for another four years, so that they may continue to have the opportunity of registering and retaining their citizenship in that way.
There are other provisions consequent upon the Immigration Act, which I hope is going to be proclaimed soon, so that the definition of domicile will be in conformity with that act. There are other provisions extending the authority of the governor in council to name persons and courts who may do the work of citizenship under the act. I think I can show


that is necessary in order to make it more convenient for persons to become Canadian citizens than is the case at the moment. Generally, the amendments are as the result of five years' experience, and I think they are more liberal than anything we have had up to the present time. While it is the desire of the government that citizenship should not be taken lightly nor obtained lightly, nevertheless the experience we have had indicates that the act when first passed did not contemplate all the possible combinations of circumstances that existed under the old naturalization act, and as time goes on we desire to clear these up so that persons who have the right to be Canadians will have the legal right under the act and not by administrative process.


[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-Canadian domicile.
Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to direct a question to the minister, and perhaps I could do so best by explaining the circumstances under which the question arises. While one of my constituents was in the armed forces-overseas he became engaged to a German girl who was in England. She came to Canada, and they were married. Unfortunately, before they had lived together in Canada for one year he was killed. It appears now that she cannot apply for citizenship papers owing to the fact that he was killed prior to their residence in Canada together for one year. Her father-in-law wants to take the girl to the coronation, and it seems unfortunate that she is unable to apply for citizenship. Is there-any amendment or permissive legislation to cover such a case?


Walter Edward Harris: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Persons born before January 1, 1947.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is quite a lengthy and complicated section. Indeed, the whole act is quite complicated, and the amendments seem to be quite technical. I am particularly concerned about subsection 2 of what will be section 4 in the act. It seems to me that under paragraph (b) there is room for the possibility of abuse. It seems to me that it makes it possible for a person who has lived outside of Canada for any length of time you may care to mention, say 10 years or more, without any intention of retaining his Canadian citizenship, suddenly finding that for some reason or other it was advantageous for him to do so, to try to get it back. He then files a declaration of retention and gets a certificate of Canadian citizenship, even although he may, in the meantime, have abandoned his intention of retaining Canadian citizenship.
I think there should be something in that section requiring a person, under those circumstances, to make some affirmative proof that he had never abandoned the intention of retaining Canadian citizenship. Otherwise, it seems to me it would open up the possibility that he may, after 10 or 15 years abroad without having the actual intention of retaining Canadian citizenship, find it advantageous, for some real or fancied reason, to file his application, and he may in fact get back his Canadian citizenship.


Walter Edward Harris: I quite agree that we ought to take precautions against any person under those circumstances, but I think the hon. member has not quite appreciated the class of person to which this subsection applies. This only applies to the person who is born abroad of Canadian parents and who, by all citizenship acts, has the right to elect which nationality he may have when he reaches 21. This amendment alters the existing law only to the extent that, instead of forcing him to make the election within one year after reaching 21, he would have three years. In a number of cases we have had some difficulty with people who say, "We did not know that was the law." We have to realize that the act is still only six years old and a good many people, including Canadians born abroad of Canadian parents, are still finding out their rights. We ought to be a little generous towards them. There is no possibility that anyone could wait for a period longer than three years after his 21st birthday to exercise this right.
Canadian Citizenship Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it does apply to people who may have been born and lived abroad for 21 years up to January 1, 1954. Really, perhaps my question comes down to this. Does such a person have to give any positive proof or any affirmative proof that he never intended to give up Canadian citizenship? Supposing he became 21 years old last January, he would have until January, 1954, to file his declaration. Is it sufficient for him just to file a declaration or does he have to give any proof of his intention to retain Canadian citizenship?


Walter Edward Harris: In the declaration, Mr. Chairman, we require him to state a number of facts, including the statement that he has not chosen any other nationality. In other words, he has to affirm that he has not applied for papers in the country in which he is resident or taken any similar step.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the time has been extended from one year to three years?


Walter Edward Harris: Right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It might be argued that this, after all, is quite a privilege. It might be argued that if a man did not take it up for three years it would be evidence that he was not very keen about it. Presumably there is another side to the story which I have not thought of, and perhaps the minister would say a word about it.


Walter Edward Harris: The reason for the extension is the one I gave a moment ago. In the past, a great many people, after the one year, have written in wanting to elect. They have no right of election. These are persons who, apparently, did not know they had this privilege under the Canadian Citizenship Act or that there was a limitation of one year. For the time being at least, until there is greater knowledge of the act and greater acceptance of it, we think we ought to be as generous as we can, although this limit might be reduced at some future time when we have had more experience with it.


Mr. Herridge:: I understand that there were quite a number of people who were formerly residents in Canada, or who were Canadian citizens, who left Canada just prior to the war and served in the armed forces of a country at war with Canada during the second world war. I am informed also that quite a number of these people are now making application to become Canadian citizens. What is the minister's attitude to those applications?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not quite understand the hon. member when he says they are now making application for Canadian citizenship. If they had citizenship in the first place, it is not necessary for them to apply now.
4092	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Maybe I should say "make application to re-enter Canada".


Walter Edward Harris: That comes under the Immigration Act and I would be prepared to discuss that matter on the estimates on immigration.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister one question on section 1. The new paragraph (mm), which is the definition of "Place of domicile", is a little bit different from the present definition in that it substitutes the word "or" for the word "and" in the second line. I am wondering whether that is a mistake. The paragraph reads:
"place of domicile" means the place in which a person has his home or in which he resides or to which he returns . . .
In the present definition the language is: "and to which he returns". It seems to me that by using the word "or" there instead of the word "and", the result is that the place of domicile would be the same as the place of residence. Surely that is not the intention. In other words, the clause "or to which he returns" would stand by itself. Was it the intention that that should be so?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman. It is not the intention to allow him to claim one of those privileges. The definition is all-inclusive and he must conform to all of them. As to this particular definition, if my hon. friend will permit me to say so, it should be borne in mind that this does not confer domicile, and this definition will come in use in another amendment later, to indicate in some cases the right of persons of British origin who have lived in this country for a period of 20 years but, because they came and went, never did acquire domicile at one time. We are saying later on that if they have lived here for 20 years, and if they had their place of domicile here, the minister could grant a certificate under certain conditions. This definition is additional to Canadian domicile which they must acquire under the Canadian Immigration Act in all cases except the one I mentioned.


Howard Charles Green: The minister will notice that there has been a change to the word "or" from the word "and".


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I am wondering whether that is intentional.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall have to look at it. I noticed the difference.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I read to the minister section 43 of the terms of union between

Newfoundland and Canada and ask him to comment. Section 43 reads as follows:
Suitable provision will be made for the extension of the Canadian citizenship laws to the province of Newfoundland.
What does the minister say about this section?


Walter Edward Harris: In this bill there is no amendment dealing with the subject of Newfoundland citizens prior to the enactment of the terms of union. I have only this to say. I have known one or two cases where it would seem that the act was not sufficiently clear to cover them. It is my hope that in the next session we shall have a general revision of this act in the light of six years' experience and that if there are any cases that require attention we shall give it to them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It may be that we are not really citizens of Canada at all now.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that every single one is; and I do not think he would mind my saying that he is a distinguished Canadian citizen.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister thinks we will be able to vote, does he?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Resumption with approval of minister.
Edmund Davie Fulton: On this section may I ask the minister what is the purpose of the provision, whether it has been widely used, and in what sort of circumstances it would be necessary to use this discretion to authorize a person to resume Canadian citizenship?


Walter Edward Harris: There may be others, but the circumstances we contemplate are in the case of naturalized Canadian citizens who go abroad and who because of other circumstances over which they have no control- such as living in areas where they may be under restraint-will not be able to exercise their rights to notify consular offices and others of their desire to retain Canadian citizenship within the six, at the moment, but the about-to-be ten-year period; but at some future time they may become free to do so and they would then apply for resumption of Canadian citizenship. At that time it is thought desirable that the minister should be free to grant them the resumption of citizenship as of some date which could be ascertained, which would restore to them the rights which, if they can prove it, they never abandoned, although we did not know that they had that desire.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The act has not been in force for very long by comparison with the life of nations but this amendment in clause 4 amending section 6 of the act it appears to me is giving the minister a wider discretion than he had under the original section 6. Have cases arisen in which the absence of that discretion has worked a hardship?


Walter Edward Harris: No particular case has arisen but we believe some may, and we have been so advised by some of the members of the interdepartmental committee who are dealing with the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 6 there is a point which I should like to take up with the minister. I gather that this is one of the sections he had in mind when, in the course of his remarks on second reading, he said that one of the purposes of this legislation was to provide greater facility to people desiring to become Canadian citizens.
I notice that this clause seems to give effect to that idea in that it widens the ways in which a person can file a declaration of intention under section 10, subsection 1, of the citizenship act. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I may say that I have had correspondence with the clerk of the peace in one of the county courts of the minister's province, and that he feels that an error is possible in the change that is being made. At any rate, I wish to bring to the minister's attention what this gentleman complains about, in the hope that the minister will see fit to find some way in which to deal with it.
The person to whom I refer informs me that in the past the general practice has been for these declarations of intention to be filed with the clerk of the court. That clerk is usually a barrister with many years of experience, and he is well versed in the provisions of the citizenship act. On that basis he understands who should file a declaration of intention and who should not. My correspondent also draws to my attention the fact that the clerk of a court is an officer of the crown and therefore responsible to his attorney general for the conduct of his office. Therefore, if such a clerk makes a mistake and files a form that should not have been filed, the applicant gets his fee paid back. That takes place, so I am told, without any fuss or bother.
But I have in my hand a declaration of intention which a gentleman in this country sought to file in this particular court and
Canadian Citizenship Act which he had had made out for him by someone else. I gather that that someone else was a lawyer. Certainly he was a notary public, a commissioner or a justice of the peace. When this gentleman seeking Canadian citizenship sought to file this document which he had had made out elsewhere, the clerk of the peace in this particular court immediately recognized that it was not necessary for this gentleman to file this document because he is the spouse of a Canadian citizen. As the minister knows, such a person is exempt from the necessity of filing such an intention under the terms of section 10 (1) (a). The rest of the story as it is given to me is that this gentleman had to pay $10 to have this form filled out. I assume that was the fee of one of those friends of mine who are called lawyers. There is no way for this gentleman to get his money back. The form was filled out quite unnecessarily, and yet, as I say, this applicant for citizenship is out that $10. The gentleman who has written me about the matter feels that although the intention of the minister may be good in that he wants to make it easier for people to apply for citizenship and to declare their intention to do so, yet he may in fact be opening the door to the possibility of many people having to pay fees of this kind.
One does not expect every lawyer in the country to know the details of every act that is on the statute book; that would be utterly impossible; but it does seem to me that perhaps there was some merit in the previous arrangement whereby the people who took these declarations of intention, although they may be limited in number, were familiar with the terms of the legislation.
There is more that I could say about it, but I think I have made the point, and I wondgr whether the minister would comment on it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the
minister would permit me, I have a letter which is as like as two peas to the one that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just read, and therefore I should like to associate myself with him. Perhaps there are one or two points that are similar but said here somewhat more emphatically. In speaking of the amendment he says this:
This procedure has worked out most satisfactorily and there are no valid objections to the present practice. The clerks of the court are in the vast majority of cases barristers-at-law with considerable experience and who are capable of construing this statute.
That is certainly a man who has had some experience. Then he says something which is very similar to what my hon. friend has indicated. He points to the position of the clerks of the court who are mostly lawyers,

Canadian Citizenship Act and then he says that this wide opening, broadening, which is done here is such that anybody can do it, and he thinks it will have two bad effects. First of all, people will go to those who are not familiar with the law and who may lead them astray, and second, they will go to those who very naturally and properly will charge them. In one case here there is an amount charged for a declaration which I think the minister would agree is very high.
I come back to this. That seems to me a prima facie reason. If it does turn out that the present practice is not offering these facilities, that is another matter.


Walter Edward Harris: I think I understand the viewpoint expressed in the letters that my hon. friends have received, but I think probably the writers assumed from this amendment that we were going to withdraw from the clerks of the courts the privilege of accepting these declarations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; he thinks you are going to extend it to-


Walter Edward Harris: I will explain the extension in a moment. We have had many instances where people have written in to say that it seems unfortunate that one has to go hundreds of miles at least three times for the purpose of becoming a Canadian citizen. They must appear before the clerk of the court to file their declaration; they must appear before him to file a petition; and then they must appear later on to take the oath of allegiance. I think all members would agree that Canadian citizenship should not be something that, as I said this morning, would be available lightly. Nevertheless, there does seem to be an inconvenience. In the particular case I have in mind I think it was 180 miles that the person concerned had to go three times over a 15-month period in order to obtain his Canadian citizenship; whereas had we had someone available locally to take the initial step of the declaration he could at least have avoided one of these trips.
In addition to that, our liaison officers who are dealing with ethnic groups all the time have on more than one occasion been asked if they could not fill out the declaration of intention and mail it here to the registrar of citizenship. There are occasions when it would be convenient and desirable that they should be able to do so. In addition to that we wiil get this declaration mailed to us anyway at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The point that my hon. friend wants to make is this: These declarations are on file in the office of the clerk and they are available there for the subsequent filling


in of the petitions, and therefore the information is available, and so on. Actually what happens is that two copies of this form of declaration are made. One is sent immediately here to the citizenship registration branch; the other is posted up in the office of the clerk for I think it is three months, after which time it comes forward to us in any event. While I agree that the clerks over the years are acquiring experience and certainly can fill in forms better than others apparently do, I do not suggest that we could not overcome the weaknesses of persons to fill in these applications and send them to us. For the reason that there are instances where in our opinion it would be desirable to have these declarations taken locally, we think we should have the right to appoint, not as I think my hon. friend said, anyone, but a person who would be duly authorized and instructed and responsible to the minister.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That leads me to ask the minister this question. How far are the regulations determined on, and may not one of the points made in this letter be a good one, namely, an extension of the appointment or an extension of the people who are qualified to take it but who might take it without being in a position to receive fees. I should like to read this:
At the present time the applicant has the protection of the court, and the courts are headed by the attorney general of the province who can use disciplinary action as he may see fit to these clerks who take advantage of their position. There will be no such supervision over these agents-
He means the new agents to be appointed. I continue

-and they can do as they please.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon. member disclose the source of the letter?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I assure the chairman he is a responsible person and I prefer not to mention the writer's name, unless he wants to mention it himself.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am not going to insist, but as the hon. member knows, if anyone reads a letter he must quote the source; otherwise it becomes an imaginary letter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As has been said here many times, I am quite sure Your Honour will find the hon. member is free to read the letter if he takes responsibility for the statements which are contained in it. He does not have to give the source or name the person who wrote it if he takes responsibility for what is in it.


Mr. Graydon:: That is right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has
quoted a letter. I can recall instances which

took place, and one in particular, in which the leader of the C.C.F. party was involved. It happened about two and a half years ago.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is quite right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: At that time it was decided that no document should be quoted unless the member quoting it was prepared to divulge the signature.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Oh, yes, the source. I do not have the reference at my fingertips; but if a letter is quoted and the source is not revealed then it is similar to an imaginary letter.


Gordon Graydon: It cannot be imaginary if the hon. member takes the responsibility.


Louis-René Beaudoin: But that is similar to an imaginary letter, if the source is not revealed. That is the position.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I could comment on my hon. friend's recitation. The attorney general of a province is the superior officer of the clerk of a court, but I think my hon. friend should remember that any corrections that are made with respect to the work carried on under the Citizenship Act are made by our citizenship branch here. As I said before, one copy of these declarations is sent to the citizenship registration branch. If there are weaknesses in the way it is filled in or if there is other information required, correspondence then takes place between the citizenship registration branch and the clerk of the court.
The only thing in which the attorney general of a province is interested is the fees ultimately collected for this work. I do not say that in any disrespectful sense. But we do supervise the work of the clerks under those circumstances. I hope hon. members do not think we are going to withdraw this from the clerk of the court. We are only going to make it easier in places where clerks are not available readily, so that someone else may take declarations, or so the person affected may send such declarations by mail to us here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why would it not be feasible to make a definite extension so as not to leave it wide open? For example, could not the provision be made whereby a justice of the peace could do this work, where there is no clerk of the court? Could not a definite extension be made without leaving it wide open? That would meet the point which the imaginary writer of the letter makes. It would give the protection he feels is necessary. He gives some substantial 68108-2591
Canadian Citizenship Act instances of fees charged which in my opinion were unfortunate, to put it mildly. And it does seem to me that, without expense, such procedure might be possible. Is that not practicable? If so, could not the minister entertain that idea?


Walter Edward Harris: No, it is not practicable, because we do not know at this moment what particular person in a remote northern community in Canada we would like to designate. It could be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it could be someone else.
I think I now understand some of the concern of my hon. friend with respect to these exorbitant charges. I did not understand he was making a point about them before. We have had these difficulties for some time. We are aware of the fact that charges are made by people for this particular service. There is no reason why they should not charge for the filling in of this document, because it takes time to do it. Any professional man is entitled to charge for his service.
There is no restraint upon lawyers, except by way of county tariffs, and the like. However, I have not heard of any exorbitant charges having been made. I have heard it said that instances have occurred but, so far, I have had no written complaints to that effect. In a case where they fill in a declaration of intention and do not need to, I agree some redress might be proposed. But clerks of courts do not protect the public with respect to that, any more than we do. We get these complaints and we have correspondence about them. And the unfortunate person who applies and finds he has made a mistake learns quickly from us about it, through the citizenship registration branch.
I am not going to multiply the difficulties we have with Canadian citizens by appointing someone who is unqualified to do the work. Rather, I would hope to aid by appointing someone who would be qualified and who would do the work where it is not now being done, and without great inconvenience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is not prepared to meet the point the hon. member for Greenwood and I have presented to him in the way suggested, let me offer as an alternative one or two other suggestions. I feel-and in this I agree with my correspondent-that a wrong has been done to the man who filled out this declaration of intention. There is nothing imaginary about it at all. I could give the name, but there would be no point in doing so. I am prepared to show it to the minister. The picture of
4096	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act the applicant appears on it. One of the lines filled in reads as follows:
My wife's citizenship is Canadian.
The lawyer who typed out this form typed in the word "Canadian" as applying' to the spouse of the applicant. It would take about half a minute or less, by reading section 10 (1) (a) of the citizenship act, to discover that this applicant was not required to fill in such a form because he was the spouse of a Canadian. Yet he paid $10 to a lawyer for filling in that form, which did not need to be filled in at all.
Often I indulge in these sideswipes at my hon. friends who are lawyers, and I think I am justified in this case. The point that should be pointed out is that although lawyers frequently do things for nothing they sometimes charge fees they should not charge. In this instance I am amazed that $10 was charged. I showed this form to an hon. friend who sits near me, a member who is a lawyer, and he was amazed that such a charge was made. He seemed to think that $5 would have been plenty, and in some cases $1 would have been enough. And the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings says that, being in politics, he would not charge anything.
I am going to make two suggestions, the first of which is that there should be printed on the form, in type that any lawyer can read, a statement to the effect, using the wording of the act, that if an applicant is the spouse of a Canadian citizen, or a British subject, or comes under any other exemption indicated in the act, the filling in of the form is not required. My other suggestion is that there might be some limit imposed as to the fee to be charged for filling in the form. If the minister is not prepared to accept the other suggestions surely he should consider these.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend. If he is complaining about the charge made for the service rendered in this case, he is not arguing against the present system. Under this section we are talking about the filing and filling in of these documents. Anyone can fill in a declaration of intention. The point is: Where do you file it? The amendment makes provision for the filing of them in our citizenship office, in addition to filing with clerks of courts, and other persons whom we may designate.
There are hundreds of declarations of intention filled in by lawyers and other people which find their way to clerks of courts. We have no control over what a professional man might charge for the service here. We have control only over the fee charged by the clerk for filing. That happens to be a fee of $1. So far as I know they charge more than


that, under some arrangement through their provincial act. So, as I say, we have no way of imposing a tariff of fees upon those who fill them in. That is entirely up to the applicant, when he decides whom he will hire to do his work. I should add that we are going to revise the fees for filing later on; but that is another matter. If my hon. friend thinks we should print on the form the various requirements in a manner which would be obvious to anyone reading that form, we would give consideration to his suggestion.
I do not know whether the person to whom he referred was one who spoke English, or whether it might be someone from whom the lawyer would take a long time to get the facts. It may be that an hour would be spent in extracting the information. I have had lawyers write to me to say that it does take a long time. I would not want to prejudge these particular charges.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I offer my apology for laughing a bit while the minister was speaking, but I was not laughing at him. An anonymous member sent me a note which reads, "What makes them think lawyers can read?" I think we have it clear that what the minister and I are discussing at the moment is not the filing of this declaration but the actual business of filling it in. My point is that the lawyer to whom this gentleman went should have known that it was not necessary for him to file this form, particularly when he had to indicate one of the factors that made that unnecessary. In this case it should not have been filled out at all. I am glad the minister will consider the possibility of having printed on this form in clear type that lawyers can read something to indicate that under certain conditions the filling of the form is entirely unnecessary.


Walter Edward Harris: I should like to ask permission of the house to withdraw subsection 2 of this section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would that leave the law as it now stands? That is to say, that they must have an adequate knowledge of English or French and it would be left entirely to the judge to decide whether they have that knowledge despite the fact that they have been here for twenty years?


Walter Edward Harris: The question of whether they had been here twenty years would be the relevant question and citizenship could be obtained in that case in lieu of having knowledge of one or other of the languages.


Mr. Winters:: I move that subsection 2 of section 6 be deleted and that subsections 3, 4 and 5 be renumbered.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. McLure:: I should like to ask what would be the status of a Canadian girl who married a British naval seaman during the last war. After his discharge from the service they went to England to live but after some ten years they are desirous of coming back to Canada with their family. What would be the status of that man and woman and their children, the children having been born in London, England?


Walter Edward Harris: I take it that the marriage was during the war years?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: I would have to look it up. There was a change in status in 1941 or 1942. I think the answer will probably be that she is a Canadian citizen, but that he and the children are British subjects.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9.


Howard Charles Green: I notice that subsection 5 (b) creates quite a drastic change in the law because it gives the power to designate, in any part of Canada, any court or person to act as a court for the purposes of this act and any such court or person so designated shall be deemed to be a court for all purposes under this act. As the law is at the present time that power can be exercised only in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and I can understand why it would be necessary there. But this proposed amendment would make it possible for the minister or the department to designate a person in British Columbia or any one of the ten provinces to act as a court, I presume to hear applications for naturalization.
I doubt very much whether that would be wise. Courts are available in the provinces, certainly in every part of British Columbia, and there should be great solemnity about this matter of naturalization. In recent years there has been an increasing degree of solemnity in the ceremony conducted. I suggest that such a ceremony is better conducted by a judge than by some other individual who is not a judge. Our judiciary rightly commands great respect from the populace at large and I deprecate this idea of taking away from the courts the right to hear applications for naturalization. I think it is cheapening the whole process and I urge the minister to give further consideration to this proposal.
I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the paragraph and I may have based my argument on a wrong premise, but if it means
Canadian Citizenship Act that it will be possible, in British Columbia or any other province, for a person not a judge to hear a formal application for naturalization, then I think the change is wrong. I have no doubt that in some cases it would be simpler to have naturalization granted in this Way, possibly in the more remote places, but the advantage would not be as great as the loss that would be suffered by taking away from the courts the power to conduct these hearings.


Walter Edward Harris: I think my hon. friend has misinterpreted the intention of the amendment. We are taking away no power from any court. We are only asking for legislative authority to designate someone to act as a court. As my hon. friend has said, that means that we could designate people in remote areas who are not judges. We expect to do that under certain conditions in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, although that may not be necessary now that there are additional judges there.
Northern Quebec is another instance where there may not be courts to handle these cases. We would like to have the power to designate someone in lieu of a court where a court is not available to hear the application within a reasonable time. This is not entirely academic as there have been cases where a judge has died and because of delay in appointing his successor it has been impossible to have these hearings held within a reasonable time after the application is made. There is no intention whatever of taking away from any existing court any of its present privileges and powers. The only desire is to supplement them should it be necessary in the interests of granting citizenship reasonably soon after the application is made.
I quite agree with my hon. friend about the solemnity of the occasion. Since I became minister we have done our best to make the granting of naturalization a solemn occasion. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not want to have a uniform ceremony, we want to leave to the judge a little bit of individuality and expression. But we would hope that they would impress upon the applicant, and upon themselves and the court officials, the fact that this was something that should be remembered by the applicant until he died. He could make the ceremonies simple and perhaps even short if court work required it, but nevertheless solemn and impressive. We would not appoint anyone who would not carry out these particular objectives.


Howard Charles Green: The administration of justice in a province is just as important as the hearing of applications for naturalization. Why should this plan not be tied in with the administration of justice in a province?
4098	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act Instead of doing that, the minister is going much further and is asking for the power to designate an individual to hear an application for naturalization within a province. I suggest that power should be tied in with the actual administration of justice in the province. Assizes are held in all the feading centres of British Columbia and the county court judges go to the more remote centres. In my view they go there frequently enough to hear applications for naturalization. If it is necessary, a county court judge could be flown into a centre to hear applications for naturalization. I am afraid that this is a retrograde step. It will detract from the solemnity of the occasion on which an application for naturalization is heard.


Walter Edward Harris: Let me say one more word about it. I am sure that my hon. friend is wrong and that we will not take anything away from the solemnity of the occasion at all. I think he knows that in my province, and likely in his, there are occasions on which persons who have served at the bar for many years may be appointed temporary members of the judiciary. I think that is true in the province of British Columbia. It is in Ontario in any event. That is the kind of thing we have in mind. We may need an additional person at a particular time to do a job.
I can give one instance where I had a letter from a woman out west who said that the R.C.M.P. had called on her to get a declaration of intention. She was delighted that the time had rolled around. It would be six months before the R.C.M.P. called again. This was the only outside contact she had and she was looking forward to the time when the R.C.M.P. would come back with the petition for her to sign. I admit that such conditions are rare, but I think that we should have the opportunity of making that woman a citizen right where she lives because she is doing useful work in that particular area. The kind of person would be a person who would be responsible and would not treat this thing lightly.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to ask the minister a question. First I would congratulate him on the number of citizens he has brought out from Ireland.


An hon. Member:: Where is that?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I can assure him that these people who have come from the north of Ireland will compare favourably with the best in the world. They will fight for their country or take part in the development of our natural resources. What is the possibility of getting more of them?


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

On section 10-Determination of Canadian domicile, etc.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this a broadening of the powers to determine the question of domicile? I observe that under the present section 38 it is provided quite simply that where any question arises under the act with respect to whether any person had Canadian domicile immediately prior to the coming into force of the act, the question shall be determined in the same manner as if it had arisen under the Immigration Act, whereas under subsection 1 the power is now given to the minister. The decision of the minister is made final and conclusive. Perhaps I may be labouring a point that does not exist, but my recollection is that the minister is not given that broad sweeping power under the Immigration Act to determine all such questions and to be able to make a final and conclusive determination. I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong and also answer the question as to whether this is a broadening of his power to determine the question of domicile.


Walter Edward Harris: It is not a broadening; it is an elaboration of the power I have at the present time under the Immigration Act. But the wording of subsections 2 and 3 limits the power of the minister in making a decision under subsection 1. In other words, under subsection 2 he is obliged to follow the records of the department if they exist, and if they do not then under subsection 3 he can call for any information on which he can make up his mind about domicile. I am free to admit to the committee that occasionally we find that the records do not disclose the landing of a person in Canada. In such a case we want evidence from him of the landing and will accept it if it looks proper and indicates that he did in fact come at that time, although our records do not actually disclose it.


Mr. Fraser:: Do you issue an order in council in such cases to clear them up?


Walter Edward Harris: No, we do not need an order in council to grant landing at the present time. I can grant landing to a person who has shown that he has been in the country, although our records do not indicate it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 to 21 inclusive agreed to.
On section 22-Coming into force.
Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the coming into force of the legislation, on reading the debate in the other place I saw a statement that the revised Immigration Act passed at the last

session had not yet been brought into force. Do I understand that it is the intention to bring the two acts into force at the same time, the citizenship act and the whole new Immigration Act? If so, when is it actually intended to bring them into force?


Walter Edward Harris: We may bring the citizenship act into force as soon as it is given royal assent, but the Immigration Act is to be brought into force as of the first of June if the regulations which are now practically completed are available and printed in sufficient time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title.
Walter Edward Harris: I did not want to introduce this amendment until we had passed section 9, concerning which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made some remarks. With respect to the appointment of any person to act as a court, there is a cross-reference to section 2 (f) in the act which I shall read. It has to do with the clerk of the court and reads as follows:
"Clerk" or "clerk of the court" includes all officers exercising the functions of prothonotary, registrar or clerk of any court having jurisdiction under this act, and, where a person is designated by the governor in council as a court under this act, means the said person.
We did not want to necessarily have one person act as both judge and clerk of the court. Therefore I have a proposed amendment, which I will ask the Minister of Public Works to move, which would amend 2 (f) to read as follows:
(f) "Clerk" or "clerk of the court" includes all officers exercising the functions of prothonotary, registrar or clerk of any court having jurisdiction under this act, and, where a person is designated by the governor in council to act as a court for the purposes of this act, means any such officer approved by the minister and available to assist the said person as his clerk or, if no such officer is so approved, means the said person.
This will give us the opportunity of continuing the present system. In other words, if under the circumstances we have to appoint someone to act as a court, the clerk of the court having jurisdiction at the present time continues to have it, but if that is inconvenient or impossible we may designate someone else to act as clerk for the temporary purposes of the other court. 1 should point out one additional matter to my hon. friend. The appointment of the additional court is not made by the minister but by the governor in council so that there is that additional protection with respect to the minister's exercise of this right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe the same question is in your mind, Mr. Chairman, as is in mine.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have solved the problem. I have found where it goes.
Canadian Citizenship Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.


Walter Edward Harris: I beg your pardon, it comes under section 1.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As a matter of fact, it comes in subsection 3 of section 9, where it reads paragraph (f). It would read that subsection 1 of the said section 34 is repealed and the following substituted therefor. I think that this is paragraph (b).


Walter Edward Harris: May I point out that section 1 of the bill amends section 2 of the act, and this is amending section 2 of the act so it should go in as subparagraph 5 of section 1 of the bill.


Mr. Nowlan:: What happens under this proposed amendment which was just introduced? I agree with the member for Vancouver-Quadra that it is dangerous to designate persons to act as courts, but I can assume that under some circumstances such a thing might be necessary. In any event, you have to have a record of this kept somewhere. Surely the records must go through a court, and there must be a court office in every district no matter where it might be located in Canada. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be highly dangerous to not only designate a person to act as a court but designate some other official to act as registrar.
A few moments ago the minister said he was frank to admit that there was the occasional time when records of entry were missing. To my mind, therefore, if you have a person designated as a court and you have somebody else designated as a clerk, you are only adding to the opportunities for error because these people will only be acting for a day. What is going to happen to the records which are under the control of one or the other of these people? I wonder why it is necessary to appoint a registrar or person to act as well as designating a person to act as a court?


Walter Edward Harris: The act as it stands now contains this provision because of the situation in the Northwest Territories at the time when they did not have the judges they now have. I can conceive of the case I cited to the hon. member, where this lady, who is a doctor and who has been giving medical service to an area that never had it before, wants to remain there after she becomes a citizen. I can understand the minister trying to see that she is made a Canadian citizen on the ground, and for that purpose designating someone, the clerk of the municipality or somebody like that, to act as a clerk of this court for that purpose.
Under the act as it stands, if I appointed someone locally to be the court, to act as a
4100	HOUSE OF
Canadian Citizenship Act judge, he automatically became the registrar or clerk of the court as well, which we did not want for the reason the hon. member gives that we want the records. You have a better chance of having the record if you have two people than if you have one.


George Clyde Nowlan: If it is simply to cover the case referred to of the doctor who wants to become a Canadian citizen and to whom you want to grant Canadian citizenship on the ground, I cannot quite follow the minister. Does she not have to send her records into the court in any event? You have an officer of that court, a registrar or clerk of the court, and those officers are now in existence. These courts may be a thousand miles away from the lady to whom the minister refers, but it would be a simple matter since her application has to be posted in some place in any event. Then, if you are going to post these applications in any store or some Hudson Bay trading post, they are all going to be lost and you would not want to have that happen. I am not going to labour the matter. The member for Vancouver-Quadra raised it with respect to designating the court, and as I said I am prepared to follow the minister on that question with some qualifications, but I think he is getting on dangerous ground in designating a clerk.


Walter Edward Harris: It is quite true that in this particular instance the declaration of intention is filed in a court hundreds of miles away. There is no point in altering that court or the registrar of that court for the purpose of these documents. I imagine that only when some minister wanted to have this done on the ground, and have a clerk appointed who would administer the oath for the judge, would it happen in any other way than the normal. The intention here is not to take the power to appoint clerks, but is to avoid having the man who is going to be the judge also become the clerk.


Howard Charles Green: I think this amendment put forward by the minister strengthens my argument against his other amendment which allows him to designate a person as a court. By this amendment the minister is taking the power, not only of designating a person as a court but also of designating someone else as a clerk of that court, and if there is nobody available to act as clerk of the court then the man who is designated to be the court itself can also act as the clerk. I think that Canada has advanced far enough in her settlement and in her system of government for it to be unnecessary to have a provision of that kind.
This amendment reads:
"Clerk'' or "clerk of the court" Includes all officers exercising the functions of prothonotary, registrar or clerk of any court having jurisdiction under this act,-


That, of course, refers to the courts as they are set up at the present time.
-and, where a person is designated by the governor in council to act as a court for the purposes of this act, means any such officer approved by the minister and available to assist the said person as his clerk or, if no such officer is so approved, means the said person.
So, in this case the governor in council does not have to approve the clerk of the court. The minister can appoint a clerk to assist the said person. If no such officer is so approved, it means the said person may act. In other words, the person designated as a court can also act as the clerk. I submit to the minister that the keeping of the records is of great importance, as well as maintaining the solemnity of the naturalization hearing. By this amendment he is endangering the keeping of the records. If he can appoint somebody to act as clerk for one particular application for naturalization, then it is very likely that the records will not be kept as they would be in a court or if they are kept at the moment will eventually be lost. We will not be able to find them in our provincial courts, because there is no procedure for filing them in the provincial courts. I think the minister, in order to grant naturalization to this doctor, is endangering his whole system of naturalization hearings. I would urge upon him that in the ten provinces he restrict the power of hearing naturalization applications to the courts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to make a suggestion that has probably occurred to you by now, Mr. Chairman. It is that the proper place for this amendment is as a new subsection 3 of section 1 of the bill. If I may respectfully suggest this to the minister, I think his motion should have been that it be inserted as subsection 3 of clause 1, and that subsections 3 and 4 should be renumbered as 4 and 5. That would put the amendments to paragraph (f) in between (d) and (j). This would seem to be the proper place.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am sorry. I find that I was trying to fit the amendment into section 9, but it does not go in there. It is probably a good thing that hon. members of the committee did not follow my lead. It does fit into section 1 as the hon. member has explained. The amendment, therefore, is that a new clause 3 be inserted and that subsections 3 and 4 be renumbered 4 and 5. The amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works is as follows:
That section 1 be amended by inserting:
(3) paragraph (f) of the said section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (f) 'Clerk' or 'clerk of the court' includes all officers exercising the functions of prothonotary,

registrar or clerk of any court having jurisdiction under this act, and, where a person is designated by the governor in council to act as a court for the purposes of this act, means any such officer approved by the minister and available to assist the said person as his clerk or, if no such officer is so approved, means the said person;" and renumbering paragraphs 3 and 4 as 4 and 5.
Shall the amendment carry?


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us whether it is his intention to appoint his representatives in the provinces as a court or to designate them as a court? In some of the provinces at least he has a representative of the department. For example, in Vancouver we have Dr. Black who is an excellent representative. Is it the intention to designate the minister's own representatives as a court for the purpose of hearing these applications for naturalization?


Walter Edward Harris: At the moment there is no intention to designate any particular person. If it happened that it was necessary, under this amendment, to designate someone and if Mr. Black were available and were agreeable to the other persons who would have to do the work under the act, I presume that he would be considered. But I had more in mind the necessity of having someone trained at the bar if we were in that position at all.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister given any thought to my suggestion that subsection 4 of section 1 should be changed? He deferred consideration of that section. I refer to the word "or" which appears for the second time in the second line.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not been able to give any further consideration to that matter than what I said at the time. I do not think it alters the meaning at all from that of the old section. But I must say that an explanation was not given me as to the change to "or" from "and". I think what I said was correct, namely that this does not alter the fact that we are trying to describe a place, and give the same reasons why this place would become the place of domicile. For example, if my hon. friend will look at the subsection again, he will see that these are all terms to explain where a person has his home or in which he resides, although that can be the same thing, and to which he returns as a permanent place of abode. That would imply that he did not have a home as such but had a residence. I think they all fit into the definition. I do not think the change to "or" from "and" would make any difference in our interpretation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry?
Veterans Benefit Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest that the minister put the same amendment in section 12 of the bill?


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is in the corresponding section in part II.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think that is understood.
Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the bill carry as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



VETERANS BENEFIT ACT


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 335, to amend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951.


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make an explanation of the bill?


Hugues Lapointe: I hardly think any statement is necessary, Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of the bill. As I explained at the resolution stage the other day, this is the annual bill to extend the Veterans Benefit Act, 1951, for a further period of a year; that is until the last day of the session of 1954.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want briefly to say that I was not here when the resolution preceding this bill went through, and I want to say that we certainly welcome this bill again. The evidence of the value of the legislation is to be found in the credits the minister mentioned, namely the 150 men who are taking university or vocational training and the 89 who have made application for benefits under the Veterans Land Act. This federal aid to education in this respect has been most successful. I hope it convinces the government of the soundness of the principle and that they will see fit in years to come to extend this legislation to other Canadian citizens.
Before concluding I want to say that I notice generally that the administration of this legislation is becoming smoother all the time. I have talked to a number of men who have taken benefits under this legislation

Veterans Benefit Act
on returning from Korea, and I have not had a veteran make a single complaint as to the administration of the legislation or as to the treatment received from the various officials concerned with the administration of this 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-Expiration.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: As the minister has explained to us, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply carrying out the same act as was put through last year, giving to the Korean veterans all the benefits under the veterans charter and subsequent legislation. I should like to ask him this question. In view of the fact that there is another bill to be considered, namely Bill No. 336 which grants additional assistance to the children of deceased members of the armed forces, is this act broad enough to include children of Korean veterans?


Hugues Lapointe: The answer is yes, Bill 336 will include them, Mr. Chairman. While I am on my feet may I say this. The other day, at the resolution stage, the hon. member for Royal asked me for certain figures which I did not have at the time but which I told him I would give him when we were in committee on the bill. He asked what was the average amount of gratuities paid to Korean veterans under this act. I am informed that as at April, 1953, the average amount was $261.80. He also inquired as to the number of contributions that had been made to the unemployment insurance fund on behalf of men serving in Korea. Contributions have been made on behalf of 15,332 members of the forces who have enlisted since July 5, 1950, and who have been discharged.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I also asked for some information with reference to the Veterans Land Act, as the minister will recall.


Mr. Lapoinie:: I believe I gave at the time the information as to the number who had applied under the Veterans Land Act, and the number of applications received and approved.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The figure was 89?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think that is correct.


Mr. Quelch:: Under this act is a veteran able to avail himself of any of the benefits under schedule A? Can a veteran obtain any of the benefits under schedule A of the act?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I believe the hon. member asked a question along that line the other
[Mr. Herridge.l
day. He wanted to know whether any veteran could apply for these benefits or whether it was necessary for an order in council to be passed before the benefits were made available. The latter case is the correct one. The hon. member will see that section 8 of the act reads:
The governor in council may by regulation provide that all or any of the enactments set out in parts I and II of the schedule to this act shall, in such manner as the governor in council may prescribe, apply to . . .
And then the two subsections follow. In other words, the governor in council passes an order making the various acts which appear in the schedule applicable to the classes of servicemen which the acts are intended for.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There was another question that I asked regarding the payment of reestablishment credits to those still serving in the permanent force that could be paid the same as gratuities were being paid.


Hugues Lapointe: Up to now the benefits under the rehabilitation act have not been made available to members of the regular forces other than those who had originally joined up with the special force and transferred to the regular forces before the end of their term of enrolment. But extension of these benefits to other Korean veterans who were in the regular force is under consideration at the present time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Nothing definite has been decided yet?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: No.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to mention veterans who are on small holdings under the Veterans Land Act. Some of those small holdings have now been incorporated into cities and these veterans are finding that their taxes have gone up, naturally. As I understand the regulations, if a veteran is on a 50 per cent pension he has a right to sell part of his holding, if he is on a half-acre holding. If he is not on a pension he has no right to sell. Of course when the land is sold the Veterans Land Act takes the money which would help to reduce the amount of the veteran's indebtedness to them. On account of the high cost of living and the high taxes at the present time would it not be possible to permit the veteran to sell off a portion of his holding and help to pay his indebtedness to the Veterans Land Act and also make it easier for him to pay his taxes, because it would reduce them somewhat?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: This of course is a serious problem, and one into which the administration of the Veterans Land Act is looking at the present time. It is something that relates directly to the Veterans Land Act, though of course any change that might be made along the lines of those suggested by my hon. friend would also be applicable to benefits conferred under this act. If I may suggest, I think it would be more appropriate to deal with it when my estimates come down, when we can discuss the administration of the Veterans Land Act. At that time I might be able to give a more thorough answer to my hon. friend and deal with the points that he has just brought up.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I hope the minister and his department will have a chance to study this point because these veterans are now finding it extremely hard to make their payments.


Hugues Lapointe: Their investment has
increased in value also.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The value has increased, yes, but they have burdens to bear, their families are coming along, the cost of raising a family has increased, and they are finding it that much harder to pay the charges.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand this bill, it merely extends the Veterans Benefit Act until the last day of the 1954 session of the house. That means that in order to find out just what it really does we have to go back to the original act which was passed in 1951, and which by the way was supposed to be merely a measure to fill in for a brief period until it was possible to make the Korean veterans eligible under the terms of the different acts in the veterans charter. My first question to the minister is: When does he think it will be possible to get rid of this temporary measure and make these veterans eligible for benefits under the basic acts contained in the veterans charter?


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I did touch on that point when I introduced the resolution. I explained that we thought it advisable for the time being to continue with this procedure which was followed during the course of the second war. It is pretty difficult to say when we shall be able to come to a final decision -in this matter and bring forward the act so that all of the benefits which are now given by order in council under authority of this act may be specifically provided for by a statute. That of course depends to some degree, as I explained the other day, on the situation in Korea, or on the time that it may take for all those who 68108-2604
Veterans Benefit Act
are affected by this legislation to be discharged or absorbed in another capacity in. the armed forces.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister cannot give us any idea as to how long it will be before these Korean veterans are placed in the same position as the veterans of the second world war in so far as coming under permanent legislation is concerned?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, they are enjoying the same benefits under this act which, of course, is extended from year to year. It is a yearly act. Like my hon. friend, I would like to be able to say when we will be able to put this legislation in a permanent statute, but like my hon. friend I am not in a position to say when the situation in Korea will permit that.


Howard Charles Green: It is not the situation in Korea-


Hugues Lapointe: It is to some extent.


Howard Charles Green: -that makes the difference; it is the possibility of passing legislation in Canada, which is of importance. I understand that 25,000 young Canadians have served in Korea, and I should think it would be possible for us to get their benefits in the shape of permanent legislation. The minister has said that they have the same rights now. That is hardly correct, because all they have now is the Veterans Benefit Act, and the governor in council may or may not say that certain parts of the veterans charter apply to these men. It is not a matter of right at all, as it would be if they came under the veterans charter itself. They merely come under this other act under which the cabinet have the power to say that they shall or shall not get certain benefits.
Do all of the veterans charter acts which are mentioned in the schedule to the Veterans Benefit Act apply, namely sections 28, 29 and 30 of the Civil Service Act; the Veterans Land Act, 1942; the Veterans Insurance Act; the War Service Grants Act, 1944; the Department of Veterans Affairs Act; the Veterans Rehabilitation Act; the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946. These are the acts listed in the first part of the schedule. These are the ones listed in part II: subsection 2 of section 2, section 5 and subsections 4 and 7 of section 7A of the Civil Service Superannuation Act; the Pension Act; part IV of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940 and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1946. My question is whether all those acts have been made fully applicable to the Korean veterans and, if not, to what extent they are not applicable.


Hugues Lapointe: They have been made available to Korean veterans who enlisted in the

Veterans Benefit Act
special force. I explained a few moments ago that they are not all available to Korean veterans who serve in the regular forces, but that the matter is now under consideration.


Howard Charles Green: Are all the benefits under all those acts applicable to the Korean veterans?


Hugues Lapointe: I have just answered my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: Then answer it again.


Hugues Lapointe: I explained-and my hon. friend can look at Hansard-that they were available to Korean veterans who enlisted in the special force, and that so far as Korean veterans who are members of the regular force are concerned, they were not all available. I said that the matter as to the acts not at present available was under consideration, and that I hoped to tell the house at an early date what was being done.


Howard Charles Green: Let us consider the benefits under the War Service Grants Act. Is there a restriction on the benefits a Korean veteran can get if he has served less than a certain number of days in Korea?


Hugues Lapointe: I did not follow my hon. friend's question. Would he please repeat it?


Howard Charles Green: I understand-and I hope I am wrong-that there has been a provision whereby, unless a Korean veteran has served in Korea for 183 days, he cannot get any benefits under the War Service Grants Act, even though he may have been wounded.


Hugues Lapointe: I have not the regulations before me, but my understanding is that that is not correct. I certainly will look into the matter and let my hon. friend know. However, I am inclined to believe that he is wrong. I do not think that limitation exists.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any time limitation affecting Korean veterans in respect of benefits under the War Service Grants Act or any other acts I have mentioned?


Hugues Lapointe: Not to my knowledge.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister look into the matter?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, I will.


Howard Charles Green: Then, are the benefits available to the men who serve with our forces in Europe?


Hugues Lapointe: The answer is no. They are available to members of the forces who have served in an area which has been declared a theatre of operations. Germany has not been declared a theatre of operations for the purposes of this section.


Howard Charles Green: Under the Veterans Benefit Act I understand the cabinet is given power to designate what constitutes service in a theatre of operations.


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the cabinet has designated only Korea; is that correct?


Hugues Lapointe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Then I suggest some provision should be made to extend the benefits to young Canadians who are serving with our forces in Europe. We have a few thousand of them over there and, upon completion of their service, they will be handicapped in their re-establishment in civilian life. I submit the time has come to extend at least some of the benefits to these men.
Let us consider, for example, the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. Do they come under the provisions of that act, which gives a veteran some rights to get back his former job? I suggest that is one act which should be made to apply to them. Then there are several others which could be made applicable to the men serving in Germany. Has consideration been given to following that course, or is there any reason why the acts I have mentioned could not be made to apply to the men serving with the forces in Germany?


Hugues Lapointe: Well, I suppose there are some reasons. My understanding is that members of the regular forces who are serving in Germany at the moment are doing a tour of duty there as part of their regular duty in the regular forces. They have enlisted directly to the regular forces for a period of three years, as anyone does who enlists in those forces. In the course of that duty they may be called to serve in Canada or they may be called to serve in Germany as part of their training in the regular force. But they are not serving in a theatre of war.
I think my hon. friend will agree with that. However, as regards reinstatement in civil employment, my understanding is that any member of the regular forces who enlisted therein after July 5, 1950, and who serves in those forces for a period not exceeding three years-that is, one term of enlistment-


Howard Charles Green: Not less than three years.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes, not less than three years-is given the privilege of reinstatement in civil employment when taking his discharge.


Howard Charles Green: I submit these men should not be regarded as ordinary enlisted soldiers in our peacetime army.


Hugues Lapointe: Why not?


Howard Charles Green: We are now engaged in an unusual type of military activity under which we are sending forces to Europe, and I doubt very much whether very many of these young men have decided to make the army their career. They have enlisted for a short period of time.


Hugues Lapointe: They enlisted for a regular term of three years, like anybody else.


Howard Charles Green: It is pretty obvious that the minister is not very much impressed by the need for giving them assistance of the type covered by the Veterans Benefit Act. Nevertheless I do urge upon him that the government give consideration to extending at least some of these benefits to the men serving in the forces in Europe.


Hugues Lapointe: I might say that the government has given and will continue to give consideration to that matter; and I can assure my hon. friend that I am quite as interested as he may be in the fate of our men serving in Germany or anywhere else. And I think his remark was slightly uncalled for.


Howard Charles Green: Slightly what?


Hugues Lapointe: Uncalled for.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the minister should not be so touchy. Ministers of the government must expect to have suggestions made to them.


Hugues Lapointe: It is not the suggestions I object to; it is the suggestion that I am not interested.


Howard Charles Green: He may resent them; nevertheless I am entitled to make suggestions to the minister, and I propose to do so when I feel they should be made.


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to straighten out my hon. friend. I am very pleased to have any of his suggestions as regards legislation or the treatment to be given to veterans or to men serving at the present time. What I objected to was his suggestion that I was not interested.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I happened to be absent when this bill was called; therefore I did not hear the statement by the minister. This bill received considerable publicity because it created the impression among many veterans that it would deal with increased veterans allowances. I should like to know whether any consideration has been given to increasing the allowance to single and married veterans.


Hugues Lapointe: That would not come under this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Armed Forces
Hugues Lapointe: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ARMED FORCES


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill 336, to provide assistance for the higher education of children of certain deceased members of the armed forces and of other persons.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the minister going to give an explanation?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned the other day on the resolution, the purpose of this bill is to provide financial assistance for the children of veterans who died as a result of military service during world war I, world war II or in Korea. It is intended to assist children who are pensioned under the Pension Act to obtain an education above the level of high school matriculation.
The bill provides for the payment of university fees and a monthly allowance while in attendance at a university for a period of four years. As I mentioned the other day, there are approximately 12,000 children receiving pension under schedule B of the Pension Act, all of whom would be potential university students. Under this legislation, when a child has graduated from high school he will be in position to obtain assistance for his higher education, or vocational training of the type that calls for high school matriculation such as teachers' college, provincial normal schools or nursing schools at Canadian universities.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution was before the house the other day we had an explanation from the minister, and a number of hon. members spoke. Since I have received the bill and read it I have been greatly disappointed, and I am satisfied that that will be the general feeling. There was general approval in the press and among all concerned when it was intimated that something would be done toward assisting the children of war veterans who had been killed overseas to obtain a higher education.
Since the war ended it has been generally realized that the children of deceased war veterans should receive special consideration as far as education is concerned because they had a special claim on the public of Canada. It was hoped that a bill of this kind would have been brought in long ago. Everyone

Armed Forces
realized that the widow of a soldier who had been killed overseas would not be in position with her limited means to provide this type of education for her children. Like everything else, the cost of education has increased greatly, and it was realized by the war veterans committee as far back as 1946 when we were considering the veterans charter that this matter should be considered. It has been brought up practically every year, either in the house, by the Legion or by some other veterans' organization. As I said a moment ago, there were great expectations as far as this bill was concerned.
The bill certainly does not go as far as we had been led to believe it would. My opinion was that the children of deceased war veterans were to be given the same educational opportunities as the veterans themselves were given on their return from overseas. I should like to read the recommendation of the Canadian Legion submitted to the government on November 12, 1952, which was as follows:
Recommendation-in respect of children of deceased service men
That the federal government instigate a policy for the children of deceased service men similar to that in force for single student veterans attending university or vocational training schools and receiving a monthly allowance under the rehabilitation act.
They recommended the adoption of a policy similar to that which had been adopted in connection with single student veterans. Anyone who is familiar with the veterans charter and who considers what is intended to be done under this bill for the children of deceased war veterans will realize that there is no comparison at all. As a matter of fact, I think in this bill the government is being very niggardly. It is not permitted to refer to the different sections, but the bill does mention what the government intends to pay and the amount is very small when compared with what is necessary to provide an education.
When we consider the cost of living, when we consider the cost of room and board, of clothes, of books, of travelling, of all these necessary things, and then consider the small monthly pittance provided under this bill we cannot help but realize how inadequate it is. I would point out that the children concerned are comparatively young, 16, 17 and 18 years of age; they are not to toe compared to the men who came back from overseas. During the four months of vacation these mature men can earn a good deal of money, but young people of 15, 16, 17 or 18 years of age, many of whom will be attending university, will have very little

opportunity to earn money to assist in obtaining their education.
There is another matter I wish to bring up when we are considering the bill. I do not see any retroactive feature in the legislation. Owing to the fact that it was not put into force four or five years ago, as it should have been, many sons and daughters of deceased veterans have already attended universities and have paid for their own courses. They have probably borrowed the money to do so or the widowed mother, the pensioner, has borrowed the money to assist them in obtaining an education. I see no provision in the bill to treat those who have already received and paid for their education in the same manner as those who will come under the act when it is brought into force this year. I wish to express this complaint now, before we deal with the various provisions of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, we in this group certainly endorse the principle of the legislation and are very pleased to see the bill introduced. I know the Legion has made proposals along this line to the government and the veterans affairs committee for a number of years. It is my recollection that the matter was first discussed, as was said by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) reminded me a few minutes ago, in the veterans affairs committee of 1946 when a number of members of the committee tried to get this type of legislation incorporated in the veterans charter.
While the government is late in bringing the legislation before the house, we are very pleased to know that at last, so far as the principle is concerned, they have responded to the pleas of the Canadian Legion. I think it is quite fair to say in that respect. that it is the good and continuous work of the Legion and the national council of veterans that has finally caused the government to give consideration to their repeated representations and recognize the principle of educational assistance to the children of deceased veterans.
In addition, the subject has been raised a good many times in the house by members particularly on the opposition side, and as far as the principle of the bill is concerned I am sure we are very pleased that the government has recognized it. However, I am not clear as to the exact meaning of one or two of the clauses, and I am sure when we get into committee a number of members will want the minister to explain the meaning of certain clauses. If I understand the bill correctly that $25 per month is the sum total, together with educational costs, then

under present day circumstances that appears to be too small an amount. But we will wait until we get into committee, and I hope the minister will be able to give us further information as to those sections which concern us having to do with the amounts payable.
Once again, we are pleased to see the government recognizing this principle, and once again I say that I am quite sure no bill affecting such a relatively small number of persons in Canada will produce more happiness than this one, particularly if the government sees fit to raise the amount payable to a satisfactory figure.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, we in this group commend the government for introducing legislation of this type, and we are fully in accord with the general principle thereof. But I was under the impression that under the legislation both the cost of the education of the dependent of the veteran and a living allowance of $25 a month would be paid. I now have some doubt in my mind whether or not the full cost of education is to be met. Therefore before I say any more I should like to get a further explanation from the minister regarding section 4	(2) particularly. I
should like to know exactly what it means, because if it does not mean that the full cost of education is going to be met then I shall not be quite so complimentary in my remarks.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks about the measure. As hon. members who have already spoken have said, for some years there has been a demand by the members of the great Canadian veterans' organizations and also by many members of the house for some legislation which would assist the children of Canadians who gave their lives for their country. It has been felt that such children were bound to be under a handicap compared with other children because of the fact that their fathers had lost their lives in one or other of the services. There has also been a feeling that these young people should be put in a position where they could take pride in the service their fathers had given, and that the service of the fathers should be recognized by some measure of assistance to the sons and daughters.
The measure does go part way to meet the suggestions that have been made, and I join with other members of the house in commending the minister and the government for the start. It took a great deal of pressure to get this far, but now we are here a word of commendation is in order. But
Armed Forces
I believe the measure will not help a very large number of such children. During the debate on the resolution the minister explained that only those who had completed their secondary education would receive any benefit, and he said in effect that only those children intending to take university training would be eligible for help. He pointed out that whereas there were 12,000 children who had lost their fathers, only about 10 per cent of them would benefit under the legislation, or approximately 1,200.
It must be evident that those who are not going to go to university will constitute the largest group of these children. They are the ones who will be entering one of the trades or some occupation which does not require a university degree. Yet these children appear to get no benefit whatever under the measure. They are left to what they can get from the regular public schools, and I think that is unfair. They get no living allowance whatever, and of course that is an important feature of the assistance given by the bill. It provides for the payment of university fees. Children who are not going to go to university of course would not have to pay fees in a technical school but their maintenance must be provided, and I suggest they should be eligible for this payment in the same way as children who are going to university.
Under the rehabilitation plan in effect for the veterans themselves, no such distinction was made. If a veteran wished to take vocational training he got his allowance just the same as a veteran who went to a university. But here we come to deal with the children of the veteran who lost his life, and under the definition only the one who goes to university can get help. I am very glad that he or she will get that help, but the one who wants to take up a vocation gets no help whatever. To me that is one of the great weaknesses in the bill.
We always understood that the assistance would be on the same basis as that given to the veterans, but the allowance is only to be $25 per month whereas the amount payable to the veteran himself was two or three times that amount. This payment of $25 per month is merely a token payment, and obviously was not intended to provide for the subsistence of the veteran's children while taking a course.
Then there is one other point I should like to draw to the attention of the house, and that is that this bill is of no help whatever to the children of the man who, at the time of his death, was in receipt of war veterans allowance; at least that will be true in most

Armed Forces
cases. These men only received war veterans allowance, at least a great majority of them, because they were front-line soldiers. The war veterans allowance is based on front-line service. I suggest that the children of these men should be made eligible for this assistance, in addition to those coming under the schedule of the Pension Act.
I hope these suggestions will be considered by the minister, and that it will be possible to have some amendments made as the bill goes through the committee. This year we should have had a committee on veterans affairs to deal with this measure and the one which has just been passed. Here we have another good example of the folly of not having a veterans affairs committee of this house. This bill will not receive the consideration from the committee of the whole house that it would have received from a special committee on veterans affairs. I hope that during the next session provision will be made for the setting up of a permanent committee on veterans affairs.


[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-Definitions.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: According to the definition, Mr. Chairman, an educational institution means a university, college or other school of higher education in Canada. During the time when the veterans themselves were attending schools, provision was made to enable them to take educational courses outside of Canada if there was not a course in Canada that suited their requirements. I wonder if that same provision will apply so far as these children are concerned?


Hugues Lapointe: The hon. member for Royal is quite right, Mr. Chairman; that principle was followed when the veterans legislation was applied. The education had to be obtained in a Canadian institution, unless it was established that the course which the veteran desired and which was necessary for his rehabilitation could not be provided in Canada. It is not felt that the same situation exists merely in providing what I may call ordinary university training for these children.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask the minister if a university, college or other school of higher education includes vocational training schools?


Hugues Lapointe: It will depend on the type of vocational training which is sought. The purpose of this act, as the title shows and as the explanation pointed out, is to give

assistance to those seeking a higher education, in other words, university training; or for that type of vocational training which requires a high school education as a preliminary. It has been felt, and this is the experience of the department and the people who are in the educational spheres in this country, that that is the type of education which is most costly and which is most difficult to obtain because of financial reasons.
If the type of vocational training desired is one which can be provided by the provincial institutions which exist throughout this country, and does not call for a high school education as a requirement for entering the course, then the provisions of this bill will not be applicable. If it is vocational training such as nursing, which I mentioned before, or other types of technical training which I understand call for high school education, then the provisions of this bill would apply. In other words, I might say that the criterion is the need for a high school education as the requirement for entering the course.


Clarence Gillis: I certainly am not in agreement with that definition. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out, there will not be many who will benefit by this bill. Since the end of the last war the whole emphasis has been on university training. Practically all of the government assistance has gone in that direction. Today you can go to the employment offices across this country and find queues of unemployed who have no training of any kind. At the same time you will find vacancies listed calling for skilled tradesmen such as bricklayers, pipe fitters, carpenters and glass fitters. I am afraid that if we continue this type of assistance in the field of education, in a few years there will be no hewers of wood and drawers of water but everyone will be running around with a university education and not producing very much.
I feel that the minister would be well advised to consider including vocational training schools in this definition. For example, a young girl taking a commercial course which requires a year or eighteen months of study in a local school would receive no help. There are many of these schools across the country, and some of them are costly. There is transportation involved. According to the definition in this bill, such a girl would not be eligible for assistance because she is not attending a recognized university but is merely attending a school which teaches a commercial course.
The time to iron out these definitions is now, and not by correspondence after the bill has passed. There are these vocational training schools across this country in which

young men do not get a high school education, but they receive a basic education which is sufficient to enable them to take a course in the trades.
In many cases the people who require the assistance most are those who cannot afford to send their children through high school but have to take them out in the ninth or tenth grade and send them to a vocational training school because they cannot afford to put them through high school and thus give them university entrance. If the government is desirous of helping the largest group of veterans, in my judgment they should include vocational training schools in this type of assistance. If they do not do that, I think most of the assistance will be going to people who could perhaps afford to send their children through; because if you can get them through the university entrance, you are not badly off. But as to the great majority of the ex-service personnel who will raise a family and try to educate them, the vocational training school is the spot, in my opinion, where we should try to give them the greatest assistance.
As I pointed out before, the lack of trained tradesmen in this country is terrific. The whole emphasis of the Department of Labour in immigration has been to bring skilled tradesmen from Europe. The importation of stenographers right here to this city from Great Britain only a few months ago is an indication that a great deal of assistance is necessary in relation to this type of work. There are thousands of girls running around the streets and standing behind counters for low wages because their parents could not afford to put them through the commercial course that would enable them to take such a job. I believe the thinking of the government in the field of education must be focused on the need for training in these skilled trades in this, country rather than depending on immigration as we have been doing since 1945. This would be a good place to start, by including vocational training schools in the definition under section 2 of this act.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I must agree with many of the things that have been said by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. This whole system of education, as we are seeing it develop across the length and breadth of Canada, it seems to me is creating a number of square pegs to be fitted into round holes. Those who returned from the first world war know that the assistance in the matter of education was completely and utterly inadequate. Those who returned from world war I certainly had to make their own decision as to what line of education they were going to take up, and rightly or wrongly
Armed Forces
they pursued what they considered to be the type of training they were to follow.
The day is going to come, it seems to me, when we shall find this situation if we continue the type of education that is mentioned here in the bill-not that I am particularly opposed to it, except that I think it should be broadened. For instance, today in the great Kitimat development in British Columbia we have dishwashers on the job who are earning more than are university graduates. That is a fact. The reason they are earning more is certainly not that they are more skilled but rather that they are willing to take on a type of work that is not particularly edifying. All through the industrial set-up of the Dominion of Canada, as we continue to prosper and develop, we are going to find increasing numbers of instances similar to that which you find today in this developmental work at Kitimat.
Further than that, if the children of civilian residents of Canada are going to pursue university courses and the veterans' children are going to be subsidized by governmental action to do likewise, then the day is not going to be too far distant when most of the so-called workers of this country are going to be working for the government. It seems to me that the idea behind any legislation of this type should be that we are building up the boys and girls of today who are going to be the men and women of tomorrow, and who are going to be producers for the economic development of the Dominion of Canada.
Rightly or wrongly, we may be critical of university graduates but the fact still remains that the real basic principle upon which our development depends is not in having men and women who have possibly a greater than technical school education, but in having men and women who are ready and willing to throw themselves into the economic development of this country. For a long time I have been of the opinion that we have been stressing the university too much and neglecting our secondary and trades schools all across Canada. In my opinion they are the institutions that will turn out the real men and women for the development of this country in the future.
I have to go along with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Cape Breton South in pointing out these facts. For our future economic development, in my opinion it is necessary that consideration should be given to the interpretation of this bill that is now before us; not that by any manner of means we should exclude university graduates, but we certainly ought

Armed Forces
to have a complete definition of the type of person this legislation is going to benefit. When it comes to children in an orphaned family, I certainly do not think the higher university education is going to be particularly applicable, because a university education today costs a great deal of money and it certainly takes the head of the family all his time in toil, tears and sweat to earn sufficient to put a boy or girl through university. Where the head of the family has been removed, the onus of responsibility will fall upon the remaining parent. I feel strongly that this type of definition as to beneficiaries under this act should now be explicit.
As far as schools are concerned, I believe the trade schools and the vocational training schools are the real schools that are going to build boys and girls into men and women of tomorrow for their purposeful tasks in developing and increasing the economic advantages of this country of ours.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Cape Breton South had to say. Certainly I think at the present time there is a much more acute shortage of people with commercial training and trades training than there is in some of the more learned professions. It seems to me that this act should be broadened to include people who are going to attend commercial schools and trade schools.
There are two specific questions I should like to ask the minister. From what he said I take it-but I should like to have this matter clarified-that students who attend a normal training school for teaching will be included even although in some provinces matriculation from high school is not required to enter that normal school. I should like the minister to clear up that point. From what he said I think it follows that those people would be included and would be eligible; but as I say, I know that in some provinces in order to enter normal school students do not have to have matriculation. They take a less onerous course or at least one that is directed along other lines than those of the matriculation course which gives entrance to university.
A second group of people whom I have wondered about were those taking accountancy. In most instances students taking accountancy do not actually attend a university. They pay certain fees and take their accountancy in the form of an apprenticeship. I wondered whether the fees they have to pay, and so forth, would be covered by this bill. I believe they do require matriculation in order to enter into accountancy.
[Mr. MacDougall.l


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to comment on this without delving too deeply into the merits of this or the other kind of education. I find myself largely in agreement with what the hon. member for Cape Breton South had to say. As I understand it, this is a measure to benefit the children of men who lost their lives in the service. Why should we pick out some of them and educate those who are taking this type of education mentioned here, and say we will not educate the others? I can see no argument in favour of that at all.


Hugues Lapointe: Perhaps I might answer the questions of the hon. member for Calgary East. As regards his first question, I would say the bill contemplates that the people he describes will receive the benefit. As he says, there are some provinces where there are regular high schools, and where matriculation may not be necessary to enter normal school, but where an equivalent educational background is necessary. In such a case, it would be considered as one of the kinds of vocational trainings for which the act could give assistance.


Howard Charles Green: I think the resolutions passed by the Canadian Legion indicate very clearly what a great weakness it is in the bill that no provision is made for vocational training. I hold in my hand two resolutions which were passed at the dominion convention of the Legion last year on this point. One was in these words:
Resolved that all such entitlements and credits, etc., which the veteran would have received had he been spared to return be made available to his family.
The other was more specific. It read as follows:
Be it resolved that the federal government be requested to instigate a policy for the children of deceased service men similar to that in force for single student veterans attending university or vocational training schools and receiving a monthly allowance under the rehabilitation act.
When the Legion came before the cabinet in November of last year they had this recommendation to make on the point:
Recommendation-in respect of children of deceased service men
That the federal government instigate a policy for the children of deceased service men similar to that in force for single student veterans attending university or vocational training schools and receiving a monthly allowance under the rehabilitation act.
Therefore it is perfectly clear that the Legion had in mind benefiting the whole range of children of deceased veterans; and we all know that the great majority of these children would be more apt to benefit from vocational training than they would university training. The minister himself said on second reading

of the bill on April 13 that only 10 per cent of the 12,000 would get any help under this measure. In effect what he is doing is giving the green light to the children who propose to take university training, and putting up a red light against the other children who would like to get vocational training.
He explained on page 3754 of Hansard what type of training would be covered when he said, in addition to the university:
Teacher training, through the provincial normal schools, and nursing, through the teaching hospitals, are cases in point.
But he has not given the house or the committee one example of assistance in vocational training, and there is where the great need exists. With regard to vocational training he takes the position that any of these young people who want to get vocational training can get it in the provincial schools that are already set up. That may be true in so far as paying fees is concerned; they may not have to pay any fees for their vocational training, but they will have to have someone pay for their subsistence while they are attending those vocational schools. If the assistance provided by this act is not extended to cover them, then I am afraid the result will be that many of these young men and women will not get vocational training at all. They will simply be cut off.
I would urge that the definition of an educational institution be broadened to include commercial and vocational training schools, just as was done in the case of the veterans of the second world war. They were not put to the obligation of going to university if they wanted to get help. They could choose themselves whether they wanted university training, vocational training or commercial training, and they got help no matter which course they followed. I suggest that exactly the same provision should be made to apply in this present measure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the point at issue at the moment is not a debate as to the respective merits of university training on the one hand and vocational training on the other. I think we all agree as to the value of both. Certainly there is no question but that our country's life is richer because many veterans of world war II were enabled to go on and take university training. I for one am very glad to see that provision for university training is included in this bill. But we also recognize that Canada's well-being is advanced by everything that is done to increase the vocational skill of those who are not able to go on and take university training. In other words, it seems to me we are not indulging in an academic debate between those two types of training. What we are asking is that there be no discrimination
Armed Forces
between them, but rather that this assistance be available in either case.
I recognize that the Minister of Veterans Affairs may be sitting there thinking that we did not hear what he said a while ago, when he made it clear that the criterion would be whether or not the student had been through high school. I heard that, and I can see what might be involved in lowering that criterion; but this question presented itself to me. What about the student, be he interested in university training or in vocational training, who is unable to get through high school? Is not there a case for assistance in some instances at that level?
The minister may say that in most provinces of the country high school education is free, at least so far as tuition is concerned. But the financial circumstances in the home may, in many instances, prevent young people from getting to high school, whereas with a little assistance they might be able to do so. On the ground that the country is richer, both for vocational training and for university education, I think both should be included.
I think consideration should also be given to providing at least the allowance of $25 per month which would make it possible for students to get through high school who otherwise would not be able to get through. That would at least put them in the position of being able to go on with their university training or their vocational training.


Victor Quelch: I understood it was not so much a question of whether or not a young person had gone through high school but rather whether, the young person having gone through high school and then applying for vocational training, such type of training would require that the applicant had gone to high school. That is the difference. It seems to me that if the young person prefers that type of vocational training which does not require high school, then at least some allowance for the cost of living could be made. I should think that $25 a month might well be allowed, even though there would be no cost of education involved.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra is right in pointing out the definition of an educational institution where reference is made to a university, college or other school of higher education in Canada, as approved by the minister. Of course the expression "higher education" is elastic, and the minister can define that so as to include technical schools and the like. But I think he will agree that ordinarily higher education would not include trade schools.
The minister did make the point at the outset that this grant was payable only to those

Armed Forces
who had graduated from high schools, or had equivalent status. I must say I have some considerable sympathy for that. The hon. member for Cape Breton South made reference to secretarial schools and business schools, and suggested that the grant should be made to assist persons going through those schools. My thought in the matter is that before they go on to business schools they should first go through high school, learn how to spell and be able to take a letter reasonably well. Many of them cannot do that.
I doubt whether this grant should be made available as has been suggested. Certainly in every province of Canada, and I think in almost every centre, high school education is available. It may be that in some instances the students would have to live with relatives, or something of that kind, but we do have consolidated schools as well as big high schools in our cities and towns. I should think those children should first of all go through high school. Then, having done that, this assistance should be made available to them if they wish to go to a secretarial or to a trade school. We have such places in Halifax. I think there is some confusion in the minds of hon. members as to whether they have to go through high school first.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I do not wish to disagree with one of my colleagues, but I cannot agree with the last speaker because I have had far too much experience in this particular field. I know that many of these boys and girls simply drop out of school as soon as they are permitted to do so, perhaps at about 16 years of age, in order that they may contribute to the family budget.
I could not be more heartily in accord with anything than with some remarks made this afternoon suggesting that in this bill there should be provision for vocational and technical training. I believe it was about two years ago that I received a summary from the employment service in Hamilton showing the number of women available for employment. Most of them were seeking work which did not require any particular training. It appeared from the breakdown that out of some 90 about 8 or 9 were quite capable of taking commercial training, but they had been unable to do so because of financial circumstances.
I do not think there is a centre in Canada today that is not short of stenographers. There is a great need for and shortage of them. I am told that at the new Ford plant which is to open shortly at Oakville they are assured of every type of worker except stenographers, and that these cannot be secured. I firmly believe that some provision should be made in the bill because, from the
[Mr. Nowlan.l
experience I have had and the instances which have come to my attention, I am sure that many of these young people who could benefit by vocational training are going to drop out of school at the age of 16, or whatever age their school system permits. Henceforth they will become untrained labourers in a wide field where we need skilled workers of many kinds.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Chairman, I agree with most hon. members who have spoken this afternoon. I am sure it was the intention of the Legion and others that all should be treated as nearly alike as possible. We recall that the returned men who could not take the educational facilities offered were given the advantages of the Veterans Land Act, or some other advantage.
One hon. member has said that this is discriminatory legislation. If a boy wants to be a carpenter or a girl would like to be a stenographer, then it seems to me that he or she should be given the same opportunity as the boy who wants to be a lawyer. Some provision should be made in the measure to provide that this boy or girl shall have his or her opportunity, just the same as the boy or girl who may wish to become a lawyer or doctor.
I do not agree that there are too many college graduates in this country. We all know there is a scarcity of doctors and engineers as well as those in other professions. There is also a great scarcity of people who are technically trained. I would hope that the minister might see his way clear to amend the measure so as to give us a more comprehensive definition of what an educational institution might be, and that in so doing he would include technical and vocational education.


Hugues Lapointe: I appreciate the debate that has taken place and the suggestions made by hon. members. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggest that the debate should not degenerate into one in which the relative values of university and vocational training would be set out. That is not the purpose.
This is something completely new in the way of veterans' legislation. Representations have been made to us upon various occasions and have been discussed at various times with people who are interested in the subject. It was pointed out that secondary high school, technical and commercial education in most cases could be obtained in provincial-controlled institutions throughout the country. It was said, however, that assistance should be given to the son or daughter of a widow, or to an orphan who would go to university

if the financial means were available to do so. It was urged that similar assistance should be given to those wishing to enter various other professions which do not call for university training, but training for which would require a high school education as a preliminary.
We looked into all the kinds of assistance that could be given, and as a result this plan was evolved. I think it is incorrect to say that it represents discrimination. As I pointed out before, the bill is designed to assist the children of deceased veterans to obtain a higher education. That does not mean that vocational training is not necessary in the economy of the nation. I think this bill marks a step forward in veterans' legislation. Hon. members can look at veterans' legislation anywhere else in the world, and they will find that this is the first legislation of this type introduced in any parliament.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Let us make it good.


Hugues Lapointe: I think we should do what we have done with other legislation, wait and see what the results will be once it is put into effect. It is quite possible that certain adjustments will have to be made. But I think it is going somewhat beyond the real situation to denounce the legislation as being unfair.


Clarence Gillis: I hope the minister is not trying to create the impression that anyone is debating the merits or demerits of university training versus vocational training.


Hugues Lapointe: It sounded like that.


Clarence Gillis: It certainly was not that. As far as the bill goes, there is nothing wrong with it. This is another move in the direction of federal aid for education. It is the second step we have taken during this session. Federal aid has been extended to the provinces in connection with the education of displaced persons. We are not doing too badly in that field.
There is no doubt in my mind that the legislation is discriminatory. It does not meet the demands made by the Legion at their last convention. What concerns me are the vacancies listed in the employment offices across the country for skilled tradesmen as compared with the queues to be found outside of men with no training at all who are looking for work. Obviously there is a gap in our training of people in the skilled trades.
If we make this step we should definitely remove any discrimination. Before he finally puts his seal of approval on the definitions I think it would be interesting if the minister or some member of the house found out how many of the pupils who start out in grade 1
Armed Forces
finally graduate. There is a great number of children in this and every other country who just have not the capacity to graduate in high school subjects, but they have aptitudes for other things.
The ordinary person who does the necessary work of this country to produce our wealth does not need French, Latin, geometry or a knowledge of economics that he would get in grades 11 and 12. Only last year I saw some of the papers that had to be written, and I doubt if many of the ministers or parliamentary assistants could sit down and write that examination today.


Hugues Lapointe: That is probably true.


Clarence Gillis: Those papers dealt with the new economics that came out of this war, the changes in currency and all that kind of thing. That is an angle that must be taken into consideration, the small percentage of the pupils who are able to go right through the different grades and graduate. There is a very high percentage who cannot do that.
There is a great waste in education when no aptitude tests are given to determine just exactly what a boy or girl may be fitted for. This legislation closes the door to vocational training schools. I am sure if the officials of the Department of Labour were asked their opinions they would tell you in no uncertain terms that the great need in this country is for skilled workmen. Many of our provinces, particularly the maritime provinces, are having an awful job maintaining or establishing vocational training schools in sections where they are badly needed.
There is an obvious situation that exists in all the industrial sections of this country, as is indicated by the vacancies for skilled workmen in all the employment offices. Some hon. members seem to be of the opinion that if they do not get through high school they can walk out on the street and find jobs. What kind of jobs can they take? An industrial employer is not going to take an untrained man and train him. He has expensive equipment and machinery in his plant. The employer in the building trades wants trained carpenters, bricklayers and lathmen because they are not so apt to waste materials.
If the policy of the government is that everyone in Canada is going to have a diploma, is going to be an economist, a chartered accountant or something like that, and we are going to draw from Europe by way of immigration our tradesmen and general labourers, that is fine. But what are you going to do with the Canadians who are here today, who are raising families and who are not able to put their children through

Armed Forces
university? Those children are going to end up as the displaced persons in a program of this kind.
I am not going to argue this any longer, as I have been arguing it since 1940. Apparently we are not making very much progress. I am certain that the elimination of the commercial and vocational training schools is not going to settle the matter as far as the Legion is concerned. I am certain it is not going to settle it as far as I am concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister made a fairly satisfactory statement on this point on April 13, as reported on page 3755 of Hansard, when he said:
In other words, the criterion is secondary school graduation-regardless of whether the proposed occupation requirement is regarded as university or vocational.
My point is that when the minister made that preliminary statement he put academic and vocational training on the same level. What disappoints hon. members now is that the wording of the section does not carry out the spirit of what the minister said.


Hugues Lapointe: I think it does. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. What I had in mind was that the criterion was the completion of secondary education. Whether the course to be followed afterward was a university course or something else, it had to be one which required the completion of secondary education, high school or its equivalent. That was the explanation I meant to give.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would seem that the statement made the other day and the provisions of the bill do not completely correspond and I wonder-


Hugues Lapointe: I hope the statement I made just now makes it clearer, because that is what it means.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are governed not by what the minister says but by what is written in the law. I wonder if it would be too much to ask the minister to let this section stand so he can take another look at it during the six o'clock recess.


Howard Charles Green: I think-


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think it would serve any purpose to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That means that the door is closed.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry. I did not realize the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was on his feet.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister were willing to agree to let the matter stand I would be glad to sit down.


Hugues Lapointe: My hon. friend is free to stand up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an academic way of putting it.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to point out that the preceding paragraph on page 3755 gives the real picture. There the minister had this to say:
Statistics indicate that some 60 per cent of young people entering high school leave without completing the usual four year program, and not more than 10 per cent-
That is 10 per cent of the total group, not 10 per cent of the 60 per cent.
-or about one-quarter of those who do graduate proceed, or are likely to proceed, with further school-post-secondary education.
That shows exactly what the minister had in mind, that only 10 per cent of these children would benefit. The figures are right there as given by the minister himself. I would ask the minister whether there would be any serious administrative difficulty if the act were extended to cover vocational and technical schools.


Hugues Lapointe: At the time I gave the figures I think I explained that they were simply estimates. My information was that that had been the experience in high schools throughout Canada, and that 10 per cent of the over-all group who enter high schools eventually proceed to higher education. Whether or not that will be the percentage in the case of veterans' children is of course something which only the implementation of the legislation will show us. I do not know whether or not it will be 10 per cent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Even if we enlarge the legislation as has been requested, I do not think for one moment that 100 per cent of the children concerned are going to ask for vocational training. As a matter of fact many of them will become lumbermen, fishermen or farmers, and very few of them will bother with this legislation. I suggest to the minister that the definition of "educational institution" might be enlarged to read as follows:
"Educational institution" means a university, college, technical school, vocational school or other school of vocational training in Canada . . .
By "vocational training" I mean training to be a nurse, teacher, stenographer or whatever it might be.


Mr. Mutch:: You would have to define "vocational". It is too broad in the last part.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You would have to define "vocational training".


Leslie Alexander Mutch: May I suggest that under the definition as it now stands there is nothing

to prevent the minister in his discretion including, for the purposes of the act, technical high schools.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has already closed the door by saying that a student has to graduate first.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Provided they are proceeding to matriculation.


Hugues Lapointe: No.


Howard Charles Green: They are expressly prohibited by section 3 of the act.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I stand corrected.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is a distinction
between high school graduation and matriculation. Which does the bill mean? Does it mean high school graduation or matriculation?


Hugues Lapointe: It depends on the provinces. What we have in mind is the equivalent. There are some provinces where matriculation is necessary to proceed to higher schooling. In other places pass certification, I think they call it, is all that is required. It varies with the provinces. The purpose is to provide assistance for schooling higher than high schools or their equivalent. I can give an example. In my own province secondary and post-secondary education leading to a degree in arts is usually given in the same institution. Upon graduation at the end of what would be the fourth year in a high school the student goes on to the fifth, sixth and seventh years, and eventually gets his bachelor's degree. For the purpose of the act dealing with veterans of the second world war, the years following the first four years in these institutions were considered as being the first, second and third years of university. The regulations will be made in such a way as to adapt the legislation to the existent circumstances under each provincial educational system.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I do not
think the minister has given a satisfactory answer, certainly not as far as I am concerned, to the arguments we have made. I would remind him that in one of the budget bills of the Minister of Finance, if my memory serves me correctly, a change was made in a somewhat similar situation extending the operation of the bill.
Let us look at this case. The minister's answer to the arguments, as far as I understood it, was to say-and I am glad that this is so-that in bringing in the legislation we are stepping out ahead of other countries. That is very satisfactory, but it seems to me
Armed Forces
that merely because we are a step ahead of other countries is no reason why we should get off on the wrong foot. So far as I am concerned he said nothing to answer our comments. He merely said: "We will see how it has gone at the end of another year, and if we want to amend it we can". But if in fact these arguments, which I am glad to point out were not made wholly by the opposition, have weight, then why in heaven's-name can they not be considered now?
So far as I can see they have not been considered. We are getting very near the position in the house where those of us in the opposition are merely expected to bow the knee. There was a time, even during my short experience in the house, when suggestions from this side of the house were considered and adopted. It has happened before and, as I have said, it happened in connection with the budget bills. I would think there is a very reasonable case for the minister holding the bill over until after the dinner hour in order to see if he cannot give some effect to the suggestions that have been made, or else answer them and point out that they are wrong, which certainly was not done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Minister may make allowances and pay costs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister clear up a point that seemed to be a bit confusing as we listened to the speeches on second reading of the bill? Does the legislation provide for both an allowance of up to $25 a month to a student and payment of tuition and other fees?


Hugues Lapointe: It provides for both.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the minister what is meant in subsection (b) by "pay in whole or in part". In view of the answer he has just given, why is it "in part" if the whole cost is going to be paid?


Hugues Lapointe: I think it is purely a question of discretion. I believe the same wording was used m the other legislation, but the intention is to pay the tuition and the allowance. Just why it is "in whole or in part" I really cannot say. It might be that a student would be getting a scholarship under another scheme. For instance, there is the case where a student-gets a scholarship under the youth assistance act to which the federal treasury contributes. Such a scholarship might be taken into account in considering the amount of fees, if that scholarship were paid directly or were contributing to the payment of tuition. It. is contemplated that this act should operate in a similar manner to the old veterans act.

Armed Forces


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it necessary to read (b) of section 3 with subsection 2 of section 4? When I put those two together, I wonder whether it is the intention of the government, by regulation, to prescribe the extent to which tuition fees would be paid, or could we now have the assurance of the minister that tuition fees will be covered in full, except in cases where there is a scholarship?


Hugues Lapointe: That was just an example I gave. The cost that it is felt should be determined by regulation is again based on the same system we followed previously. I think there must be certain restrictions, otherwise students might take other things with their courses for which we would have to pay extra fees, and which would not be part of the curriculum they must follow to obtain a certain degree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, a limitation is going to be imposed?


Hugues Lapointe: Let me give an example to illustrate this point. Suppose a student were taking science, and his tuition fees were paid for science. Suppose that he wanted, in his spare time, to follow some lectures given in the medical school to the medical students. We would hardly be expected to pay for his university training in two separate courses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Amount of allowances.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not altogether clear, but I understand that the tuition fee is paid. What about books that are required?


Leslie Alexander Mutch: The bill refers to other fees and costs as may be prescribed by regulation. It could be stretched to cover that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The only amount we are sure he will be obtaining is-


Hugues Lapointe: Registration fees, tuition fees, yearly fees and dues.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And $25 a month is paid outside of that?


Hugues Lapointe: That is correct.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Out of that he has to pay his board, clothing, travelling expenses and so on. That was my understanding of it when I read it before. I do not think it is enough.


Howard Charles Green: How was this figure of $25 reached?


Hugues Lapointe: The figure was arrived at after investigation into the average tuition fees in universities throughout Canada. We were advised that the average tuition fee was around $300. Of course there may be some cases where it is considerably higher, and on the other hand there are some faculties in

some universities in which it is lower. To that amount was added $25 a month for the academic year, making the amount roughly $500.


Howard Charles Green: On an eight months' basis?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes; that is the average academic year in a university.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not nine, in view of the reference to 36 months or four academic years?


Hugues Lapointe: No. The reason for the 36 in there is, as I understand it, that nurses are on continuous training for 36 months.
As I was saying to the hon. member, we calculated an average of roughly $500 per student, and this was discussed with various authorities. I might point out that that is the amount mentioned in the Massey report. That commission recommended that, on the basis of need, bursaries of $500 a year should be given. In this case the element of need does not enter into the calculation, but the average amount of $500 was arrived at and that is what set the allowance at $25 per month for the academic year.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the Massey report was drawn up the dollar was worth a lot more than it is today. It is only worth 50 cents now.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not think I could add an escalator clause to this bill, based on the cost of living index.


Howard Charles Green: What was the amount payable to a single veteran?


Hugues Lapointe: The tuition fee plus $60 a month.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Age limit.
Stanley Howard Knowles: When one first looks at section 5 it seems reasonable in that it imposes an age limit of 25 years. But I wonder if there are not too many limitations of that kind in this bill. For example, in section 4 we have limited this assistance to four academic years. Likewise, when we get to the next section there is a limitation, at least in so far as those who completed their matriculation before the coming into force of this act are concerned. I wonder if we are not running the risk of denying the benefits of this legislation to the children of veterans who might profit from it, and whose profiting from it might lead to the good of the nation. Surely there will be people 23 or 24 years of age now, who might desire assistance for a four-year course. This clause imposes an additional limitation. I have no objection to the limitation of four

Armed Forces
years, but I wonder if it is fair to have both the four-year limitation and the limitation of 25 years of age?


Hugues Lapointe: I think there are very few children of veterans of the second world war at the present time who have reached 23 or 24 years of age and who are still in high school. Most of them will have chosen another place in society than going to university. I hardly think there would be any cases such as the hon. member suggests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true that they might already be out of school. However, the act does contemplate the possibility of such children, who completed their matriculation 15 months ago, re-entering school. What bothers me about the section is that it leaves no latitude at all to the minister, whereas in some other section, where I am not sure it is necessary, discretion is left to the minister. So far as this matter is concerned, even if the minister comes upon a deserving case such as the type I have described, he will be prohibited from assisting that student by the ironclad provisions of this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Time limit.
George Clyde Nowlan: With respect to clause 6, this limitation of that few months is bad, particularly in subsection 2. Clause 6 provides that, when this bill passes, anyone who has qualified himself must start to school within 15 months thereafter. Then there is also provision that at any time hereafter-years from now, as long as this section is in force-the student must commence his course of higher education within 15 months following his matriculation.
I wonder what is the basis for that strict limitation. The minister admits, and it is obvious, that the grant of $25 a month is simply a grant in aid. It is simply to help him to carry the load, and it is not nearly enough to enable a student to enter college or to carry the full load himself. In other words, this act envisages the necessity for students earning money. If they do not earn money, they will not be able to take advantage of the act because $25 a month will not enable them to carry it.
I am thinking of boys whom I know who have left high school, have stayed out for two years working in a bank, and then have gone to college. One of them, if I may make a personal reference, was my own boy. I am sure he was a much better student in college because he decided to stay out for two years and work. Having spent two years in the bank he decided to go back to
school, and he is in college today. I mention that case as an illustration. I am sure there are tens of thousands of boys and girls who stop after high school and go to work, and then decide to go on to college. But under this section they will be precluded from doing so.
There is, of course, an escape clause which is not very wide. The section contains the phrase'"because of ill health or any other good cause". Of course "good cause" is fairly general, but I suggest it is fairly well limited with those words "ill health". In other words, if a boy is sick he can go to school two or three years later and still get assistance. But under this act, as I say again, the boy has to go to work to earn enough money to go through school; yet if he does not start within 15 months he loses the benefit of the act entirely unless the minister exercises discretion, a gate which is not too wide open to him, and I am sure he does not want it to be too wide open.
I think we are making it altogether too narrow, particularly in subsection 2, with respect to students who go on; I think they should not be limited to 15 months, but that this provision should be widened to two or three years.


Hugues Lapointe: All I will say, Mr. Chairman, is that the 15 months referred to in that section is the delay which was given, or which would have been given, to the veteran, the father. That was the delay which was mentioned in the veterans' legislation on education, and it is exactly the same period. In the other act there was also ministerial discretion as there is in this one. My experience since I have been minister is that it was sufficient to give relief in cases where there was real reason that it should be extended. It has been my privilege to do so at various times, and it has also been my duty to refuse it at times when I did not think it was justified. But generally speaking, no really serious problem has arisen.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the minister not making a slight error when he says that this legislation is the same as the veterans' legislation? Under the veterans' assistance they got much more than $25 a month.


Hugues Lapointe: I am saying that the delay
of 15 months was the same period which the veteran had. He had to decide on his university training within 15 months of his discharge unless he was able to show cause for delay.


George Clyde Nowlan: But the veteran could go on
and get paid his allowances and do reasonably well. Here any boy or girl has to earn

Armed Forces
money, and is not in as good a financial position as was the veteran. It is for that reason that I think the 15 months should be extended.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask a question of the minister. In the act we find this language: "who completes his matriculation". Does that mean senior or junior matriculation? In some cases universities jvill accept junior matriculation and allow them to go into the arts course.


Hugues Lapointe: I would say it is junior matriculation because students can enter university after junior matriculation, generally speaking. They can also obtain their senior matriculation at high school and save the first year of the arts course, as I understand it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I wanted to bring out. There might be some who thought this was junior matriculation and wondered whether this act would allow them to go to university.


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They might not be able to afford it otherwise.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That brings me to my feet to point out to my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who checked me about the collegiate institute in his own province, that it is possible to take first year university on completion of matriculation, and be admitted to the second year university. That is what I referred to when I said that if they took their first year university then and there it can be counted, and I still think that is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad the parliamentary assistant has made that clear. Now at least we are talking about the same thing. We understand that assistance under this act would not be available for vocational training in Winnipeg for that portion which is of high school standing. What he was saying, and has now corrected, is that if you stayed on there for work that is post-graduate, that portion would qualify.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read the third time now, by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.
IMr. Nowlan.]



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 332, respecting the Canadian forces.


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


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, before we give second reading to this bill I think the minister should perhaps make a statement in connection with it.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, this is an amending bill. It amends two statutes and a set of regulations affecting service personnel. In speaking to the resolution on April 2, as reported at pages 3550, 3551 and 3552 of Hansard the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) generally reviewed the contents of the bill which was later presented to the house. I think he covered all the salient points in the bill. The sections of the bill are not all related to each other nor to one specific matter. It would probably be more helpful to hon. members- or at least I hope so-if we were to go into committee and I were to explain the various sections as we come to them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I find it extremely difficult myself to speak on second reading as far as this bill is concerned because the only principle I can see in it is the principle of amending the Canadian Forces Act. There are at least four distinct matters involved. One makes it possible for Canadian military courts to try offenders against the laws of the country in which a military force happens to be stationed. The transfer of custody of offenders is the second one. So far as the first of these is concerned, the general principle is one that probably everybody in the house would be agreeable to, namely that Canadian courts should have the power to try Canadian personnel serving in Korea, Germany, Japan or wherever it may be. In regard to that and in regard to this matter of transferring offenders from civil custody to military custody there are several points which do not, on first reading at least, appear to one as being entirely reasonable, and some of these require a fuller explanation.
As I see it, one regulation in particular makes it possible for a soldier who has been found guilty on two or more counts-although the conviction on one of these counts may be quashed by a higher authority, or by an

appeal, or by anything else along that line and therefore the sentence which is awarded is quashed also-to receive whatever sentence the army authorities deem reasonable for the charge which was not quashed. Under that provision it is made possible for the soldier to be awarded a heavier sentence for the one charge that is not quashed than he received for the two or three offences for which he was sentenced in the beginning. That does not seem quite a reasonable proposition. Perhaps the minister will have some explanation for that particular matter.
Then the Defence Services Pension Act is also a matter which is quite technical, and perhaps it is no use to say anything about it at this moment.
The fourth matter dealt with is the voting _ regulations for the Canadian services. In connection with this I hope the minister will be prepared to tell us, when we get into committee, how the lists of service voters are to be prepared; whether they will be available; how the candidates can secure lists of the service voters who will be voting in their particular constituencies, and to what extent national defence headquarters and command headquarters will be required to co-operate in providing these lists. I trust he will deal with questions of that nature.


George Clyde Nowlan: The
last speaker has said that several specific matters of legislation are included in this one bill, and it is pretty hard to discuss the underlying principle affecting it because there are at least four underlying principles contained therein.
A moment ago the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) referred to the voting regulations and asked certain questions with respect to them. I am glad to see that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) is in the house, because I am quite sure he will have to reply to the last speaker that if this bill passes in the form in which it now is it will be impossible to answer any of these questions, since no one can tell what will be done in that situation.
There is a matter of principle here, Mr. Speaker, to which some reference should be made. Some time ago this house appointed a special elections committee, which gave a great deal of detailed consideration to the revision of the elections act. I am not sure how many times that committee was organized before I became a member of it in 1951. If my recollection is correct, that committee sat in 1950, and in other years. However, it did not complete its work to the extent that it could report. In 1951 the
Canadian Forces Act
committee sat for many, many weeks. We had numerous sessions. The evidence was printed. I think hon. members will agree that the committee worked reasonably hard. Among other things we considered were the defence voting regulations. Finally we achieved a unanimous report, recommending a certain procedure which should be carried out. For the first time it was thought we had the basis whereby the candidates who might be involved in an election, the service personnel who were voting and the government which was responsible might all feel there was some reasonable hope of the matter being worked out satisfactorily and well. The report came into the house and was accepted, and finally legislation was passed which was based on the committee's report.
I suggest that when you look at the regulations, when they are before us in committee, you will find that all the work which was done by this committee has been scrapped, and we are back again somewhere below the surface. It is hard to understand what has taken place. We had provided for certain forms, for instance, that should be completed. We regularized the matter in two different ways. In the first place, provision was made for those who were then in the armed forces-that was 1951-to complete certain forms within three months after the act came into force. That was form 50. We also went further and said that once a year every year thereafter they would change the form. That was to provide a revolving situation so they could adjust to changing circumstances. Then we had another form for those who came in after that date.
Therefore the mechanism was set up so that the whole matter was put on an orderly basis in 1951, and from then on presumably it would work in that way. If the department carried out its responsibility under that act, one would assume there would be no necessity for changing the act now; but as the matter stands-and this will appear in the committee when we come to the bill-we will find that all these things have been changed. Instead of this work being done in 1951, as it was supposed to have been done, it now can be done up to the date of dissolution, whenever that may be, and if it is not done by then it will be done up to the election date.
I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a principle is involved there, in so far as legislation which was considered as carefully as this was, which we now find to be virtually repealed and scrapped, and which is to be dealt with in the house now when we are almost within the shadow of prorogation. Some very definite

Canadian Forces Act
explanation must be given of that. I think it is not a principle which this house should accept nonchalantly. All of that work should be not scrapped without more of an explanation than the very casual one that was given here this afternoon. I do not want to go into detail on this now, because it is a subject that can be dealt with in committee.
I would ask you to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[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-Offences out of Canada.
Douglas Scott Harkness: This section uses the following language:
An act or omission that takes place out of Canada and would, under the law applicable in the place where the act or omission occurred-
That is, the country in which our troops were stationed.
-be an offence if committed by a person subject to that law, is an offence under this part, and every person who is found guilty thereof is liable to suffer punishment as provided in subsection two.
Is there any loophole or provision whereby that which might not be an offence in Canada, but would be in a country in which our troops were stationed, would not be looked upon as an offence if committed by one of our troops stationed there? I am thinking particularly of liquor laws and things of that kind, which constitute a problem in every province of Canada because the laws differ from province to province. Let us consider particularly troops of ours who might be stationed in a Mohammedan country where liquor is not allowed. What provision is there to cover a situation of that kind?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances outlined by the hon. member we would not have to prosecute. This section is in the interests of our own troops in Europe and other countries so that, by the enactment proposed herein, we may make the laws of another country part of the law which we can administer. We do this by giving our service tribunals authority to deal with offences committed by our service personnel against that law rather than have such
[Mr. Nowlan.l
offences dealt with by the criminal courts of that country.
This becomes important because in our treaty with West Germany, in our NATO treaties and in countries such as Japan where, as yet, we have no arrangement in this connection, the section gives us jurisdiction pursuant to which we could deal with these matters. I understand that under the West German treaty we will be required to administer the law of that country in accordance with its tenor. Under the NATO agreements, if it is an offence under our law we have concurrent jurisdiction. In other countries we have the right to negotiate, the idea being that we take all possible power to handle in our own military tribunals all .offences which may occur by reason of the activities of our forces in those countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am in full agreement with our having power to deal with such offences in our own military courts. I believe that is an extremely important move. The only point that concerns me is something which might be considered an offence in another country, one in which our troops might be stationed, but which would not be an offence in this country and subject to punishment. I am thinking particularly of sumptuary laws, and things of that kind. In other countries there are laws which we would consider quite peculiar. It would seem to me unreasonable that a soldier serving abroad and living in the way he was accustomed to live in Canada, but breaking a sumptuary or other law which would not apply here, should be subject to military discipline under this section.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If military personnel are to be dealt with on the basis of offences under the law of the receiving country, then it seems to me it is better for us to have power to deal with them ourselves. Otherwise that country would have power to deal with them, and might regard such offences far more seriously than we do. We would deal with the situation in the light of our own legal background.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would agree with the minister so far as that is concerned, that it is much better for us to have power to deal with them ourselves. I think there is no argument on that point. My only thought was that we might have an amendment whereby a man who broke a law such as I have mentioned in a foreign country, but had committed an act which would not be considered contrary to law in this country, would not as a result be liable to military punishment.

In subsection 2 it says that where a service tribunal finds a person guilty of one of these offences-
-the service tribunal shall impose the punishment in the scale of punishments that it considers appropriate, having regard to the punishment prescribed by the law applicable in the place where the act or omission occurred and the punishment prescribed for the same or a similar offence in this act.
And the explanatory note say this:
This is necessary 'because foreign law in some cases makes provision for types of punishment unknown to Canadian law.
I think there is another basic objection to subsection 2, in that the scale of punishment is not definitely set down. The scale of punishment laid down here will be what the tribunal considers appropriate. In other words it places much greater power in the hands of a military tribunal than resides in an ordinary court of law under any other circumstances; because a judge or jury, or whatever the case may be, in an ordinary court of law, or a court martial in respect of a military tribunal, can impose only those punishments which are definitely laid down. In this case the military tribunal is put in the position where it decides what the scale of punishment shall be. That is a basic weakness, and the sort of thing which should be avoided if at all possible.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Perhaps I should point out that, as provided in subsection 4, any offence that is within the code of service discipline, and also against the law of the country in which the troops are stationed, can still be tried under the code of service discipline.
Replying to	the	hon. member,	I wouldpoint out that in my view where subsection 2 refers to a punishment which a service tribunal considers appropriate, having regard to the punishment	prescribed by	the	lawapplicable in the country in which the troops are located, it means that our service tribunals would	take	cognizance of	the	lawsapplicable in	our	own country	to	such
offences as well as in the country where the offence was committed. It does not say that our military tribunals must apply the penalties which would be applicable to people within that country who committed these offences; it is the penalty which the tribunal considers appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances. When you are dealing with offences under the laws of another country which are foreign to our laws, I do not think you can very well set out a scale of punishment. I think it must be left to the service tribunal. The point is that we have endeavoured to give as wide a jurisdiction as possible to our service tribunals.
Canadian Forces Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can understand the difficulty of laying down a definite scale of punishments, but I would think this section would be much safer if an addition was made to the last phrase. This reads:
-the punishment prescribed for the same or a similar offence in this act, the Criminal Code or any other act of the parliament of Canada.
I suggest that the words "not greater than" should be added before that phrase. As it stands now, the scale of punishment is entirely in the hands of the tribunal. What tribunal A might think appropriate might be only half as much or might be twice or three times what tribunal B might think was appropriate. In other words you are going to have a great deal of variation if you leave it in the hands of the particular tribunal.


Ralph Osborne Campney: May I point out that in this section we are dealing with offences which are not offences under our laws; they are offences only under the laws of the country where the troops are located. I do not see how we can apply an exactly parallel construction to that obtaining in our own Criminal Code.
I might observe that in any event the punishment meted out by the service tribunal under this section would be subject to review the same as any other sentence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not quite follow the minister when he says that this is for offences which would not be offences in Canada. If that is so, why put in the words "punishment prescribed for the same or a similar offence in this act, the Criminal Code or any other act of the parliament of Canada"? Those words make it quite definite that what is envisaged here is the meting out of punishment which will be similar to the punishment prescribed by the Criminal Code, or any other act of the parliament of Canada.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think those words are used simply to direct the attention of the service tribunals to our Canadian law. It is a recognition of the fact that the offences will not be similar but that some guidance may be obtained from the Criminal Code. When the offence committed is somewhat akin to that covered by the Criminal Code, the service tribunal is directed to look at it and have regard for it.
This section deals with an admittedly difficult and unusual situation. In the interests of our own service people we are trying to enact a situation which will give us as wide jurisdiction as possible. I do not think we can very well lay down anything too specific in the way of punishment for crimes committed in other countries, which may be similar to crimes in this country or quite different.

Canadian Forces Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: The difficulty is obvious, but does it not leave the military tribunal in a rather impossible situation? They are going to be asked to deal with cases which may be very serious from the point of view of the country in which they are committed, and which may not be recognized as offences from the point of view of our laws. I imagine that we are desirous of maintaining good relationships with these countries; and if a tribunal should impose only a nominal sentence, the country in which the offence was committed might be extremely offended. Then in what position would the tribunal be left?
It seems to me that all sorts of pressures might be brought to bear upon the tribunal in a country where the senior officers might be trying to maintain not only good discipline but good relations with the authorities of the country. Pressures might be brought to bear on tribunals to impose sentences for that purpose out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offence in the eyes of purely domestic Canadian law. The tribunal is going to have no defence, no backing which it might have by the simple provision of maximum sentences. They would then have the opportunity to sgy, "We have tried this offence, we regard it as serious, but the maximum penalty provided in our act is so and so."
It seems to me that it would be open to all sorts of misunderstandings and the possibility of the creation of ill-will if a tribunal simply imposed a nominal sentence, or what was regarded as nominal in the eyes of the country in which the offence was committed. That country might consider that the Canadians were treating it as a joke when they regarded the offence as serious.
The tribunal should be in the position of being able to say, "We will try our soldiers", or whatever rank it may be, "for having committed this offence, but the maximum penalty provided by our act is so and so." Then the authorities of the country in which the offence was committed could not say that the tribunal was treating the matter as being merely of petty importance and just going through the motions of a trial. It seems to me that it places the tribunal in a most difficult position. It is placing what is in effect a court of law in the position of being an instrument of diplomatic relationship, and I do not think a court of law should ever be placed in that position.
The minister has the judge advocate general in front of him, and I would ask him if he does not think it possible to examine the laws of the various countries in which Canadian troops are operating and work up a scale 
of punishments for offences against the laws of those countries which are not offences against the laws of this country. Something could be worked out so the tribunals could have a guide.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is the opinion of the officials who have studied this situation that to attempt to set up any code of maximum punishments to fit the different countries in which we have or may have troops would lead to complete confusion. I think what actually will happen in the cases which come before our military tribunals under this section is that the tribunal will look at the offence in the light in which it is regarded in the country where it takes place. If there is anything in the way of a parallel crime under our Criminal Code, the tribunal can consider that; but the tribunal will have to take the responsibility, having assessed these things, of deciding what is the proper punishment to mete out in the case of a particular offence. It is not anticipated that this section will apply to too many countries, and it is felt that we cannot do more than, as it were, rely on the sense of appropriateness and fairness and understanding of the military tribunals. They will be operating outside the ordinary type of jurisdiction entirely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What are the provisions of the corresponding legislation in the United Kingdom and the United States whose forces are also in large numbers in countries other than their own?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am informed that so far as we know neither of the jurisdictions to which the hon. member refers has formulated laws in this particular.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why do we hasten to expose our soldiers to the possibility of being tried for offences in foreign countries which are not offences against Canadian law if neither the United States nor Great Britain has done so?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The reason we are taking this step is to hasten to provide, as far as we can, that the substantial number of troops which we have abroad are not tried for offences by foreign courts but by our own tribunals. This section, as far as we are able to make it, is entirely in the interests of our military personnel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister say that United States troops and British troops are now tried by civilian courts in -the foreign countries in which they may operate? Take the case of Germany, where all three countries have troops operating.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As to Germany, I understand that United States and British military personnel still come under the terms of the occupation. They are not in the same position at all that we are. So far as Japan is concerned, without dwelling on it too much I understand that since the Japanese treaty was ratified the Americans have been experiencing a good many difficulties. We have tried in Japan, and so far have succeeded, in avoiding jurisdictional difficulties. As we are going to be asked to approve treaties to enforce the laws of the countries where our troops are stationed in respect of offences against their own laws, we feel that we ought to be in a position to do that. All this section does is put us in that position. Otherwise we have no jurisdiction at all. This provision puts us in a position where, to the extent that we can under our treaties or by arrangement or in any other way secure jurisdiction, we will be in a position to assume that jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then I take it from what the minister says that neither United States nor British troops are liable to be charged with offences against German law, and Canadian troops are.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does that arise from the fact that we were kicked out?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They are not subject to German law now, but I think we are the first nation that has not had any proper arrangements to meet the situation, which will shortly arise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It arises out of the fact we were kicked out.


An hon. Member:: Oh, now, now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What do you mean, "now, now"? It must arise out of the fact that we were kicked out or left out of the occupation arrangements.


Mr. Lesage:: What brilliance.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I understand that at present we are under the same regulations as the British and Americans and have the same rights; but that will probably end for all of us soon and we want to be in a position to protect our troops to the maximum possible for us to do so when the situation changes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What are these other two countries doing about it?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not know that I want to develop what they are doing about it. We are trying to look after our own interests.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue points of law with a Rhodes scholar, but having read the section and the explanatory notes it
Canadian Forces Act
is my opinion that it does just the reverse of what the hon. member is arguing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are so often wrong that it does not worry me.


Clarence Gillis: Following the hon. member's line of reasoning, if we had troops in Ethiopia and it was the law there that toenails had to be pulled out with a pair of pliers, his argument would be that we should amend our law to make it necessary to pull out toenails also.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I knew you would misunderstand. That is why I was not concerned with what you said.


Clarence Gillis: What the hon. member said was that if we had troops in another country it would look kind of bad to that country if we were rendering decisions that were not in accordance with the laws laid down in that country. That is what I understood him to say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The section would provide for putting our troops under Ethiopian laws, and I object to putting our troops under their laws at all. You want to have their toenails pulled out, and I don't.


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what you were arguing. You may have been thinking the opposite, but I understood you to say that. An act was passed in this house in 1946, I think it was, making United States troops immune with respect to our laws. It provided that in the event such troops stationed in Canada committed an infraction of our laws they would be tried by their own tribunals and in accordance with the laws of the United States. I think this provision protects our troops who serve abroad. If they commit an act contrary to the rules and regulations as we lay them down, then they will be tried in these countries by our own tribunals, which will be guided by the wording of this section in meting out punishment. In so far as possible punishment will be as laid down in this legislation or according to the Criminal Code. With troops all over the world, I think it is good protection. I would not want to see the boys in Korea tried under Japanese law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what you are giving them here.


Clarence Gillis: I think it is protecting them against that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are applying Japanese punishment.


Clarence Gillis: The explanatory notes are very clear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.

Canadian Forces Act


Clarence Gillis: The explanatory note to subsection 2 of the new section reads as follows:
Subsection 2 of the new section would authorize the Imposition of suitable punishments for such offences. This is necessary because foreign law in some cases makes provision for types of punishment unknown to Canadian law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Read the first subsection.


Clarence Gillis: That has to do with the section under discussion, and I think it protects Canadian boys serving in other countries in that they are not going to be subjected to punishment laid down by the laws of other countries. I think the hon. member for Kamloops is a bit twisted.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit me to read him the first subsection of this section; and would he also permit me, although a Rhodes scholar not claiming any special knowledge by that fact, to point out to him what is a rule of the house and of every court in Canada, namely that it does not matter what the explanatory notes say. It is what the act says that counts when you are in court, and subsection 1 of the proposed section reads as follows:
An act or omission that takes place out of Canada and would, under the law applicable in the place where the act or omission occurred, be an offence if committed by a person subject to that law, is an offence under this part, and every person who is found guilty thereof is liable to suffer punishment as provided in subsection 2.
Acts or omissions committed by Canadian troops in other countries, even though those acts or omissions are not offences against the laws of Canada, are now going to be offences under this measure if the bill becomes law, and they will be punished by an act of the Canadian parliament. Perhaps the hon. member would deal with that situation, quite apart from the fact that the explanatory note to subsection 2 deals with something which is not law but merely an explanation made by the department.


Mr. Johnston:: I have a problem that I think should be dealt with at this time. I notice that the legislation is referred to as the Canadian Forces Act. The minister will recall this particular problem because I have taken it up with him. It has to do with the navy rather than the army. In this case it was an offence committed by Canadian forces. From what information we have, it would appear that two Canadian navy boys from the ship Crusader were on leave in Hong Kong. They were arrested for being in possession of arms without a licence, and one was sentenced to 18 months while the other was sentenced to 12 months.
When I took this matter up with the minister he was good enough to make some investigation of it. He wrote me a letter
[The Chairman.]
explaining in part the difference between the two sentences, the one of 18 months and the other of 12 months. I think perhaps I should put on Hansard a clipping from the newspaper so hon. members will have the information before them.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Before the hon. member reads that newspaper clipping, I want to ask him in all seriousness if he thinks it is proper for him to bring individual cases to the minister's attention under this section. We are now discussing section 2 which is related to an examination of offences committed by our troops abroad. I know that the offence to which the hon. member was referring occurred in Hong Kong, but it looks as if the sentence had been passed. Here we are studying future cases. I think it would be more appropriate for the hon. member to bring up this case when the supplementary estimates of the Department of National Defence come before the committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I say to you that the clipping is not commenting on this legislation at all. It deals with an offence committed by Canadian troops in a foreign land, and that seems to me to come under this section.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I was not complaining about the clipping itself; I was just complaining about the fact that the hon. member is introducing individual cases which, apparently, have been dealt with by the court in Hong Kong, and in which sentence has been passed. Here we are dealing with a section contemplating future cases and offences committed abroad.


Charles Edward Johnston: What I am endeavouring to find out, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not this legislation will cover a case such as I have in mind. If it does not, then I think possibly some amendment to the legislation should be introduced now. Otherwise we are going to get into the same difficulty. The only reason I am trying to put this clipping on Hansard- I have already shown it to the associate minister-is that I was about to make some comment on the difference between the two sentences for the same offence. Then when I had read this clipping I was going to point out that while one sentence was for 18 months and the other for 12 months, the civil court in Hong Kong had reduced the 18 months sentence by 2 months. The minister explained to me that there was a mistake in the newspaper clipping, and that there had been a reduction of 2 months in the 18 months sentence. This brought the one sentence down to 16 months, while the other sentence remained at 12 months, and both sentences were for exactly the same offence.

The ridiculous aspect of the case, Mr. Chairman, is that a civil court in Hong Kong can take possession of two of our boys in the Canadian navy and impose entirely different sentences upon them for the same offence. In this particular case the lieutenant commander in charge of H.M.C.S. Crusader objected to this procedure. He used every means that was available to him to persuade the civil authorities in Hong Kong to turn these boys over to him for punishment. He could not do that because the authorities would not listen to him. We have, therefore, these two boys-particularly this one from Drumheller-serving	sentences in Hong
Kong which were imposed by a civil authority, yet apparently our own naval forces are supposed to administer justice to our own boys when they are in a foreign land.
It seems to me that, if necessary, this legislation should be amended to take care of such cases. I would ask the minister just where the justice comes in if our forces serving in a foreign port-I do not suppose you could call Hong Kong a foreign port, because it is a British possession-are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign civil authorities and we have no say whatever over that. In my judgment the two sentences have no relation to the crime at all. Surely our government here should do something about this. I know the minister is concerned about it. He told me there were some doubts in his own mind as to just how much power the Hong Kong civil authorities had to deal with our forces.
I wonder if the minister would explain what has taken place in connection with that case, and what is going to be done in such cases in the future. If it is necessary to have some revision of this legislation in order to deal with such cases, then I think this is the time that should be done. Will the minister comment on that?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member discussed this case with me, and I may say that representations are being made concerning it. I do not think I gave him the impression, at least I hope I did not, that we could by unilateral action do anything about it. Jurisdiction to try these two sailors did exist in the courts in Hong Kong. This section which we are discussing goes about as far as this parliament can go to put our service personnel in a position to make arrangements with a colony such as Hong Kong with regard to the handling of our own criminal cases. Without this section we have nothing to stand on at all. We have no jurisdiction even if they handed the men over to us. This section represents a step toward meeting the 68108-261
Canadian Forces Act
situation, and there is another step provided in the next section.
By ourselves we cannot legislate a colony or another dominion out of its own criminal jurisdiction, but unless we take unto ourselves the right to deal with our own service personnel, as this section endeavours to do, we could not even ask the other colonies or dominions to give us jurisdiction.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister maintains that by passing this section provision will be made to enable us to deal with these cases?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We shall try, with the authority given, to negotiate arrangements in these cases to handle our own personnel. You cannot do it arbitrarily, but we would have under this section the jurisdiction if they will negotiate.


Victor Quelch: Has the minister any reason to feel that any foreign power will agree to this legislation we are passing? Unless they will agree to it, it seems to me it is worthless.


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand it, under the arrangements which now exist with regard to Germany we will be charged with the administration of their criminal law as affecting our troops. Under the NATO status agreement I think we will have concurrent jurisdiction over our forces in that respect. In countries like Japan, where I may say we have been quite fortunate in negotiating temporary arrangements from time to time because they have been very co-operative, it will be a case of negotiating permanent arrangements. There will be, therefore, two or three different categories, but all of them rest on the basis that if we do get jurisdiction either by treaty, by mutual arrangement or by negotiation, this section enables us to carry out and exercise the jurisdiction we shall have obtained.


Charles Edward Johnston: Did I understand the minister to say he was making a further investigation concerning the case I brought before him?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes.


Mr. Pouliot:: I read the words "service tribunal" in lines 15 and 17 of this section. I ask the minister to be kind enough to give us a definition of those two words.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the military tribunal would be a service tribunal as defined in the act which means a court martial or the person presiding at a summary trial such as the commanding officer, depending on where the jurisdiction rests.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there anything in the act to the effect that a service tribunal would operate only in certain definite countries, or in any particular country?

Canadian Forces Act


Ralph Osborne Campney: The service tribunal can, I suppose, in varying degrees-depending on treaties and so on-operate in any country where our troops are actually stationed. The extent to which it has exclusive jurisdiction is a matter of treaty or arrangement. It can actually deal with service offences of our troops that are in a country and offences outside of that within varying limits.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there any treaty with one or several countries with regard to the recognition of such a service tribunal?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, there are conventions. I shall give two or three illustrations to the hon. member. There was a convention concluded with the federal republic of Germany on May 26, 1952. That will come into effect when the Bonn treaty is ratified. It provides-and this would be applicable to our service tribunal-among other things the following provision:
The members of the forces shall observe German law and the authorities of the forces shall undertake and be responsible for enforcement of German law except as otherwise provided in the present or in any future applicable convention or agreement.
That gives us jurisdiction in respect of their criminal law. The NATO status of forces agreement has a clause in it that gives each NATO country jurisdiction unless the offence is also an offence under our law. That is provided in this section. In some other countries we have a practical working arrangement, as in Japan. So the extent of our status depends on various factors.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does Canada have such treaties with all countries, or with only a few?


Ralph Osborne Campney: We have the one to which I have referred, namely that with Western Germany. We have one with the 14 NATO countries, and at the present time we are engaged in negotiating one with Japan. I think that is the extent of our treaty effort, as far as I know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will explain to the minister where I am heading. Germany is divided into two parts, East and West Germany. In virtue of the treaty to which the hon. gentleman referred, service tribunals are recognized in western Germany but nothing is mentioned with regard to eastern Germany. We have not any troops there yet. But if a Canadian soldier crosses the boundary between western and eastern Germany and is found guilty by a service tribunal of an offence under the laws of eastern Germany, then this legislation will support the legislation of eastern Germany

with whom there is no such treaty as the one which exists with western Germany. Then our Canadian soldier will be found guilty by a Russian tribunal in eastern Germany, in virtue of the laws in force in eastern Germany. That is why I suggest to the minister that he should be extremely cautious with regard to that legislation.
I am sure the department means well, but our soldiers may find that provisions like these may remind them of a double-barrelled gun. It is quite difficult to understand. If the minister cannot say that the service tribunals which can operate under this legislation should be only those of countries which have treaties with Canada, it may happen in other countries with which we have no treaties, and therefore it would be rather embarrassing for the Canadian soldier who may be there. It is true that we have no troops stationed now in eastern Germany, but it is easy for anyone to cross the border. If the one who crosses the border is a civilian he will fall under the law of eastern Germany, and the same thing will happen to the Canadian soldier who may cross the boundary on reconnaissance or otherwise. This therefore shows the minister how careful one must be in drafting legislation of this kind when international matters are concerned. It is an extremely difficult matter.
I would suggest to the minister the redrafting of that provision in order that consideration may be given to the Canadian soldier, the Canadian serviceman, who may have to appear in a country with which we have no treaty and who can be found guilty of any offence in virtue of the legislation of those foreign countries with which we have no binding treaties at the present time. We should be extremely careful about the matter. I am sure that it is enough to draw the attention of the hon. gentlemen to the difficulties that may arise from legislation like this, in order that some change may be made to clarify the legislation.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, one may take advantage of a tribunal that already exists. Military tribunals have existed for all time, from the time crusader King Louis IX of France rendered justice under the oak of Vincennes, from the time of the old warrior kings, to the time of the ordinary courts martial. A tribunal may be very useful upon one condition, namely that advantage is taken of it. What is the use of having military tribunals which decide nothing, as was the case after the notorious loss of the plans of the invasion of Normandy? I referred to that last week. Apparently the matter has not been submitted to any tribunal. What is the use of having a tribunal if offences as grave

as that are not referred to them? There was also the case of the careless officer who had left a top secret document on the upper shelf in the clothes closet of his hotel room. No one knows if he has been punished. Apparently he has not, because if he had been, just as much publicity would have been given to the punishment as was given to the reward of those who corrected that situation.
Another suggestion I make to the minister is that if tribunals are established or recognized, I hope they will be taken advantage of in due course.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 2 carry?


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is obvious from this and the preceding section that servicemen will be tried or may be tried by civil tribunals in foreign countries. I am not moving ahead too rapidly, I hope, but there is no provision in the next section for a review either of the sentence or of the evidence. All the original section says is that the punishment will be on the scale that is considered appropriate, but that is before a military tribunal; it is not before a civil tribunal. And as I said before, a serviceman can be tried before a civil tribunal and receive grave punishment for an offence that would not be regarded too seriously in Canada. In the next succeeding section there is no power of review of the sentence of a civil court. There is provision if the offence is committed in Canada, but not if it is committed in a foreign country. I suggest to the minister that there should be power of review, in all such cases, of the evidence and of the punishment before any final decision is made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: May I inform the hon. member that under the section we have under consideration, the finding of any military tribunal will be subject to the same review and the same right of appeal to the court martial appeal board, as in the case of findings of military tribunals held in Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am referring to civil courts in foreign countries. I think they should be subject to appeal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am beginning to be a little sorry that I ever started this argument. It seems to me that it is a very dangerous thing for us to incorporate in a section here in the Canadian Forces Act what actually constitutes a contradiction of our ordinary concept of how justice should be carried on. It places in the hands of a court not only the ordinary powers which should always reside in a court, of determining whether a crime has been committed and then imposing the sentence which is laid down by the law, but in this instance it also gives to a military 68108-261J
Canadian Forces Act
tribunal a legislative power. That is what it amounts to. It has the power of legislating what the punishment for the particular crime committed will be.
It seems to me that is completely contrary to all our concepts of how justice is administered. That is the reason I took objection to it at the beginning, as the minister will remember. I say that is particularly dangerous when you are dealing with the ordinary sort of court martial which is bound to be set up as far as our forces in a foreign country are concerned. As is usual, the court martial set up will be composed of whatever officers happen to be available at the time.
Having been unfortunate enough to be a member of a very large number of courts martial myself, I know that most people who sit on them are not too well adapted to that particular position. It just happens to be one of the military duties which an officer who is present and available has thrust upon him. In these circumstances I say that these military tribunals in most cases will not be composed of members of the judge advocate general's staff or other officers with legal training. It seems to me to be a particularly dangerous principle to put in the hands of that court what you might call legislative powers as well as ordinary powers of administering justice.
I ask the minister whether, when this section was being drafted, the advice of the deputy minister of justice and of the Department of Justice was taken in regard to this particular point especially.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The deputy minister of justice and the officials of the Department of Justice were consulted with respect to this section, as well as other sections of the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What advice did the Minister of Justice give in regard to the point I have raised, or was that point raised by him?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not able to answer specifically these two questions, but the section as it stands was dealt with by the Department of Justice and approved by them. I do not know all the minutiae they considered or what their views were. I should like to say this, that in all countries abroad where we have troops we now have a deputy advocate general who sits on every court martial. He is well versed both in military and civil law. Lastly, I should like to ask the hon. member what would be the alternative to what is proposed. Would he be in favour of handing all our military personnel over to the criminal courts of these countries? Unless we take some action such as proposed that would be the only alternative.

Canadian Forces Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have already said I am not in favour of handing them over. As far as the language of this provision is going to keep these people in our own hands to deal with, I am all in favour of it. I do suggest to the minister that some words might be put before the final phrase to the effect that the punishment awarded would in no case be greater than that for the same or a similar offence under the military code, the Criminal Code or any other act of the parliament of Canada.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: While the
hon. member for Temiscouata was speaking he reminded me of what seems to be an omission from this section, and it is a very important one. The note on the side under "Part I" says:
2. Subclause (1) would add a new section 119A to the National Defence Act. Subsection (1) of the new section would make it possible for Canadian service tribunals to enforce, in respect of members of the Canadian forces, the law of foreign countries where such members are serving.
I take it that is the intention of the section, but when you read the section you find there is nothing in it about where the forces are serving at all. It says:
An act or omission that takes place out of Canada and would, under the law applicable in the place where the ^ct or omission occurred, be an offence if committed by a person subject to that law, is an offence under this part, and every person who is found guilty thereof is liable to suffer punishment as provided in subsection 2.
That does not say anything about where the person is serving. The hon. member for Temiscouata referred to eastern Germany. But suppose a member of the Canadian forces leaves his billet in West Germany and goes on a tour through Holland, Belgium, France and Italy, and commits an offence in each country. It is not in the place where he is serving. He is not in the country where our troops are serving at all. Yet the act or omission which he commits has taken place out of Canada, and under the law applicable to that place where the act or omission occurred is an offence. Therefore it is an offence against this act; that is what is intended. What you are dealing with are offences committed by troops in countries where they are actually serving. Is that not so? This bill does not cover that at all.
Then the minister said it refers to countries with which Canada has treaties. I should say that it refers to countries with which Canada has an understanding or agreement, because notwithstanding the passage of this bill I think it will be necessary to have understandings with the authorities of the countries concerned that the personnel charged are liable under this act, and will receive due punishment for the crimes committed.
[Mr. Campney.l


Ralph Osborne Campney: This section would give us power to exercise jurisdiction over our own military forces. So far as East Germany and other places of that category are concerned, the hon. member will understand that they would pay no attention to our legislation anyway. We have no troops there and, in any event, they would not recognize our law at all. They do not have to recognize our law, and would I am sure pay no attention to it whatsoever.


William Joseph Browne: But to put it
another way, perhaps a soldier returning from Korea will come by ship by way of Australia, New Zealand and Honolulu. The same situation would apply there. I suggest that the minister is concerned with the country in which the troops are serving. Why not say that?


Mr. Hunter:: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that what the hon. member for Calgary East has suggested is the very antithesis of the meaning of the section. When he suggests that we make the punishment similar to what the punishment would be for similar offences under our law, his suggestion of course was frankly absurd. I am sure he was not serious; because the very purpose of the section is to cover things which are not covered by our law.
I have also listened to the hon. member for Kamloops with some interest. He seems to be appalled that we are introducing new crimes into the act. Of course we are. The very purpose of the bill is to introduce a whole series of new crimes so that we have a point of negotiation with these countries, and can say, "We can try these people, because what has been committed is now a crime under our military law as well." That is the whole purpose of it; and I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops is aware of that. But I do not understand his argument when he brings that forward as a reason for not passing the section.
Then, so far as the argument of the hon. member for St. John's West is concerned, I would say it is simply a question of interpretation of the section. There have been quite a few legal minds working on it, and I would suggest that his interpretation is the wrong one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Obviously the hon. member has been a commanding officer too long. He loves to introduce new crimes.


Mr. Churchill:: Our discussion of the section has to be in general terms. Would the minister give us some specific examples? We are talking about the application of a foreign law to personnel of the Canadian forces, and talking about new types of punishment

unknown to Canadian law. That is the expression we see in the explanatory note.
The section as it now stands, if passed, would give to a service tribunal the opportunity of imposing upon Canadian citizens who happened to be in uniform in a foreign country types of punishment unknown to Canadian law. Could the minister give us some examples that were brought to his attention, or to that of members of his department, when the amendment was drafted? Would he give some examples to indicate the foreign law' which differs from Canadian law, and the types of punishment which differ from or which are unknown to Canadian law.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I did not make any statement about military tribunals operating under this particular section imposing punishments foreign to Canadian law. This section is to permit military tribunals to deal with offences under foreign law. There are many different offences under the criminal laws of different countries. In arriving at a punishment military tribunals would look at what would seem to be appropriate, having regard to our own Criminal Code and presumably to the type of offence and the punishment in the country in which it was committed. The tribunal would have to arrive at what it considered to be under all those circumstances a proper punishment. I did not say at any time that we propose to administer punishments as contained in foreign criminal codes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What further explanation would the minister make of that part of the section which says:
-the service tribunal shall impose the punishment in the scale of punishments that it considers appropriate, having regard to the punishment prescribed by the law applicable in the place where the act or omission occurred.
And what is meant by the explanatory note where it says:
This is necessary because foreign law in some cases makes provision for types of punishment unknown to Canadian law.


Ralph Osborne Campney: All I can say is that as I interpret the section-and I have said this two or three times-it means that our military tribunals in those cases where they can obtain jurisdiction, by the various means I have mentioned, are to mete out the punishment they consider appropriate, having regard to the Criminal Code or other acts of the parliament of Canada, so far as they can assess and apply them in regard to the offences charged under foreign law.
Punishment under such circumstances is admittedly like any other punishment, even the punishment meted out by the judges in our own criminal courts from day to day,
Canadian Forces Act
in that it is almost entirely a matter of discretion with the judge in each case. There are various opinions held by various judges. This does not change the basic principle that the judge or tribunal must assume the responsibility for the punishment meted out, All this section seeks to do is indicate to those tribunals, if one can use a general term, that there should be a Canadian type of punishment. Beyond that the tribunal, subject to review, subject to appeal and to all the other safeguards in the National Defence Act, in the first instance uses its own discretion, having regard to all the circumstances.


William Joseph Browne: Why is not
the minister willing to insert in the section a clause to the effect that where Canadian troops are serving is the only place the service tribunal will have jurisdiction? It will not have jurisdiction over offences committed at points outside of where the troops are serving, or the NATO countries to which he has referred. When our troops were training in the state of Washington was there any agreement with the United States government whereby the Canadian service tribunal could try a man for an offence committed against United States law at that time?
Supposing a man were on leave from England or Germany, and committed an offence in some place such as Ireland or Sweden, outside the NATO countries; would such offences be regarded as offences against the National Defence Act of Canada and render a man liable to punishment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: They could be, I suppose; but we would have no jurisdiction in other countries, in any event, in respect of this or any other section.


William Joseph Browne: That is not really an answer to the point I raised. Supposing one of our soldiers is on leave in Sweden, a country with which there is no agreement, and commits an offence against the law of that country. Under this section it becomes an offence against this act. Thus the offender is rendered liable to punishment under the act, and trial would be by a Canadian service tribunal. But there is no agreement with the Swedish government regarding that. My understanding from the sidenote is that the amending section is intended to cover an offence where our troops are serving.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In the case of an offence committed in Sweden, we could do one of two things. We could not seek to assert jurisdiction but we could go to the Swedish government and say, "We have authority

Canadian Forces Act
under our act to try this serviceman; will you hand him over to us?" We could not willy-nilly exercise jurisdiction, but he would be no worse off if he were in our hands. I do not think any person in the services or any other civilian is going to fare any worse by being tried by his fellow Canadians than he would if he were tried by someone else.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does not the minister feel that there should be the power of review under that section?


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is a general power of review under the act which would apply to this section just the same as any other.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The power of review of a civilian tribunal?


Ralph Osborne Campney: These are not civilian
tribunals at any stage. We are dealing with the military.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You have no review over civilian tribunals; you have no control over civilian tribunals in foreign countries.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to the matter we have been talking about, this section deals with certain other matters. The provision for the transfer of offenders seems to be quite reasonable. Subsection 3 reads:
Where the court martial appeal board has set aside a finding of guilty but another finding of guilty remains, the board shall forthwith refer the proceedings to the minister, or to such other authority as he may prescribe or appoint for that purpose, who shall
(a)	affirm the punishment imposed by the court martial if the court martial could legally have imposed that punishment upon the finding of guilty that remains; or
(b)	subject to section one hundred and seventy-five, substitute for the punishment imposed by the court martial such new punishment or punishments as he considers appropriate.
Then in subsection 4 we find this:
Where an appellant has been found guilty of an offence and the court martial could on the charge have found him guilty under section one hundred and twenty of some other offence, or could have found him guilty of some other offence on any alternative charge that was laid-
There you have the position that the minister or his appointee has the power to substitute for the punishment imposed by the court martial such new punishment or punishments as he considers appropriate. A man might be tried on a certain charge and found guilty. The court martial appeal board finds that he is not guilty of that charge, but they have the power to say that he is guilty of some other charge for which he was never tried, and to award such punishment as they consider appropriate on that other charge. That is not in consonance with the ordinary methods of discharging justice.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The sections to which the hon. member refers provide merely for the adaptation to the procedure under the Canadian Forces Act of the present procedure contained in the Criminal Code. In other words, to save a multiplicity of trials and for various other reasons these provisions were put in the Criminal Code to allow the court of appeal to vary the charge and to change the sentence. There is nothing new about this; it is simply adopting the criminal practice of our civil courts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not the court of appeal that varies the sentence; the sentence is varied or a new sentence is imposed by the minister or his appointee without the man being heard on that charge.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The minister imposes the punishment, but in the other particulars it is the court martial appeal board which acts. Section 175 of the act provides that the minister cannot impose a greater sentence; he can reduce the sentence, but he cannot step it up. I think that is covered in the act itself.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That may be covered in the act itself, but it is not covered by these particular subsections.


Ralph Osborne Campney: It does not need to be; it is in the substantive sections of the act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister spoke as though it were the court martial appeal board which was doing this. If the court martial appeal board had heard the appeal and imposed a different sentence than that which had been imposed by the court martial originally, I think that would be in consonance with the general way in which justice is carried on. But it is not the court martial appeal board which does that; it is the minister or somebody appointed by him. I think it would have been better to have left the power of imposing a new sentence in the hands of the court martial appeal board.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the minister not going to make any comment about leaving the matter in the hands of the court martial appeal board?


Ralph Osborne Campney: My understanding is that the changing or altering of the charge rests with the court martial appeal board, but the punishment is not under the court martial appeal board and never has been. That position runs through the whole chain of sequence. The last appeal with respect to the quantum of punishment is with the minister under the act.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In replying to my other question the minister did not give any specific examples. I should like to ask what purpose is served by having the service tribunal, in the words of this section, have regard to the punishment prescribed by the law applicable in the place where the act or omission occurred. What purpose is served by having the service tribunal examine the types of punishment if, as the minister says, they are to apply only to the types of punishment which are applicable under this act, the Criminal Code or any other act of the parliament of Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have already given as clear an explanation as I can. I think the intent of the section is that the military tribunal trying an offence pursuant to this section is instructed by the subsection to impose such punishment as it considers appropriate. If I interpret the words correctly, that is a discretionary direction. In other words it puts the onus on the tribunal of deciding on the punishment, "having regard to the punishment prescribed by the law applicable in the place where the act or omission occurred".
In other words, the tribunal must first look at the law of the place where the offence was committed, then at the punishment prescribed for the same or similar offences if they can be found in the Criminal Code or any other act of the parliament of Canada. I think that simply means that the tribunal looks at the punishments of the country where the offence occurred, it looks at the law of Canada and at offences under the Criminal Code or similar statutes which it thinks relevant, and then imposes the punishment that it considers appropriate. I do not think I can make it any clearer.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I come back to my original question. What types of punishment might be imposed by a service tribunal, for example in Germany, France or Belgium?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have not a list of those punishments. It has just been called to my attention that in some of those countries they have what used to obtain in England, that is the punishment of transportation for life or for a fixed period of time to some place where I suppose nobody would want to go to. That is one example, and there are many others although I have not further examples in mind.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Apparently I have not made myself clear, because the minister has not answered me. Let me put this to him in conclusion. Is it not conceivable that a serviceman in Korea could commit some crime as a
Canadian Forces Act
result of which he could be sentenced to death by a civil tribunal, and that there would be no power of review in that case by military authorities. Is that not correct?


Ralph Osborne Campney: In reply to the hon. member,
I would say that I am informed with respect to Korea specifically that the civil courts have no criminal jurisdiction over our troops. With respect to many countries, if one of our troops went to any of them and committed an offence, later had a proper trial in accordance with the law and procedure of that country and was sentenced to death, we could not do anything about it except make representations.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Ordinary residence of members of regular forces.
Douglas Scott Harkness: So far as the Canadian forces voting regulations are concerned, can the minister inform us what lists of Canadian service voters are maintained, where they are maintained and in what way they can be made available to candidates who have service voters in their constituencies?


Ralph Osborne Campney: As I understand it, the provision of lists and relevant matters is covered by regulation 27 of the Canadian forces voting regulations which, as they are a schedule to the statute, I understand have the force of law. If he will refer to page 16 of the voting regulations-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Page 16 of what?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Regulation 27 of the Canadian forces voting regulations, which constitute a schedule to the elections act, provides for the compilation of certain lists, etc., and as I understand it that is the law in that regard.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the very difficulty with which we are faced in dealing with these regulations tonight. As I pointed out this afternoon in dealing with the principle on second reading of the bill, these matters were considered for a long time by the elections committee and certain procedures were finally agreed upon. As I understand it, these regulations have been in operation for quite a few years. They started during the war when we had troops overseas and it was proposed to give them the right to vote, which of course they should have. Regulations were drafted for that purpose. These regulations were continued, and the whole matter came up for review before the elections committee, which spent some two years in dealing with it.
The original regulations provided for service personnel filing certain statements even

Canadian Forces Act
up to the time of the election or on election day, and having filed those they could then vote. That was the declaration on the back of the envelope, and some adaptation of that was carried on for some years. When the committee met in 1950 and 1951 and dealt with the matter, by agreement of all parties represented on the committee the machinery was amended and, I think, improved. Provision was made whereby service personnel had to file a declaration within three months after the adoption of those regulations. That was done by section 23. They then filled out what was known as form 15. Another provision was made whereby those who came in after that date would fill out form 16 showing their place of origin. Another provision was made that in December of each year thereafter, and only at that time, could service personnel change their declaration as to place of residence.
Therefore you had three forms, and a regular and orderly procedure was set up whereby records could be maintained. As was suggested by the question a moment ago, you could get access to those records to find out who was entitled to vote and who was not. As the associate minister pointed out a moment ago, section 27 of the regulations is the first procedure to be set forth in the regulations whereby lists were to be prepared and records could be obtained. As provided by that section, once a candidate is nominated the machinery is not too comprehensive. First he has to be nominated; but once nominated, and after the election has been declared, the candidate or his agent may go to the unit headquarters or national defence headquarters and obtain certain information. That was the result of the work of the committee.
We have not yet been given any suggestion as to the reason for the amendments now proposed. If the regulations have been complied with, and I presume they have been because we have been told by the associate minister and the minister that the Department of National Defence is most efficient, then by three months after June of 1951 when these regulations were passed all these declarations should have been signed, and in December, 1951 and December, 1952 anybody who wished to change his place of residence would have done so. Presumably one set of those records is at national defence headquarters and the other is following the man wherever he may be posted. If an election is called tomorrow or a month from tomorrow, it will be open to any hon. member to obtain access to these records through his agent.
When you read the proposed amendment you see that for some reason it is proposed

now to scrap all that machinery and extend the time for the filing of these declarations to the date of dissolution of the present parliament. That can be found in subsection 2 which reads as follows:
Every member of the regular forces who was such a member on the twenty-first day of June, 1952, shall before the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament complete in duplicate-
Then there is a reference to form 15. Presumably they were completed two years ago or a year ago, and I think the committee is entitled to some explanation of why these records are apparently being scrapped and new records are now going to be made.
We go on to the amendment to paragraph 34 of the regulations, and we find that if these declarations are not available on election day the voter can complete a declaration at that time. The amendment reads in part as follows:
-or, if no such statement appears to have been made, he shall subscribe to a statement in form No. 16 . . .
And so on. Everyone is anxious to see machinery set up whereby every serviceman obtains the vote. There is no question about that; but it is in the interests of service personnel as well as the government and the candidates that that be done in an orderly and regular way.
Something was said a while ago by the hon. member for Calgary East about officers being detailed for court martial work who have sometimes lacked experience. I think the Associate Minister of National Defence will probably agree with me that officers detailed for the purpose of superintending the election procedure are not very senior officers. They are probably junior officers on the stations. I have heard that some of them have used the slang expression, whatever it may mean, that they were "Joe'd" for this particular task. Some non-commissioned officer will be detailed to assist them. It is now proposed to create a situation by these regulations whereby even on election day these officers can be swamped with requests to complete these declarations.
We have had a long and interminable legal argument tonight, which shows how lawyers can become involved. I am quite certain that if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Associate Minister of National Defence and I were to sit down calmly in one of our offices tonight and discuss the meaning of some of these regulations, we might spend an hour and in the end we would scratch our heads and have to admit that we were quite confused. I ask you what is going to happen when junior officers, N.C.O.'s and so on are faced with the rush and hurly-burly of an election, and twenty fellows come in and want

to vote and get away on leave. How are these regulations going to be set out; and why should they be changed now?
The questions which the hon. member tor Calgary East has suggested have to be answered. There should be an explanation as to why it was necessary to change these regulations now, and why the time should be extended up to the time of dissolution. If there was no necessity for it, then we certainly will be facing a situation which I am sure none of us want, either for ourselves or for our respective parties or for the service personnel who are involved.
I would hope the minister can give us some explanation, first as to why this is proposed, and secondly I think if the time is to be extended undoubtedly there is some reason for it. If the time is extended to the date of dissolution, then that is as far as it is possible to extend it.
After all, we are not in the confidence of the government. Frankly I do not suppose the associate minister himself knows the date of dissolution as yet. I do not assume it is going to be tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or two weeks from now. There has to be some reasonable application, and surely a provision can be made which can be followed. There could be a provision passed by this house that a declaration should be made before a certain date. After that you could get a list of the records; you would have access to the departmental records, and you would have the names and addresses of the men. There would be some order to the procedure. The matter should not be left until the election date, when there is absolutely nothing that can be done.


Ralph Osborne Campney: There is nothing mysterious or subtle about this proposed amendment. It is an attempt to meet a situation which I should like to outline briefly. As the hon. member has just said, the voting regulations which came into effect on June 21, 1952, provided that within three months, that is by September 21, 1952, each member of the services should complete a form declaring that in the event of an election for purposes of voting his residence should be either (a) the residence of his wife or other relative; (b) the residence of himself arising out of his service; or (c) the residence he had prior to his enrolment.
Subsequently, as I understand it, those entering the service after June 1, 1952, were required to disclose on form 16 the place where they enrolled. They were limited to that place. They could not take advantage of the other two alternatives open to those who had completed form 15. Those service personnel who elected and completed form 15 68108-262
Canadian Forces Act
or form 16, as I have indicated, may in December of each year elect to change to one or the other of the three alternatives.
There has been very little trouble with respect to the last category, that is those who came into the services after June 21, 1952, because along with their attestation papers and all the other papers which they have to complete, most of them completed their declaration forms with regard to residence. But there has been a great deal of difficulty with respect to the other categories, those who entered the services prior to June 21, 1952, because they are all over the world. There have been, I think, all reasonable efforts made to get their forms completed, but the fact is, as the information has come to me, that there are about 20,000 personnel in the services who should have completed form 15 before September 21, 1952, who have not done so.
Of course that raises a problem as to whether or not these people shall be entitled to vote. The law officers of the crown, notwithstanding what may have been intended by the committee which dealt with these regulations, are of the opinion that these people who have never elected can, if they so desire, present themselves for a ballot and complete, under form 7, the declaration of their place of residence for the purpose of having their vote recorded in a certain constituency, and in that connection can select any one of the three original alternatives that were permissible in connection with form 15. If that is so it means that in certain areas where there were large numbers of service people many could present themselves in one constituency and demand to vote there. On the other hand, if the law officers of the crown are wrong, then such personnel are disfranchised; they cannot vote at all.
Unfortunately, it is probable that the adjudication of this question would not take place before an election; and whichever contention is correct, it might have the effect of invalidating quite a number of elections. For these reasons, not wanting to disfranchise such military personnel and not wanting to put them in the position where they could become the subject of agitation en masse by candidates, it has been felt that they should be given a further right of election.
I do not know how many of them will take advantage of it. There may not be any great number. However, they were serving in the forces before this procedure came into effect and it is felt that those who wish to have the right of election should have a further time to make the election which should have been made before September 21, 1952, thus declaring in what constituency

Canadian Forces Act
they want their residence fixed for the purpose of recording their vote. If they do not do that before dissolution, then along with any other people who have not taken the proper declaration they can only do one thing. They can exercise their right to vote, but they can only vote on the basis of having their vote recorded in the place from which they originally came.
In other words, on the one hand we want to prevent any activities that might lead to agitation among groups of people in places where the service people are in great numbers, and on the other hand we do not want to deprive them completely of their franchise. It is felt that the procedure proposed is fair and reasonable in both respects. That was the reason for these two amendments. It was primarily to give some further opportunity to the 20,000 servicemen who are distributed all over the world and have not so far elected. Practically all of them were in the services when these regulations were drawn, but still many of them have not complied with the regulations. Instead of just washing them out, we felt that they ought to have these two opportunities: One, to make their declaration before dissolution; or failing that, to vote if they so desired, their vote to be recorded in the constituency in which they enrolled.


George Clyde Nowlan: That could very easily be rectified, then, without extending the time to the election date. The minister could move an amendment to these regulations to provide that those men who have not filed a declaration under (a), (b) or (c) shall be deemed to have the right to vote at their point of origin. We have their service records and we know the points from which they originated, so we would not have to wait until the election date to find out whether or not they were going to complete one of these forms. No one wants to see a man disfranchised.
I am rather surprised that the Department of Justice should say they have the right to vote anyway, despite the fact the regulations say they shall do certain things. If that is right and these men could come in and demand the right to vote, I do not see why we are passing any regulations. They had the right to vote before they filed the declaration, and if they failed to file a declaration or set forth a new declaration then they vote at the place from which they came originally.
I think if we had an amendment such as that we would be meeting the situation. But to permit the matter to go on I do not think should be allowed. After all, as to section 27 to which the associate minister referred my hon. friend, about the list and obtaining information, I think the minister will admit
TMr. Campney.]
that, under this present machinery, that is useless. It may be that all the men will file declarations. But someone has obviously fallen down on the job if over 20,000 have not filed declarations. Possibly they are not interested. We know perhaps that, as in all walks of life, some are not interested in the franchise. But it would look to me as though somebody has slipped badly is not giving these orders and not having seen that these declarations were filed. Will this give further time for the completion of these declarations and then provide that those who have not completed them can vote on election day by voting in the place from which they originally came at the time of enlistment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Is that not what we are doing?


George Clyde Nowlan: No. You are providing that they can go on right up to election day and nobody knows who is who or what is what.


Ralph Osborne Campney: No.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the minister is mistaken.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister what arrangements will be made for advising these
20,000	to whom he refers of this extension of time? Is it just a case of the act being passed by parliament and the news possibly getting to these men or possibly not, or can they be informed directly? If they can be informed directly, could arrangements not be made for a more definite date?
As to the suggestion that is made here, I can see the point of it, namely the date of the dissolution of parliament; but we here do not yet know what that date is although it may be that before this debate is over we shall get that information. I know that in 1949 we were informed about a week ahead as to when dissolution would be. In 1945 we were informed several weeks ahead. Mr. King talked about the efflux of time. But there have been dissolutions in history which were just like that, on the spur of the moment. If that sort of thing were to happen this time would it not be better to fix some definite date or some definite point of time and make the necessary arrangements to get that information to the 20,000 men who are affected?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The intention is, if this amendment is passed, to do two things-one, certainly. The other is still under consideration. The first is to have set out in orders to all units the course still open to those who have not complied with regulations. Second, we are also considering sending to each member of the personnel in the services a per-

sonal letter setting out the course open to him and the time within which he can take advantage of that course. We are going to make a last endeavour.
This matter has been pressed in the past but it is rather difficult to get a man to complete these forms if he is not too interested. The protection of his vote may not mean too much to him. We are intending to make a thorough final effort. How much will result from it I do not know; but we do feel that we should at least impress on service personnel the importance of the vote, because otherwise men will begin to think of their franchise only when the election approaches, and when it may be too late.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I press again the other point I was making, namely the fact that the phrase "the dissolution of parliament" does not mean much to the average serviceman. I realize that to suggest a specific date may in effect provide a shorter time, but what I am afraid of is that some of these men will confuse that phrase "dissolution of parliament" with the date of the election or the date of nomination day, or what have you. "Dissolution of parliament" is something that is known perhaps to most of the members of the House of Commons. We know what it involves and what happens. But some of these men may just put it off and decide to file the necessary form when the date of the election is announced. The time the date of the election is announced might be the very night that parliament is dissolved; and he wakes up next morning intending to attend to the matter and finds it is too late. If the minister cannot do anything else about it I suggest that in the communication to the men there should be an indication that the dissolution of parliament may happen at any time, and that they had better deal with this matter right away.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I want to support what has been said with regard to setting a definite date for the completion of these forms rather than waiting for the indefinite date of the dissolution of parliament. I am a bit surprised that 20,000 members of the armed forces have not completed these forms. From the minister's statement I gathered that there was a voluntary aspect to this thing; but the clause, as it now stands in the regulations, is mandatory. The suggested clause uses the words "shall . . . complete, in duplicate, before a commissioned officer" and so on. There is no choice in the matter. It is a military order. There must have been some breakdown in administration whereby 20,000
68108-262J
Canadian Forces Act
personnel have not completed the forms which were required to be completed. It strikes me as being a strange thing indeed.
The fact that the forces are scattered all over the world is not an impressive statement, because surely the high command is in touch with every unit, no matter where it may be. In the past the promulgation of orders has always been considered to be the only thing that was essential in order to get duties performed. The minister suggested that perhaps they might communicate with the individuals who had not yet completed the form. Again, surely that is not necessary. The commanding officers of the units, with their adjutants to do the work, are the people responsible. The publication of an order from national defence headquarters should be sufficient. But no matter how it is done, we hope it will be done quickly and that by the time the date arrives we shall not find half the number with forms not completed.
The actual date for the signing of the form I think should be set within a reasonable time; and a reasonable time for the services does not require a long period of months. This thing surely can be done quickly. Where are the man's papers? They should be in the keeping of the unit to which he belongs or at the headquarters of the formation to which he is attached. Surely the personnel who have not completed these forms can, in the usual service manner, be paraded-whether it is on pay day or on some other occasion- and these forms completed. Certainly the date should be set, I would say, within a matter of weeks and should not be extended to the indefinite time of the dissolution of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: No. I should like to ask the minister what happened to those that have filed forms. We are told there are 20,000 that have not been completed. We have 104,000 in the armed forces, or so we were told the other day. From that I assume that approximately 80,000 have been filed. I notice a shaking of the head by the minister. I am simply taking it from the statement that
20,000	have not been filed. We have some number, which we may call "X"-whether it is 80,000 or 50,000-which have been completed. What is going to happen there? They are now told: You shall go ahead and file declarations. The section says:
Every member of the regular forces who was such a member on the twenty-first day of June, 1952, shall before the dissolution of the twenty-first parliament complete, in duplicate, before a commissioned officer, a statement of ordinary residence.
Are you going to file another one?

Canadian Forces Act


Ralph Osborne Campney: The section is only to take care of people who have not filed.


George Clyde Nowlan: It does not say that. It says that every member shall file, and certainly we need a negative in this thing somewhere. We need a prohibition this time if we did not have it before. Then it goes on to say: "If it appears." How it appears I do not know; by a looking-glass, by a mirror, or what have you. But if it appears to somebody on election day that the declaration has not been filed the serviceman may file one.
I am suggesting that this regulation should be amended to provide a definite time within which the declaration should be filed. It could be done in two weeks very easily, and after that the matter should be closed.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words about this because the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings mentioned my name earlier in the debate. He is now suggesting that we do what we did two years ago. He is now saying, let us fix a time limit within which these people are to file these declarations. We did that, and they did not do it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Whose fault was it?


Walter Edward Harris: It is not the fault of the government.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It certainly is,


Walter Edward Harris: No; let us be perfectly frank about it. Everybody in this house who knows anything about the armed forces knows how these things do not get done for one reason or another, and I am not reflecting on the army a little bit. We are just facing the fact that 20,000 soldiers have not done what our committee thought they should do, and fixed a time limit within which they should do it. Now, in order not to disfranchise these people, in order to regularize a way of voting, we have suggested an amendment which will extend the time within which they will do this, and then after that those who fail to do so may still vote under the following subsection.
When my hon. friend suggests a time limit, in reference to dissolution, is he going to say a month from the passing of the bill? I do not know. Under these circumstances if you had dissolution-


George Clyde Nowlan: That is what we had before. We had December there before.


Walter Edward Harris: No, that is a different matter. We are referring to the filing of the declaration now. The December act was the annual transfer of his place of residence. Of course he can still do it, but he can only do it-


George Clyde Nowlan: After he has filed.


Walter Edward Harris: After he files it. That is the trouble; he has not filed it. Let us face the facts, and let us provide an amendment to the service regulations which would permit him now, I hope under pressure, and having this thing drawn to his attention, to carry out the wishes of the committee which worked on this for two years.
I am frank to admit that none of us at the time contemplated that this would not be done at this time, but when we found it was not done we provided this amendment. By subsection 2 we have provided that it shall come into force on the 21st day of September, which was the date by which they should make this declaration, and that I think overcomes my hon. friend's objection.
Let us remember that these people should vote. They are some of the best citizens of Canada, and they should be given another opportunity to conform to the wishes of the committee as to the form in which they may vote. I suggest to my hon. friends in all jocularity that they would have more time between now and dissolution if we passed the bill tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might also help if the minister would tell us the date of dissolution.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I am
quite unable to understand the answer to one question asked by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings. I realize that 20,000 men have not made their returns. I do not want to disfranchise them. That leaves two questions, the first of which is the date by which they are supposed to come in and register. Though at first the Associate Minister of National Defence shook his head, I understand that if they do not come in by that time, then they can come in on election day at their headquarters and seek to vote then.
That seems to me to be just full of possibilities of all kinds of confusion. I would certainly like to know whether the suggestion of the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings has been seriously considered; that if they do not come in within the period of the delay which has been given, from that time on their votes be counted at their homes, not at their stations. That is what I understand the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings to say. He does not want them crowding in at the last moment and causing confusion there. Perhaps the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings will correct me if I have not properly interpreted his suggestion.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If you want this latter group of people who have been delinquent in filing to vote at all, then they will have to vote where they are at their stations. I think

your point is being covered because at that time they will only be allowed to have their vote counted in the constituency in which they enrolled. They cannot elect to have it counted where they are living at the time of the election or in any other place than where they lived on enrolment. How would they actually vote in their constituencies if they are scattered all over many remote stations; how could they get to their original constituencies?


George Clyde Nowlan: How do you know they are going to complete the form in this way? That is the danger when you let it go until election day. You could get a group of men in one room, and somebody would fill it out for them, as has happened before; he would fill out 20, 30 or 40 certificates and pass them out while they were smoking cigarettes. That has happened on more than one occasion. We have sworn evidence to the effect that it has happened. That was the very thing we attempted to avoid, but that is the very thing we are effecting here.
I do think there should be some further consideration given to this. The Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should put their heads together. If they did that I am quite sure they could come to a solution which would be satisfactory. In any event, there certainly ought to be some amendment to regulation 27 to give us a better opportunity to secure information than is now possible. The whole machinery that has been set up has been nullified, and I think overnight the Associate Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should talk this over. Both these gentlemen are benign Christian gentlemen as well as the soul of honour and integrity. Since they realize the position in which they have put this house I am sure they can work together and come to a conclusion which would satisfy everybody.


Walter Edward Harris: Before we postpone this another night perhaps I might add one word. I think everybody realizes that if this amendment is carried there should not be 20,000 people on election day who will have to use form 16. We certainly hope that by the time this parliament is dissolved the number will have been materially reduced, to the point where there will be few left; and of this few, probably few will vote. But at the same time I think the committee would want those soldiers who for one reason or another, inadvertence, inability, on leave or one of a dozen
Canadian Forces Act
reasons, have not completed the declaration, assuming that they are honest men, to vote on election day somewhere, to cast their ballots in the dominion election.
Now then, the way to do that is to follow form 16, which is referred to in the section that we are dealing with. If he has not filed his declaration there, the subsection reads that he shall subscribe to a statement in form 16, and the place of ordinary residence to be declared in form 7 shall be the place of ordinary residence shown in form 16; and form 16 reads:
That my place of ordinary residence in Canada, immediately prior to the date of my enrolment, as prescribed in paragraph 23 of the Canadian forces voting regulations, was-
So and so. So we bring it down to the few people left, those who are going in on the final day to say, "On the date of my enrolment, I was living at such a place." These are the people who gave us trouble on one former occasion. I think we have a large percentage of them at this time. I am quite sure that the army, having been conscious of the difficulties which arose after the 1949 election, will do their best in the meantime to minimize it, and on election day see that it does not occur again.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the section carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, it does not carry. I have a better suggestion than that of the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings, and that is that the two ministers whom he has so highly praised, with himself as a third, might be able to work out something better. I do not see why we should let this go. I do not share with the minister the feeling that one day is going to matter so much.


Lionel Chevrier: Don't get angry.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was never more angelic.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall take up the third reading of Bill No. 336, to provide assistance for the higher education of children of certain deceased members of the armed forces and of other persons; then Bill No. 48, respecting food, drugs, cosmetics and therapeutic devices; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development respecting the National Housing Act,

Business of the House
1944; the resolution to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936; Bill No. 332, respecting the Canadian forces; Bill No. 316, relating to trade marks and unfair competition. If we are fortunate enough to pass these items of business we shall move to go into supply and call two departments, finance and legislation, With the items to stand, following which we
would go ahead with the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Better call the house at nine o'clock for all that.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 21, 1953