1953-12-15

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid on the table a report of the civil service commission which recommends changes in compensation to the staff of the House of Commons. Hon. members will recall that in regard to sessional employees I made an announcement which appears at page 426 of Hansard dated November 27, 1953, to the effect that the revision will take place along similar lines, effective December 1.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My attention has been called to a column on page 4 of the Vancouver Sun, dated December 8, written by one Elmore Philpott, and in that column he wrote:
Hence it would appear that the Social Credit party may be getting ready to make itself the deliberate and vocal champion of McCarthyism in Canada.
My question of privilege is this: The writer of the column from which this sentence was taken tries to make it appear that the Social Credit movement is making ready to champion McCarthyism in Canada. In this, the columnist Elmore Philpott is just as far off base as he has been in many of his wild speculations of late years. I want to make it clear to him and all others in Canada that the Social Credit movement, of which I have the honour to be the spokesman, is not now championing McCarthyism in Canada, and is not getting ready to do so in the future. I thought I had made that abundantly clear when I said in this chamber on November 25: "I should like to make it definitely known that I feel it is irresponsible conduct on the part of any Canadian to try to butt into their (United States') affairs."
Mr. Speaker, we have always urged, and we do now strongly urge, that every effort be made to keep communists and communist
sympathizers out of government departments and our vital industries. But when inquiries are instituted for screening or for other security purposes in Canada, we strongly urge that they be conducted under the unabridged rule of law; that great care be taken to ensure that men are not found guilty merely by association; and that the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians be fully respected and the dignity of our courts and legal processes be most carefully safeguarded.



MR. BROOKS-REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF HON. MEMBER FOR TEMISCOUATA

Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I am sorry I was not in the house last night when the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) was speaking. He referred to me, as will be found at page 899 of Hansard, and he said this:
If the note I took is correct . . .
I can assure him at once that it was not correct. Referring to me he went on:
... he said that owing to that fact it was impossible for the province to look after the conservation of natural resources within its borders. That is a sad thing. He went so far as to suggest-and I have taken it down in writing-that the dominion government-and again it is "the dominion government", not "the government of Canada"-should take control of our forests.
I never said in my speech, Mr. Speaker, that the dominion government should take possession or control of the forests in New Brunswick or any other province. As far as the use of the word "dominion" is concerned, I have read my address very carefully and the word "dominion" was not used. I used the word "federal", and I may say also that I would not have any objection to using the word "dominion" because I was always very sorry it was dropped.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Hon. members may recall that when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was speaking on the speech from the throne on November 16 he referred to the bill to revise the Criminal Code which received first reading on that day. At that time the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked

Criminal Code
whether it would be possible to have printed and made available to members the findings of the special committee of the last house, and stated further that it would go a long way toward doing away with the necessity of convening another special committee if those recommendations could be made available.
I understand that the queen's printer has available about 40 sets of the minutes and proceedings of the special committee of this house and about 85 sets of the minutes and proceedings of the banking and commerce committee to which the bill was referred last year in the other place. These quantities are obviously not sufficient to enable every hon. member to have a set of the proceedings of both committees. The cost of reprinting these proceedings, which run to over 400 pages, would be about $2,000. I would suggest that it might be sufficient if the available sets were distributed proportionately among the various groups in this house. On the other hand, it would appear to be desirable that every hon. member should have in his hands the report of the royal commission on the Criminal Code and should also have an opportunity to peruse the three reports of the special committee of this house that examined the bill in detail at the last session.
For that reason, sir, I would like to move, seconded by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), that:
One thousand copies in English and 250 copies in French be printed of the report of the royal commission on the revision of the Criminal Code and of the three reports of the special committee of this house appointed to examine the bill and that in connection therewith the operation of standing order 64 be suspended.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask one question. In view of the inference in this motion that it is desirable for us to have this material in our hands, is it the intention of the minister to ask the house to proceed with the debate on second reading of the Criminal Code before we have that material?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to my hon. friend's question is yes. I think perhaps I should supplement that answer with a few words of explanation. The bill revising and consolidating the Canadian criminal law, which runs to over 756 sections, deals with a number of matters each one of which has a principle of its own: for example, the principle relating to the law on sedition, or to the law on murder, or to fraud. The suggestion which I propose to make to hon. members on the second reading of the Criminal Code bill is that we should treat as the principle of the second reading just the question as to whether, when a statute has been on the law

books of our country for over 60 years, the time has now come that it should be consolidated.
I should then like to suggest to hon. members that we could discuss the principle of the individual clauses or groups of clauses dealing with the various crimes when we have the bill in committee of the whole and when it will be possible to deal with those clauses in a much more orderly manner. Otherwise we would have on second reading of the bill a debate which might embrace the simultaneous discussion of a large number of principles which possess little relationship to one another except that they are all defined as crimes in a single criminal code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has today announced in Paris, on behalf of the North Atlantic council, that agreement has been reached by Belgium, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States on the very important matter of standardization of small arms ammunition.
These five countries have agreed, as the result of extensive tests over a two-year period of close co-operation, to adopt as standard small arms ammunition the new 7-62 millimetre light-weight cartridge.
These tests have shown conclusively that there is no significant difference in the performance of rounds which were tested or examined of the 7 millimetre round, which in the English system is known as -280 calibre, and the 7-62 millimetre round which in the English system is known as -30 calibre. Decision to adopt the 7-62 millimetre round was based primarily on the over-all problem of retooling requirements and weapons production facilities of each country concerned. Since adoption of either the 7-62 millimetre or 7 millimetre cartridge would necessitate retooling by Canada and the United Kingdom, and adoption of the 7 millimetre would require retooling by all five countries, it was agreed that the most advanced 7-62 millimetre ammunition will be adopted as standard.
The five nations who co-operated in the solution of this problem jointly invited the other NATO nations to adopt it.

The successful outcome of the joint effort of the nations concerned is of special importance to Canada in view of our close relationship with the armed forces and supply systems of Great Britain on the one hand and the United States on the other.
It will be, I believe, a source of great satisfaction to members of this house and to Canadians generally that the important result which has just been achieved has been due in no small measure to the initiative and persistence of our own Minister of National Defence. The fact that he was asked to make the announcement in Paris on behalf of NATO was, I believe, recognition by the council of his important contribution to the solution of this difficult problem.
It is understood that troop trials by NATO countries of light-weight automatic rifles to use the new ammunition will commence relatively soon.
For Canadian troop trials, the Canadian army has ordered from Fabrique Nationale, Belgium, a number of new light-weight automatic rifles of a Belgian design, which will fire the new ammunition.


Mr. Fulton:: I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence to say a further word or two with respect to the statement he has just made. Will he let us know whether the 7 [DOT] 6 millimetre is the type which was recently used by the Belgians and, I believe, adopted or recommended by the British, or whether it conforms to the type which was being advocated by the United States?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not sure on either count. The round adopted has been the subject of a good deal of research, discussion and consideration for two years. It is the ultimate result of lall these discussions in which no doubt the Belgian, American and other types were considered. I cannot therefore answer unequivocally the hon. gentleman's question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister will give us the details tomorrow.


Mr. Drew:: I think it would be well to bear in mind that this matter has not just been under discussion for two years. It has been under discussion ever since the war. As a matter of fact, committees were trying to work this out during the war and it has been under consideration ever since. I merely raise that so that no one will be under a misapprehension that it has suddenly arisen within the last two years. I can only express the hope that what has now been achieved
National Defence
after all this delay in connection with small arms ammunition may also be achieved in connection with other types of ammunition.



MACHINERY AND APPARATUS


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance I am tabling parliamentary return, reference No. 29, mover Mr. Knowles, being copy of a declaration of the tariff board with respect to appeal No. 301, dealing with power plants used for general lighting, heating of airports and tourist resorts.
Mr. Speaker, when this order was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) it was not known that the tariff board had no extra copies of the record of proceedings in respect of appeal No. 301. As this record is approximately 200 pages in length the hon. member has agreed to read a file copy. If other hon. members desire to read the record, I will make it available to them.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works) 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 be substituted for the present National Housing Act for the further improvement of housing and living conditions and for that purpose-(a) to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to insure approved lenders, including banks, in respect of loans made by them to assist in the financing of new residential construction in urban and rural areas; also to insure, under certain conditions, loans for the repair, alteration and extension of existing homes; and (b) to continue and redefine the actual powers of the corporation as to the making of loans, the furnishing of guarantees, and the undertaking of federal provincial projects; also to continue the powers of the minister to make grants in aid of housing redevelopment and for other matters necessary for the proper administration of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the adjournment of



Communism
the house under standing order No. 31 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the desirability of parliament setting up a means whereby it may be ascertained for Canadians, and made known to Canadians, whether or not certain Canadians are now working to allow strategic South Korea and, ultimately, vitally strategic Formosa to fall under communist domination, and, therefore, into Russian hands.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was kind
enough to send me a copy of his motion at the opening of this sitting. I therefore had an opportunity to read it before he himself read it.
It will be recalled that on last Friday the hon. member rose and asked leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 31 but he was prevented from doing so because he did not rise at the proper time. Then when the proper time came another hon. member moved a similar motion. Is this motion identical in terms to that which the hon. member wanted to move last Friday?


John Horne Blackmore: No, Mr. Speaker; it is
quite different.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member
has probably read carefully standing order No. 31. He probably has noticed the wording of the second paragraph which states that the motion must be for the purpose of discussing a definite matter, and that the matter must be urgent and of public importance. After reading this motion, I think it is couched in general and rather vague terms. I do not think it is the type of definite matter which qualifies from the point of view of asking for leave to adjourn the house under standing order 31. Furthermore, I do not think that this motion involves an urgency of debate which is sufficient to lay aside for the day the important public business announced last night. If the hon. member will look at the business announced for today he will see that we are to consider an amendment to the Customs Act in committee of the whole, which amendment involves important legislation having to do with dumping; second reading of the bill to approve the financial agreement with the United Kingdom; second reading of Bill No. 7, an act respecting the Criminal Code; the amendment of the War Service Grants Act; the amendment of the Canadian Forces Act; and the amendment of the Northwest Territories acts.
Does this motion require such urgency of debate that we should lay aside today the discussion of this important public business in order to discuss the desirability of parliament setting up a means whereby it may be ascertained for Canadians, and made known
IMr. Blackmore.]
to Canadians, whether or not certain Canadians are now working to allow strategic South Korea and, ultimately, vitally strategic Formosa, to fall under communist domination, and, therefore, into Russian hands? I do not think so. Therefore I must give it as my opinion after due consideration that it is not a matter of definite, urgent, public importance for which leave to adjourn the house should be granted.


John Horne Blackmore: Have I leave to say a few words in support of my position?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but if the hon. member will look at the standing order and recall the practice that has always been followed in the house he will realize that when the Speaker gives it as his opinion that it is not a matter which qualifies for leave under the standing order the matter ends there.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to recommend amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as requested by the government of Manitoba?


Righi Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No decision has yet been reached in respect of the matter involved in the hon. member's question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
wonder if the Minister of Finance could indicate to us when he hopes to be able to bring down the estimates?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Treasury board expects to complete consideration of the estimates before Christmas. I think our last meeting is scheduled for the 23rd of December. It takes about three weeks to print them, and I would hope to be able to table them immediately upon my return from the commonwealth finance ministers' meeting in Australia.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I desire to direct a question to the Secretary of State.

Can the minister say before the house recesses for Christmas whether North Bay federal civil servants will or will not be granted the five-day week?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: The hon. member gave me notice of his question, but it was not possible for me to communicate with my colleague the Minister of Finance, or with the civil service commission. All I can say now is that I will make inquiries to see how far the study of the situation at North Bay has been advanced. As hon. members know, it is the policy of the government to establish the five-day week in those places where it is the prevailing practice in other employment. I will endeavour to give an answer in the next day or two if I can.



FERTILIZER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Have the Niagara peninsula fruit and vegetable growers or the Ontario fruit and vegetable growers asked, owing to the high fertilizer prices in that area, for an inquiry into price fixing and price spreads of the fertilizer industry?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question. The answer is no.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON EXPERIMENTAL GAS TURBINE ENGINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In the interests of the people in the coal mining industry, can the minister, either today or some time before the Christmas recess, make a statement to the house regarding the progress of the experiment by his department into the development of a coal-burning gas turbine?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, for the past three years, has been sponsoring the design and construction of an experimental coalburning gas turbine by the gas dynamics laboratory of McGill University. The purpose of the unit is to carry out research into the
Inquiries of the Ministry problems of using coal as a fuel for a gas turbine engine with a view to the propulsion of locomotives or the production of electric power.
The experimental engine, which includes new features designed to make the use of coal practical, was recently completed and the test program begun. On November 27, after preliminary runs using oil, the first test of coal was made and was satisfactory. This was the first run of an exhaust-heated turbine engine in the world, and the third time that power has been produced from coal in a gas turbine, the first and second occasions having been tests of other types of units in the United Kingdom and United States of America. The distinctive feature of the exhaust-heated turbine engine is the heat exchangers. With these exchangers, no fly ash or other products of the combustion of coal can foul the turbine blades.
It is anticipated that the second stage of the research program to be carried out on this plant will extend over some two years. From the point of view of convenience of experimental and research work, the plant is one of the best equipped gas turbines in the world.



COLOMBO PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports attributing to the Minister of Fisheries comments on the excellent work being done under the Colombo plan, will the Prime Minister say whether the government is considering recommending to parliament an increase in Canada's annual contribution to that project?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): The answer to the hon. member's question must be similar to the one I gave to the other question that was put to me. No decision has yet been reached in respect of the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust the door is still open.



TABLING OF PROGRESS REPORT

Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On behalf of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to table six copies of the progress report on the Colombo plan which was prepared by the consultative committee at its fifth meeting held in New Delhi in October of this year.

Customs Act CUSTOMS ACT



AMENDMENT PERMITTING MINISTER TO APPRAISE GOODS ON WEIGHTED AVERAGE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, December 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. McCann- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Value for duty where market price has declined.
Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, enough was said in the debate on second reading of this measure to have indicated that the house in committee of the whole would wish to examine quite closely the detailed provisions of this short bill. As I have some observations to make about the particular language of the bill, may I at the outset attempt to put in perspective the observations I should like to make in that regard.
I wish to make it abundantly clear again that we of the official opposition support the bill as a measure designed to grapple with the problem of dumping. Dumping is a fact. Dumping has been going on in this country at an increasing rate, particularly during the past two years and even more particularly during the past year. We say that something effective must be done to grapple with this problem which has been allowed to reach very serious proportions as a result of the government's inaction. Therefore, what we of the official opposition seek in a measure of this kind is that it should be clear, effective and capable of fair and adequate enforcement. It is by these standards, Mr. Chairman, that we approach the detailed consideration of the terms of this bill in this committee.
Sir, the example given by the minister concerning textile imports was, as he pointed out, not an exclusive enumeration of the articles which are being dumped into Canada from the United States. He stated that he was mentioning textiles as an example. It is quite true that textiles are a striking example to illustrate the dumping of United States products into Canada today. But, sir, it would be, in my submission, unwise to limit or restrict the provisions of this bill in the way in which the bill is restricted in its terms now.
I should like to remind the committee that this short bill purports to amend section 35 of the Customs Act. Section 35 of the Customs Act relates to the dumping of goods. There is no restriction now in the terms of section 35 in relation to the nature or definition of goods. Goods are defined in the

interpretation section of the Customs Act, section 2, in rather broad terms. Subsection (j) provides:
"goods" means goods, wares and merchandise or movable effects of any kind, including vehicles, horses, cattle and other animals;
There we have an interpretation that is clear, one which has been defined by statute. This enables those charged with enforcement and interpretation of the act to have a clear statutory definition of long standing to guide them in their interpretation of the act. But, sir, this bill proposes to amend section 35 by the introduction of certain new provisions limited, if you iplease, to "manufactured goods". Why should there be a limitation, Mr. Chairman? If the type of legislation with which we are dealing is sound, why should it be so restricted in its application?
Speaking last Thursday on second reading, I sought to suggest that if you limit it in this way, if you confine this new anti-dumping provision to what are called in this bill "manufactured goods", I am quite certain that those in the United States who find it profitable today to dump their products in Canada are not going to find it beyond their ingenuity to devise ways of circumventing a narrow definition of this kind. Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the words "manufactured goods" are not defined in the act. The word "manufactured" is not defined in the act. The introduction of a provision of this kind is necessarily going to create difficulties and complexities for those who are charged with the problem of interpretation and enforcement at the various customs points of entry from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It would be far better for us not to introduce restrictive language of this kind but to use the terms employed in section 35, the parent section which is being amended by this bill.
In this way it would lie within the power of the government to apply this measure wherever or to any product where dumping exists, and that is in keeping with the principle and purpose of the entire section. Now, that is my first observation, Mr. Chairman, about the restrictions in this bill which it seems to me are unwise and which are going to create difficulties and complexities for those charged with the interpretation and enforcement of the provision.
It is not out of place now to call attention to another restriction in this bill which I feel is unwise, and that is the restriction which purports to confine the cause of dumping to only two cases. The bill uses these words:
... as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period, . . .

Then, the operative words go on:
, . . declined to levels that do not reflect in the opinion oi the minister their normal price, the value for duty shall be the amount determined and declared by the minister . . .
We are, I take it, in agreement or certainly should be, as to the necessity for passing effective legislation to deal with the kind of dumping that results from the action of United States manufacturers who, having arrived at the end of a season or the end of their run of goods, find it profitable to dump those goods in Canada as a purely salvage operation. This section applies only to goods at end of run or end of the season. These manufacturers have made their profit on their major run, and in the United States those runs are in huge quantities, the like of which we do not begin to manufacture in this country. The United States manufacturer does not wish to spoil his domestic market, so he prefers that these goods should be sent abroad to be disposed of there at a sacrifice or as salvage, for almost anything they will bring. He does not wish to hurt his domestic market in the United States for the next run of goods in the following season. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that Canada, being adjacent to the United States, is much favoured by the United States manufacturers under those conditions, and has become what was referred to on Friday as the "happy dumping ground". But the dumping which exists today is not necessarily confined to goods that are being sent here as a result of the advance of the season or the marketing periods. It is known that there are United States manufacturers who find it to their advantage to continue operations for a period even at a loss in order to maintain their staffs and their plant, to avoid the dislocations that go with shutdowns. In such a case, their operations cannot be described in those limited words, "the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period."
In my submission those words add nothing to the effectiveness of this measure, nor do they, I am sure, contribute anything toward allaying any of the fears expressed in the house, such as those voiced by the hon. member for Rosthern. In my submission they do nothing except to complicate the measure, and perhaps make it easy for some astute exporter in the United States to find a way around the limited terms of the amendment.
Now, why should we introduce such words as these, "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period"? Surely in the face of the proven fact of dumping and the broad variety of forms it takes, as well as the extent to which it has grown in volume and in nature, it would be a serious mistake
Customs Act
for the house to narrow the effect of the bill by the type of definition I have read. Wherever prices of manufactured goods exported to this country have declined to levels that do not, in the opinion of the minister, reflect their normal price, then surely the minister, if this bill is sound-as we think it should be-and if it is properly phrased, should have the power to apply the provisions of the bill to prevent the dumping.
Then why, sir, should we narrow down the occasions giving rise to the decline of the price in question to a level where it does not in the opinion of the minister reflect the normal price? Mr. Chairman, if we are going to introduce restrictive words of that kind it will mean for those in this country who are charged with their enforcement and interpretation many complexities and difficulties. It will mean for Canadian importers problems in trying to understand the customs barriers they will have to consider. It means, I think, an opportunity for astute American exporters to find a way to overcome the effect of this measure.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is not a situation we ought to make possible. If we eliminate the words, "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period" then in my submission we are strengthening the hands of the minister to deal with this problem. We are not leaving loopholes to be circumvented by astute American exporters, so that they can avoid the restrictive terms of the measure and dump their products in Canada.
Speaking in the debate on second reading last Thursday evening I laid not a little stress on the problem of interpretation, and I make no apology for stressing the theme again today in relation to the words to which I have specially referred as they appear in section 1 of the bill.
It should be our objective in relation to legislation of this kind to make it as simple and as clear as possible, and to make it possible also for rulings to be given with speed and with uniformity, in all parts of Canada. That is the duty we owe not only to the Canadian importer and the American exporter but also to the officials of the Department of National Revenue as well. It is going to be no help in the problem with which we are seeking to deal simply to hold in a state of suspension rulings people seek, and seek properly, in relation to the terms upon which they can import into this country.
The concluding words of the section, under which the minister is called upon to follow a very complicated formula in deciding what

Customs Act
is the normal price of manufactured goods, is going to make it difficult enough to give uniform, clear and speedy interpretations to this section. Then, Mr. Chairman, let us go as far as we can in simplifying the measure and at the same time strengthen it against efforts which will certainly be made to get around its otherwise limited scope.
Again let me say to hon. members such as the hon. member for Rosthern, who spoke on this subject, that there is nothing in what I am suggesting now that need give rise to any fear on the part of anyone who shares the point of view he expressed. If the measure is sound we are simply seeking to make it clear, and simply making certain that it is as broad in its application as the parent section it seeks to amend, namely, section 35 of the Customs Act.
How far the government goes in relation to the price it sets will be of course the responsibility of the government. But, Mr. Chairman, surely every member in the chamber knows now that the problem exists, that it is a serious and an acute problem; and if we are going to undertake seriously to grapple with it, then let us not do it in complicated terms that are difficult of interpretation, and so narrow in the draftsmanship of the bill that they will only give rise to confusion and complexity, and leave gaps for people to circumvent the intent of parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with that object in view I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell):
That clause 1 of Bill 29 be amended by striking out of the proposed new section 35 (6) of the Customs Act, the following words:	The word
"manufactured", in line 8, and the words "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period", in lines 9 and 10.
May I now read the section, including the amendments I have just proposed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Would the hon. member permit an interruption? Would he not prefer to move the amendment in two parts? I believe the government might be quite prepared to accept the first part, but might have some reservations about the second. If it is submitted in its present form the qualifications and objections would have to be urged against the motion to amend. On the other hand, if it is submitted in two parts the qualifications which apply only to the second part would not be urged against the first.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I readily accept the Prime Minister's suggestion. In view of what he has said I am quite prepared to move it in two parts. In view of what the Prime

Minister has said about the first part I shall not labour what will now become the first amendment.
Perhaps I might be permitted to read the section with the amendment, as I was about to do when he spoke. It would read in this way, with the two amendments:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, where the market price of any goods in the country of export lias declined to levels that do not reflect in the opinion of the minister their normal price, the value for duty shall be the amount determined and declared by the minister

And so on. I believe I have made clear the effect of the two proposals, and what I think would be helpful in the matter of interpretation and enforcement of the measure if these amendments were made.


The Chairman:: By way of verification, perhaps I should read the amendment. The hon. member for Eglinton moves:
That clause 1 of Bill 29 be amended by striking out of the proposed new section 35 (6) of the Customs Act, the following word:	The word
"manufactured" in line 8.


Mr. Coldwell:: I understood that the Prime Minister accepted the proposal made by the hon. member for Eglinton. To my mind that would be a very serious widening of the scope of what is proposed. The cutting out of the word "manufactured" leaves the department and the minister in the position where any goods may be dealt with. It seems to me that that is going pretty far and asks the house to accept a great deal, particularly those who probably feel as I do myself. While we wanted to do something that would prevent the dumping of certain goods that caused unemployment in the country, this goes far beyond what we think is required at the present time to meet an emergency situation.
There is no safeguard in the measure now before us regarding the length of time that this legislation will last. I have grave doubts myself as to the wisdom of making the measure as wide as the amendment proposes to do. Because of all the implications, it would be wise for the government to give the hon. member's amendment pretty serious consideration before the committee is asked to accept the widening of the measure in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton.


Mr. Tucker:: The moving of this amendment indicates exactly where we are headed. If you do this for manufacturers in order to protect their employees against temporary unemployment, then by what manner of reasoning can you say that you should not do it to protect farmers against fruits and

vegetables being dumped before our season comes in, and even when our season does come in, and underselling our farmers?
Ever since I have been a member of the house I have heard representatives of farming districts of Ontario and British Columbia pointing out that they were being exposed to unfair competition from fruits and vegetables grown in the United States; that the growers in the United States could not get rid of them, they were going to spoil, and they were dumping them in Canada for anything they could get for them. Something has been done to meet that situation; but I can easily see, Mr. Chairman, that if you do it for manufacturers you cannot deny it to anybody else, and ultimately you have it embedded in the law as a principle that if anyone in Canada, be he a manufacturer, a farmer or anybody else, comes along and says that he cannot meet competition from abroad for one reason or another, you must grant him this protection. If he comes along and says that he cannot meet the competition because of the end of the season, then you are going to help him out to prevent unemployment. An individual may say that on account of the fact that we live in a colder climate it is going to cost more to manufacture. Therefore, in certain seasons of the year, we must have a tariff of that kind. Reasons can be given for increasing the tariff, many different reasons. If you grant it for one reason, how are you going to draw the line and say you are not going to grant it for another reason? In other words, as I pointed out, this starts out by being emergency legislation. Unless it is definitely so regarded and stated, then of course industry begins to build up on the strength of this protection, and if at any time later on there is an attempt to change it, you have established the vested interest and it is very difficult to take away protection you have already given, and others begin to demand the same protection and the thing spreads and spreads.
The trouble in regard to this matter is this, and I think it is recognized by everybody. Our biggest market for our manufacturers of central Canada is after all the home market, which is growing in size, value and wealth. It is based upon the foundation of the primary producer being able to sell his products in the markets of the world where they cannot be protected, at a given price, and with that money they are able to buy the products of the rest of Canada.
If in your attempt to protect people against temporary emergencies you cause other countries to raise their tariffs against the
Customs Act
primary producers, you will destroy our purchasing power to the extent where you will have real unemployment. I suggest that if this is really emergency legislation it should not be extended in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton. This is emergency legislation to deal with a certain specific situation, and it should be definitely recognized in the legislation; it should be written right in the legislation that this is only for a definite period, say for one year, so that at the end of the year nobody can come along and say: We have built up our industry, or we have spent money, or we have expanded on the strength of this legislation, and now you are proposing to take it away. They should be put upon notice that this is in the nature of emergency legislation, and an attempt to see how the thing will work.
There is another reason why I suggest that this should be definitely made emergency legislation. One of the reasons has been shown by the amendment just moved. There is a thought on the part of the hon. member for Eglinton that this is permanent legislation; that it should be extended to everyone. This committee should be at great pains to make it clear that this is definitely not permanent legislation.


William Alfred Robinson: I remind the hon. member that he is speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton, which removes the word "manufactured" from the clause. I suggest that his present discussion is a little far afield.


Walter Adam Tucker: I thought I was dealing to some extent with the basic argument of the hon. member for Eglinton. His argument was that if this was a good thing for manufactured goods it was a good thing for everyone. I am suggesting, as I understand it, the reason why it applies only to manufactured goods. The reason is that it is passed to meet a definite situation that has developed in certain branches of manufacturing. I will bow to your ruling, of course, but I am suggesting that this is put through to apply to manufactured goods because of that emergency situation. Therefore there is less reason to apply it to everything. If you apply it to everything, then you have a situation where other industries besides manufacturing industries will feel that they have a right to take advantage of it, and if the thing does not work out it will be much harder to do away with it.
I suggest that it should not be widened, because it would make it much more difficult to repeal it if it does not work out properly. This is the point I wish to make, and I do

Customs Act
not think I am out of order, but if you rule I am I will not press the point. We are going to be engaged in negotiations in regard to the general agreement on tariffs and trade. If this is extended for one year we shall be engaged in negotiation. I submit that if we have this definitely as emergency legislation, restricted to meet the situation that we have before us, we shall be in a much better position to say to the United States and to the other countries that are putting on these different rulings that are interfering with trade and being so unfair to our producers: This is emergency legislation: our parliament dealt with it just for manufactured goods only. We want it understood that it is not our permanent attitude. If you people will negotiate with us in good faith, end those arbitrary rulings, and do everything you can to facilitate trade, this will apply only to manufactured goods and for a certain period of time. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the amendment makes the situation worse even than the original bill, in my humble judgment, and I hope that the government, before this bill is reported out of committee, will have given some consideration to an amendment in the other direction making it quite clear that this legislation is going to be kept in force for a limited period only, until it can be seen whether it is going to do more good than harm.


Mr. Cavers:: Mr. Chairman, during the course of debate I think it has become clearly evident that this legislation will be supported in all parts of the house although some criticism has arisen regarding the wording of the bill.
As regards the matter of manufactured goods I think it is generally considered that the textile industry has been suffering to some extent in the past few months and the industry itself seems to feel this amendment would assist in providing employment for many employees throughout the country. In addition to that, the hon. member for Rosthern has referred to the group of citizens whom I have the honour to represent, namely, certain fruit and vegetables growers in the province of Ontario. I believe we grow in our part of the country just as fine a quality of fruit and vegetables as are grown in any other part of Canada. We take second place to no one.
The growers there have initiative, enterprise and ability to produce these commodities at prices as low as can be found anywhere, but we have found that, owing to recent advance in the period when these articles can be produced, there is a great flow of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as
[Mr. Tucker.l
processed fruits and vegetables coming into this country. In 1952 peaches were literally dumped into lake Ontario, and I would remind hon. members that peaches are a perishable product like all other fresh fruits and vegetables, and there is no possibility of carrying them over into another year.
I would like to feel that a definition of goods could be made to include fruits and vegetables and also processed fruits and vegetables, because our products are of fine quality, as fine a quality as can be purchased, and they are attractively packaged. I believe the public purchases these other products simply because they somehow got into Canada. I am not prepared to say they have been dumped in the market over the years or whether they would come within the technical definition of dumping. Possibly they do not, but I believe it has been difficult to prove where the articles have been dumped, technically speaking, in the market in the past few years.
However, a provision in this bill to include fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables would be a great benefit to those people I have the honour to represent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not surprised at the amendment suggested by the member for Eglinton calling for the deletion of the word "manufactured", but the Prime Minister really took me by surprise when he indicated that the government was prepared to accept that amendment. I do not think I need spend any time developing the argument against it because it has been outlined by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and also the member for Rosthern. Fundamentally, it seems to me that to accept this amendment is not only to broaden the terms of this alleged anti-dumping section but to move further in the direction of protection which can only mean sooner or later an increase in the cost of living in Canada.
I would strongly urge the Prime Minister and other members of the government to consider very carefully this question in all its implications before accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Eglinton.
There is another aspect of this question on which I wish to say something, but I think perhaps I had better reserve it until we get to a general discussion of the clause. Perhaps I may refer to it just in passing because it reinforces my opposition to this amendment. As I read the clause as it stands- and in my view it will be worse if the other amendment of the member for Eglinton were accepted-a great deal is left to the discretion of the minister. That in turn means the discretion of the people down in the department.

I will develop that later on when I think it is more in order, but I submit it now merely to indicate that this amendment is carrying what has been brought in as legislation against dumping, because particular industries are suffering, to protection of a nature and extent that we might expect from some party other than the party which across the years has claimed that it was loyal to the principles of free trade.
There is just one other comment I would like to make. I have quite a few documents and volumes on my desk but I do not happen to have a copy of the tariff act. However, if my memory serves me right there are sections in the tariff act dealing with seasonal importation of fruits and vegetables. Therefore, I suggest that any products other than manufactured goods which it is intended to cover by the amendment from the member for Eglinton are already covered. This amendment would take that principle much further. I was not surprised at the amendment. I will not be surprised at the heat of the debate it may produce in this house, but I do hope the Prime Minister and the government will think the matter over very seriously before they go so far as to agree to it.


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps at this stage it might be of some help if I made a statement or at least made some comments with reference to the points that have already been raised. Everyone who has so far spoken in this debate is in favour of the principle of the bill. I have not heard any objection yet. Some arguments have been advanced with reference to the details of the bill which I think can quite easily be ironed out.
I want to state very definitely that we are not asking that the word "manufactured" be removed, but if this is the wish of the house we are quite ready to accept it.
With reference to the second amendment, which has not yet been put but which was indicated by the member for Eglinton, let me read the relevant section:
. . . where the market price of any manufactured goods in the country of export has, as a result of the advance of the season or the marketing period, declined to levels that do not reflect . . .
I suggest that that is more of a descriptive nature than anything else, because you will note it says very distinctly in the explanatory note what the purpose of the additional subsection is. and I quote:
... it is to supplement and to widen the law to provide a fair and reasonable basis of valuation . . .
The basis for a reasonable valuation would be determined by the conditions in the
Customs Act
country of export, as a result of the advance of the season or marketing period. That means the end of the line or the other reason which has previously been given.
With reference to the matter of protection accorded to the fruit and vegetable industry, may I say that it is already protected and has been for a number of years. Fresh fruits and vegetables were subject to a fixed valuation for duty purposes under section 43 of the Customs Act with the application of a dumping duty during the Canadian marketing season. That was the custom. As a result of the general agreement on tariffs and trade those fixed values were for 1950-as recently as that-translated into minimum seasonal specific duties. The specific rates and maximum periods during which they may be applied are contained in the Customs Tariff Act. These rates are intended to protect the grower during his marketing period which, of course, varies from year to year. In their application the department is guided as to the appropriate duties by advice which we receive from the Department of Agriculture. Let me give an example. Pears, which are normally subject to an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent the year round, may be subject to an alternative specific duty of one cent per pound for a period of fifteen weeks, in addition to the specific dumping duty which would apply if the selling price to the purchaser in Canada was less than the fair market value as sold for home consumption in the country of export.
I suggest to the committee that that is really good protection. Then we come along to what was spoken about here the other day by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, which is a great fruit growing country. If we have manufactured goods-and canned cherries must be classed as that-then that is another commodity which would be subject to exactly the same regulations as would obtain for other manufactured goods.
I thought I made the matter fairly clear in my reply to a question that was asked on December 8 by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). As reported at page 693 of Hansard he asked this question:
How far does the minister consider that the anti-dumping instructions given to customs officials yesterday can be effectively applied to industries other than the textile industry, which he mentioned, and also to other production including agricultural production?
The answer I gave was as follows:
I mentioned the textile industry specifically in my statement yesterday because, in recent weeks, we had been hearing more about the difficulties which this particular industry has been facing. It will be noted on reference to the bill that no specific mention is made of any particular commodity, and any industry which finds itself

Customs Act
suffering unfair competition in the same form as the textile industry would be in a position to receive the same relief from unfair competition.
I think that is sufficiently broad to include manufactured commodities other than textiles and they could get the same measure of protection. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there has been sufficient discussion in the house as to why the textile industry is perhaps in the position in which it finds itself. It is true that some of the manufactured articles under what might be termed, if you like, distress selling are sold in this country. But there is a misunderstanding as to what constitutes dumping. The fact that goods of the United States-and I am only taking those as an example-are sold in this country at prices less than the Canadian prices does not constitute dumping. Dumping is when they are sold at prices less than those at which they are offered for sale and are sold in the country of export and in the country where they are manufactured.
In this bill we propose to widen the period over which the average weighted price shall be taken. It is not true-and that statement has been made, although I do not know whether it was in the House of Commons or not-that we have accepted the invoice of one particular sale as indicating the price at which those commodities were sold in the country of export. That is not the case. These invoices are examined. Appraisal is made of the goods-and that has been the practice throughout the years with reference to it-to attempt to find out whether or not they have been sold at a fair market value in their own country and whether the price at which they were invoiced into Canada was less than the fair market value.


Mr. Rowe:: For what period? I ask that just for clarification.


James Joseph McCann: For a reasonable period and in respect of representative quantities of the goods. We would not on any occasion take one single isolated sale, without investigation, and say that is the fair market value of those goods in the country.
Then of course when the invoice is revised, the duty and taxes are added onto the price on the invoice, plus the amount that is added which constitutes the dump. The tax and the duties are added, and the dump is placed on that basis.
I do not know that there is need for any further explanation with reference to this matter. I think the hon. member for Rosthern introduced the matter of administrative difficulties. Of course there are going to be administrative difficulties. There cannot help being administrative difficulties with

regard to such a complicated subject as the matter of appraisal of thousands of articles every day across the country. As a result of our investigations which we have been carrying on and which we will continue to carry on with an augmented staff of people specially trained, I believe that we shall be able to arrive at what are the selling prices of the different manufactured commodities in the United States. They will centre from Ottawa. With reference to textiles, they will go into the principal marketing places where textiles are marketed; that is mostly in New York city, in the textile area in the New England states, in the middle west, in Chicago and in the southern states. By that method I believe we can get at a fair valuation of out-of-season goods and end-of-the-line goods so that we shall be able to give a fair measure of protection. It is protection. There is no getting away from that fact. But it is protection in a different manner from that of raising the tariff.
The hon. gentleman opposite, who, I see, is rather amused about that statement, wanted to know something about the policy of this party and of this government with reference to trade matters. He complained that we were a mongrel concoction of free traders and all the rest of it. They were not particularly dignified terms to be used in the House of Commons. There is another explanation for the word "mongrel" than the one he probably wanted to give it. We in this party and in this government stand for freer trade when that means expanding trade. That has been our policy for years and that will continue to be the policy of the Liberal party.
I do not think there will be anything to be gained by deleting the word "manufactured"; but, as I said, if that is the wish of the committee we are prepared to accept it. Perhaps I should not say we are prepared to accept it but rather that we are prepared to let the matter go to the committee and if it turns out that the word is deleted, we will administer the law on that basis. I do not think that it would be on a much, if any, different basis from what it will be with the word before the word "goods".


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not what the Prime Minister said.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: May I just say a word in order to try to explain to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that there need be no surprise at the suggestion I made to the hon. member for Eglinton, that if he separated his amendments and presented the one for the deletion of the word "manufactured" first, we would have nothing to say

against it. That is what surprised the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not think there should be any surprise. When the bill was drafted we considered that the position of the Canadian producer of seasonal goods, vegetables or fruits, was sufficiently protected by the provisions already included in the tariff act. But there was nothing that could take care of what did amount in our opinion to actual dumping, that is to say, selling in this market, at prices that were not the normal prices of the goods sold, end of line or out of season goods. We thought that did amount to what most people would regard as dumping.
Of course people do not all agree as to what amounts to dumping and what does not amount to dumping. There are many who have tried to impress upon me that it is dumping for certain manufacturers to have lines that sell regularly at lower prices than those at which similar lines can be manufactured here in Canada. If that is the regular normal price for the selling of those lines in the country from which they are exported, the government does not regard that as dumping. But if a large percentage of a certain line is sold at a profitable price and the remainder is then sold for anything that can be got for it, and that price happens to be much lower than the normal price, that is regarded as in fact dumping and is regarded as something that our established industries in Canada do not have to put up with from the point of view of fair trade practices.
The bill was designed to meet that position. It was suggested that this was something that was being done merely for the manufacturers. We do not want the impression created in the minds of the public that we favour any class of the population, and that is why, if it should be felt in the house that the inclusion of the word "manufactured" in the bill indicates that there is a preference being shown for a certain class of Canadian citizen, we have no objection to that word being deleted. I do not think it will make any difference whatsoever in the application of the act. I feel confident that the growers will prefer their seasonal duties to any attempt to treat as dumping the selling at the end of the season of fruits or vegetables produced in the country to the south of us before our season is in full swing. I think they will prefer to know in advance that they are going to have, while our season is in full swing, the protective duties that are provided already in the tariff act.
But we do not want them to get the impression, because the word "manufactured" may be in this legislation, that they are being discriminated against. I do not think it is
Customs Act
going to make any difference whatsoever. 1 am quite prepared to argue at all times that they are not being discriminated against and that the word "manufactured" here is descriptive of the situation we have in mind because we do not have a seasonal situation that requires to be taken care of. But it does not help or hinder in -the application of this disposition that we envisage to have the word "manufactured" there or not to have it there. If there are hon. members who feel that there might be some cases where this provision should apply which would not be properly described as manufactured goods, and the minister in fact could be convinced that there were goods that could not be described as manufactured goods to which this situation would apply, then there is no objection on our part to leaving that open. But I do not see that there are any others who would be affected as the result of the advance of the season or of the marketing period bringing about selling at abnormal prices.
Once again, if prices though low are the prices at which these goods normally sell in the country of export, there is no intention to regard that as dumping because in our opinion it would not be dumping. But in recent years the situation with respect to end of season or end of line goods has worsened so far as our Canadian manufacturers are concerned, because formerly, when these surplus goods could be sold all over the world by the United States producers, there was no concentrating on getting them into the Canadian market. Under present currency conditions, however, the only market where they can get the kind of money for these sacrifice sales that they want to receive is the Canadian market. For that reason there have been greater efforts to get these end of season and end of marketing period goods disposed of in the Canadian market than heretofore, because this is the only market where they can get dollars.
That does not seem to us to create the kind of competition to which our regular Canadian producers have to submit. With respect to the possibility of some of them not being manufacturers, the growers are already taken care of by the seasonal duties. Nevertheless we would not object to removing the word "manufactured" because we do not want to give the impression that this is being done as a favour for any special group of Canadian producers.


Major James William Coldwell: I appreciate what the Prime Minister has said, but what I am getting at is this. When an act of this description is examined by the courts it is, as we are so often told in the house, the letter of the law that governs, the written word, rather than the intention of parliament in the passing of

Customs Act
the legislation. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue are perfectly right when they tell us that the fruit and vegetable growers are protected for a certain length of time, the length of time that they require to be protected against unfair competition from another country, whether it is the United States, Mexico, the West Indies or any other country. To that extent, because of the time limit, the special tariff legislation is restrictive.
As I understand it, what we are doing here is endeavouring to meet an emergency situation, and my objection to cutting out the word "manufactured" is that it broadens the effect of the legislation unnecessarily. It would be no longer restrictive in the sense that we were prepared to accept it to meet the emergency situation. I noted that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue said that the house could decide this question. I think that is a very good suggestion, and since an amendment has been moved I think what we should do is have a standing vote to see what hon. members desire.
For my part I want to confine this legislation to as narrow a field as possible because I do not like the principle which may be involved in giving additional protection. The other point that I do not like about the legislation is the one the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a short time ago, namely, that it leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the minister. I am not criticizing the present minister when I say this, but so frequently on this side of the house we have criticized various acts that have come before us on the ground that certain matters were left to the particular minister.
Here we have a suggested widening of an act under which we accept the principle that the minister may decide in this emergency situation, and I think it would be in the best interests of the whole house if we stuck to the restricted area which was intended to be covered by this legislation when it was introduced. That is what I think and, as I say, the growers of fruit and vegetables are protected now by the tariff act which, if adequately administered should afford them the seasonal protection they may need. I believe the Canadian people would be much more satisfied if parliament made this provision as restrictive as possible to meet an emergency situation which we all admit does exist.


Mrs. Fairclough:: In supporting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I believe I have on my desk an example of the type of evasion which can be practised

by those people who are always looking for an opportunity to evade the regulations of the customs department. I have here a sample of a nylon stocking which is imported into this country in what is known as a semifinished state. This item enters the country as flat grey goods because it is not finished. This results in a price differential which is most unfavourable to the manufacturers of like products in this country.
Since it comes in as flat grey goods, I am given to understand that the ad valorem duty is 15 per cent and the specific duty 3 cents a pound. Since this article does not weigh very much you can put a good many into a pound. The finished product enters the country from the United States at a duty of 17-5 per cent ad valorem and a specific duty of 75 cents per dozen.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a good example of the type of thing we can expect unless we remove from this bill the word "manufactured". Even with the word omitted there will undoubtedly be some evasions. I feel that not only nylon hosiery but a good many manufactured articles can be imported under just such a regulation or through just such loopholes and result in damage to an industry which has already suffered greatly in the last few years.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Are the goods in that form sold cheaper in Canada than they are in the United States?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They are not sold in this form in Canada. They are finished here. They are seamed and dyed here.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the manufacturer in Canada get them in that form, if he wishes to complete the manufacture, at the same price as the United States manufacturer doing an analogous job in the United States?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think I follow the hon. member. Would he explain?


Major James William Coldwell: I am trying to find out if there is any dumping. The only way in which there could be any dumping would be if the firm in the United States made an article of this description to be finished in a United States factory or in a Canadian factory, and if there were a lower price paid by the Canadian manufacturer who finishes the product in Canada.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. I do know that this provides an opportunity for importation into

this country, not only at the end of season but at any time when the plant in question desires to keep the employees busy. The plant is at liberty to keep running and throw the production into this country because it is known there would be a market here for the product. These people evade the regulations of our Customs Act.


James Joseph McCann: The example mentioned really is not relevant to this amendment of the Customs Act, in my judgment. I think it is a tariff item. What the hon. member desires is a change in the tariff which would afford more protection on that item. In this case the inducement to bring the product over in that state is to afford work to Canadian people to finish the product. It is true it is not very much, but that is the principle behind it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I must take exception to that statement. After all, there is a lot more work for Canadian workmen in manufacturing the whole stocking than there is in simply sewing it up and dyeing it. The plant in Canada does not even need to have knitting machinery to finish the stocking. It can be finished in the plant without any knitting machinery whatever. As a matter of fact, what I had intended to point out was that this is an example of the type of evasion which can result unless we plug some of these loopholes.


Mr. McLeod:: It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, to do something a little bit different from some of the other hon. members in the house. I am going to thank the government, on behalf of the fruit and vegetable growers of British Columbia, for allowing this bill to be amended by striking out the word "manufactured". I did have an amendment prepared along the same lines to delete the word "manufactured" from the bill.
Some questions have been asked as to why we should ask for this when the matter has apparently been covered so well in the act. I think that the latter part of this amendment to the bill which reads-
. . . the average price, weighted as to quantity, at which the like or similar goods were sold for consumption in the country of export during a reasonable period, not exceeding six months, immediately preceding the date of shipment of the goods to Canada-
-is the main reason for desiring to have the word "manufactured" deleted from this bill. In this way we would be sure that all the provisions of the amendment would apply to fruit and vegetables. Again, on behalf of the fruit and vegetable growers of British Columbia, I should like to commend the government for the decision to delete the word "manufactured" from this bill.
Customs Act


Mr. Campbell:: I should like to ask the
minister if he has any information as to the quantities of textiles which have been imported into Canada during the past two years?


James Joseph McCann: The total imports of fibres, textiles and textile products from the United States-of course, we do get textiles from other countries-for eight months in 1952 amounted to $121,109,373; in 1953, for eight months, it was $16 million greater, making a total of $137,981,961.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I want to take a very few minutes to go on record as supporting the suggestions made here by the hon. member for Rosthern. I feel as he does, that this is a matter that must be dealt with very carefully. In my opinion we have had examples already in this house of the pressure that might be brought to bear, after this regulation goes into effect, from groups who are looking for protection. Many people may feel that the contrary is true, but that is a matter of opinion, depending upon whether one believes in freer trade or protection.
I believe that this measure should be considered as emergency legislation. Again I agree with the member for Rosthern when he suggests that some time limit should be put in this legislation so that we can come back and deal with it again. At that time we would know how it had been dealt with, and we could form our own opinion as to whether or not the provision should be continued. I want to give one example of an experience of my own with dumping duties. This was in the thirties. In the county of Charlotte, we use hundreds of thousands of gallons of edible oils every year in the canning industry. Between 1930 and 1935 we were importing all those oils from Great Britain. It was cottonseed oil. The government sitting here in Ottawa at that time was that of a party which has always been a great believer in doing everything we can for Great Britain. The oil was coming to this country free of duty, and continued in that way for a couple of years.
Then, the first thing we knew, a gentleman from the Department of National Revenue came down to the county of Charlotte and made the discovery that the oil had to come in barrels. I do not know what idea he had held previously. It had to come in some form from overseas, and the fact was that it came in thin, black metal barrels. The barrels were being sold to the fishermen at $1 each. I could buy all I wanted at that price. This gentleman from the department placed a value of $3 on the barrels and duty was collected accordingly.

Customs Act
That is what is meant when we refer to entering a wedge in any legislation of this kind. I wish to repeat emphatically that I believe we should move very carefully and, in so far as striking out the word "manufactured" is concerned, I would rather see it the way it is. I do not want to see the legislation broadened in any way. There is a specific purpose for which it was designed, and I am prepared to support that purpose. However, I wish to go on record today as opposing the broadening of the legislation in any way.
We are an exporting nation, and the last thing in the world we would want to see done by this government is anything that would indicate to the United States or to any other part of the world that we are not prepared to stand or fall on Liberal principles. For that reason I wish to go on record as supporting the suggestions put forth here today by the hon. member for Rosthern.


Mr. Croll:: Mr. Chairman, speaking today the hon. member for Eglinton said that in his opinion this bill is too restrictive. He said it did not go far enough, as it applied only to manufactured goods. Thus he advocated that it should be broadened. Following this he introduced his amendment.
I understood this to be a specific measure to do a specific job. It is emergency legislation to benefit the textile industry. That was my understanding of it, and on that basis I supported it. In the earlier discussions that took place in the house it was suggested-and perhaps I urged this more fervently than anyone else, and over a longer period-that we needed this emergency legislation in order to meet a situation which has jeopardized the economy of a segment of our people, as well as their standard of living.
We started out to repair a break in the dike: now we are starting out to build a wall around the dike-and even a wall around the old wall. I think this is a mistake. It is a mistake to broaden this measure. There is something to be said for those of us who, over the years, have stood by Liberal principles. Sometimes those Liberal principles have hurt, even in my own riding. On the other hand if we start now to extend and broaden the scope of this bill we shall turn it into a protective tariff measure. That would be a mistake. I intend to vote against it.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the government would see fit to adopt the amendment. However, I do find myself confused. Several hon. members have suggested that this measure is proposed for the benefit of only a certain group of individuals.

Yet, in the explanatory note, I see it says that the subsection is to supplement and to widen the law. However, there may be further explanations forthcoming from other hon. members indicating exactly what they mean. I am particularly interested in the suggestion that the measure should apply to end of season goods. In my remarks the other day I dealt particularly with potatoes. End of season goods coming into my part of the country applies not only to potatoes but also to fruits and vegetables. This is a most important matter, and one which should be considered.
I believe section 43 of the Customs Act is intended to look after the fruit farmers. However, I find that, as a whole, they are reaching the point where they need additional protection. For that reason I should like to see hon. members adopt the amendment proposed.
If the amendment is not accepted, then the government might see fit to adopt the idea of establishing an international commodity clearance house, and thus get rid of our surpluses.


Mr. Cannon:: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the Prime Minister said, let me state that I am going to vote against the amendment, and I shall give my reasons for doing so. They are the reasons I set out when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As reported at page 292 of Hansard, I said:
In the speech from the throne we also find the following reference to free trade-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot quote from a previous debate in the same session.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not have to quote it word for word. In the speech from the throne the government reaffirmed the Liberal principles of free trade, and I think we should stick to those Liberal principles. Any deviation from them should be kept as limited as possible.
Speaking the other day one hon. member opposite reproached Liberals for departing from the principle of free trade in this instance. Let me say to him that he should not throw stones when he lives in a glass house. Hon. members opposite have always been in favour of high protection and have always fought any measure introduced by a Liberal government to foster free trade between this great nation of ours and other nations in the world.
For the reasons I have given I am going to vote against the amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the arguments of those hon. members

Customs Act
who say they are not in favour of the amendment because they feel that the benefits, if any, that will follow from the legislation should be confined to manufactured goods.
It has always been my impression that it was the widespread belief of a large number of members in the house, particularly those from western Canada, that it was entirely unfair that the principle followed in matters of this kind should be protection for the manufacturers and competition for the farmers. It seems to me that the farmers of the west, particularly, are entitled to as much assistance in meeting their economic problems as manufacturers in any part of Canada.
Knowing as I do that our primary producers of fruits and vegetables are at the present time facing a serious problem of this sort, it does seem to me it would be only fair for hon. members to support the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton. If the hon. member for Spadina will permit me, may I say I was interested in his reference which, as I recall it, went something like this. If there was a hole in the dike he felt that we should fix that hole or confine our attention to that hole alone, and not go about extending the dike. The hon. member will probably recall, as I do, the old story of the little Dutch boy-I think his name was Peter. He found a hole in a dike. He was a brave little boy, and he shoved his finger in. It is probable the hon. member will recall that the outcome of that story was not a happy one, because not only did the dike eventually become breached completely but Peter was drowned.


Mr. Mar.g:: As one who is in partnership
with the weather and the soil in manufacturing a commodity that has to be sold on the free markets of the world, namely, wheat, perhaps I might be permitted to say just a word on this. I can consider this legislation only in the light of an emergency. I can go further than that and say that if I am going to support it-I have not yet made up my mind-it will be because it will perhaps stop a sharp practice on the part of our United States friends.
If this committee passes the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton it will widen the scope of this purely emergency measure. While I am on my feet I might say that I am entirely a free trader. I believe that one of the curses of the world is this matter of tariffs. I am afraid that in time this measure will become the thin edge of the wedge. As a matter of fact, only three quarters of an hour ago I could sense that, when the hon. member for Eglinton spoke. We are heading in the direction of protection that will eventually lead to a
world debacle such as we had in the early 1930's and that eventually culminated in war. I do not want to enlarge on that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was 1929, to be exact.


Henry Philip Mang: I am speaking entirely on the
amendment. I hope that I get an opportunity some later time when I shall be able to remind the house of the disastrous effect of protection not only in this country but in every country of the world, culminating eventually in war.
Tariffs are one of the main reasons why we have war. I cannot go into detail now, but I will at some future time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have been listening to
the last two or three speakers and wondering really what we were talking about. I really admire your generosity, sir, in allowing the debate to stray as it has.
We are debating a bill brought in by this government with respect to the matter of dumping. Anti-dumping legislation, as the minister told us the other night, was originally introduced by a Liberal government in 1904. When the minister spoke the other night he was at pains, and quite properly so, to say that this legislation in no sense concerned tariffs in any way; that it was entirely within the scope of GATT to which we have adhered. Now we have attempts to hear the old song sung again, and hon. members are rising in their places and trying to distort, for example, the words used by my colleague, the hon. member for Eglinton, and suggest that they detect in it high-tariff proclivities, and we are somehow or other almost pictured as conspirators.
I should like to remind you that when trade matters were up in the house the last time, which, as I recall it, was the general agreement on tariffs and trade, we supported them. If anyone cares to know the facts, if he will look at the debates he will see that we supported that agreement, and have supported it throughout. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will get the committee back to some degree of common sense, and not have this old, old story-my colleague the hon. member for Eglinton suggests "accuracy", and that is a useful addition- that we will not have any more of this nonsense talked. When we are trying to improve this legislation, which is supposed to guard against what has always been thought of as a really unfair and even almost dishonest method of competing, I do hope we will not have any more suggestions that we are dark tariff conspirators.


Mr. Mclvor:: Is there any protection in
the Customs Act for vegetable growers or flower growers?

Customs Act


James Joseph McCann: If the hon. member will read the debates he will find the answer. The answer was given when he was out of the chamber.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready
for the question?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: That is why I asked the question; I thought there wais protection now.


Mr. Winch:: I am going to support the amendment which is now before the committee. I do not think the legislation introduced is going to solve the problems of every industry or of agriculture in the Dominion of Canada. As long as we are living under the system we now have we are not going to reach any solution in this country or in others on a permanent basis; but we have to face the facts as they are. If, in the view of the government and of hon. members, it is necessary to have a partial protection at least for the workers in this dominion and for our industry in general, then I intend to support the principle.
But in supporting the amending bill of the government in principle I most certainly want to align myself with the words of our house leader, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, when he spoke the other day and pointed out the dangers of this legislation and asked for guarantees from the government to the effect that it would only be used if there was proof of an absolute necessity; and that the benefits were not for the maintenance of, or to meet, any dividend payments but would go to the workers in industry and to a guaranteed fair price to the consumers in Canada.
After outlining the general broad principles, why do I take the position that I am going to support the amendment? I take it just for this reason, Mr. Chairman. It is an important one and a logical one. If, in the viewpoint of the government, the economy of Canada requires the introduction of an amendment of this kind for a group of industries or for one industry, then, Mr. Chairman, I maintain as a principle that it should be applied to the entire economy of the Dominion of Canada. If it is good for one, if it is necessary for one, then we should bring down legislation that will give the same protection, should they require it, in any sector of the economy of the Dominion of Canada.
I am not prepared to vote for legislation which is brought down on a basis of protection for only one group or one industry. If it is a correct principle, it is good for all, and it should be established by this parliament as a correct principle; otherwise we should not establish the principle at all.

There is one other phase of the matter in which I am vitally interested, namely, agriculture. So far, although I have listened very carefully-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but after all we are discussing the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton which removes the word "manufactured" from the clause. I would ask the hon. member to co-operate by addressing himself to the amendment.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, with all due deference I am speaking directly to the amendment and in objection to the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue when he brought in the view that in his estimation agriculture was covered satisfactorily. In view of the fact that the matter which I am discussing was mentioned in some detail by the minister I thought I was absolutely in order in saying that I cannot agree with his contention. From my experience in British Columbia this past 20 years, legislation now on the statute books is not sufficient to give the protection that is required in British Columbia because-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. A discussion in committee on this clause of this bill will not allow the hon. member to discuss other legislation.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know why a minister of the crown can speak on a matter, but when a backbencher in the opposition wants to speak on the same subject in answer to the minister he is out of order. I think, sir, that is unfair. I do not think it is justice or in accordance with the procedure of this house.
My interpretation is that the removal of the word "manufactured" will introduce into legislation a broader definition of "goods", and "goods" in my estimation covers all primary products. As this is legislation which will give emergency power that can be applied far more swiftly than the legislation already on the statute books, to which the minister has referred, I find the amendment much to be preferred in principle and in application than the legislation brought in by the minister.
I am going to support the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 39; nays, 87.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it not a rule of the house that all members in the house should vote and that if

they are seated in the house at the time of the vote they are required to do so? I noticed the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Revenue and the hon. member for St. Mary were present but did not vote.


William Alfred Robinson: May I inform the hon. member for Eglinton that I do not believe such a rule has ever been enforced in committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I now move the second part of the original amendment, which was separated, namely:
That clause 1 of Bill No. 29 be amended by striking out of the proposed new section 35 (6) of the Customs Act the words "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period", in lines 9 and 10.
I do not propose to repeat, Mr. Chairman, what I said on this subject earlier. This is a restriction that is going to present difficulties. It is going to mean that part of the dumping problem, the admitted existing dumping problem that the government has introduced this measure to cope with, is not going to be dealt with. The dumping problem is not confined to exports to Canadian markets from the United States simply of end of season or end of line goods, but includes those other goods to which I referred where the manufacturers were prepared to go on producing goods at an admitted loss simply in order to keep their plants operating at certain periods, not simply for end of season goods but rather to keep their factories geared and ready for the productive part of the year when they can operate at a profit.
This is an integral part of the dumping problem. I put it to this house that if the house is serious in recognizing the existence of the dumping problem; if the house is really earnest in its belief that a dumping problem exists and that it is not dealt with adequately today by the powers heretofore given to the government under section 35, then it is the duty of the house to see that legislation is made effective and that this legislation does not deal with only part of the dumping problem.
We know we are not dealing with something that concerns tariffs. We are dealing with an amendment to legislation which has been on the statute books for 49 years, put there in the first place by a Liberal government in the year 1904 and which has persisted whether under Conservative or Liberal administrations; and now a Liberal administration, recognizing that dumping exists today, broadens section 35 of the Customs Act and the provisions of the customs tariff in order to meet the existing dumping problem.
Customs Act
If hon. members who supported the government on second reading of this bill believe in their assertions that the powers given by the present legislation are not adequate to deal with the dumping problem, then why not admit that the amendment deals with only part of this problem. If a dumping problem exists and you wish to deal with that dumping problem, then deal with all of it and not only part of the problem. You are dealing with only part of it if you pass legislation with these restrictive words included.
The minister said that if we amended the bill these words would not have any meaning attached to them because they are only descriptive, and he referred to the explanatory note on the bill. Well, every hon. member in this house knows that explanatory notes in a bill are not part of the law and have nothing whatever to do with the bill. These explanatory notes will not be reproduced in the statutes of Canada for 1953-54. If they are only descriptive words and if they are not intended by the government to have effect, then what is the reason for retaining them in this bill?
This problem is broader than the description given it in those words, and hon. members of this house ought to be aware of that. Since dumping exists it is certainly the duty of this house to give the government adequate power to deal with that dumping which they say exists, and not to introduce under the guise of flowery, descriptive words, expressions that will inevitably be treated as restrictive in their effect and as an invitation to subtle and ingenious minds in the exporting countries to make arrangements that will circumvent the act.
Let us be quite clear that this is not a question of tariffs. It is not a question of an invasion of the spirit of GATT. You have the statement of the minister to that effect, speaking in support of this measure when introducing it. He stated that it was completely in harmony not only with the spirit but with the letter of GATT. If any hon. member in any part of the house believes in any way that this offends the spirit of GATT, then let him speak.
What we seek is strengthening and clarification of this act which in no way offends the spirit of GATT. Every member in the house and every party in the house has proclaimed support for GATT and its principles; and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we shall not have to listen, either in the house or in committee, to assertions of the kind we heard from some members here this afternoon. It is about time they read the record and knew

Customs Act
where all parties in the house stand on the important question of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
The hon. member for Halifax introduced something by way of comment that might appear to him to pass for an intelligent remark. If the hon. member for Halifax does not yet know that GATT was supported by all parties in this house and by all members in the house, and that it is still supported by all members and by all parties, it is high time that he learned something about the matter.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I remind the hon. member for Eglinton that he is discussing his own amendment and that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was also dealing with some comments made on the bill, or purportedly made on the bill, by some hon. members opposite and which had as little relation to fact as they had relevance to the amendment under discussion.
The matter comes down to this. If we wish to introduce legislation adequate to deal with the dumping problem and if we wish to make that legislation clear, direct and understandable in its terms, let it not be cluttered up with what the minister calls descriptive words but which I call restrictive words, restrictive in the sense that they confine the bill to only part of the problem, simply confining the dumping that it will grapple with to end of line and end of season dumping. It will not deal with the rest of the problem of dumping as it exists to the knowledge of the hon. member for Spadina and others in this committee.
Then surely we can be sensible about it and not have this legislation cluttered up on the one hand with what the minister admits in his view is unnecessary description and which, on the other hand, as must be clear to all hon. members, is going to have the effect of leaving a large segment of the problem of dumping unmet and flourishing.
It is for that reason, namely to strengthen the hands of the government in dealing with this problem, to clarify the legislation and to see that the legislation honestly deals with the whole problem and not a part of it, that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood, that these words in lines 9 and 10 "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period" be stricken out of the bill.


Major James William Coldwell: In my opinion these are more important words that the word "manufactured", because these are the only words in the legislation which actually attempt to

define what dumping is. If we delete these words we have no definition. We have no direction to the minister as to what the house considers to be dumping when it passes this legislation. Let hon. members just look at those words:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, where the market price of any manufactured goods in the country of export has, as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period, declined to levels that do not reflect in the opinion of the minister their normal price . . .
The words "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period" give a definition. Maybe it is not as adequate as it might be, but it really does define what we want to do in the case of this emergency. Personally I think that, of all the words, those should remain in the legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to say a word or two on the section. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I feel just as indignant as does the hon. member for Eglinton, even though I may not show it as clearly as he did. I want to ask one or two questions. I want to read part of the explanatory note. But first I want to go back for a minute and recall that the minister has been very emphatic in telling us that this measure was not designed to be restricted to the textile industry, although it does seem particularly to be applied to that industry. He has stated to us that it is intended to have a broad application.
In the light of that statement can we not, with whatever calmness and powers of reasoning we have, look at these words and see what they mean? When hon. members read those words and see how they apply, as the hon. member for Broadview explained so well the other day, so exactly to the textile industry, I ask them to tell us whether in fact they can think of any other industry to which they apply except fruit and vegetables, which we have discussed and which are dealt with in another manner. I just wish to read the words briefly:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, where the market price of any manufactured goods in the country of export has, as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period, . . .
We have had it clearly explained to us how apt those words are applying to the textile industry. Does anyone think they apply, let us say, to the electrical appliance industry or a dozen other industries? Can you apply the words "as the result of the advance of the season or the marketing period" to any other industry? I suggest there has been no evidence given in the house or in this committee of any such thing, and I challenge anyone to give an indication of another industry-


An hon. Member:: The rubber industry.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -where those exact words apply; or if there may be some other entirely exceptional industry I will accept that correction. I repeat my question. Does anyone deny that this phrase will have a very restrictive influence? If so, why on earth should it be left there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may, in my opening words, accept the challenge of the hon. member for Greenwood, I would say that I do not deny that these words have a restrictive influence. It is precisely because they have a restrictive influence that I want to see these words stay in the section. It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that we shall not have to debate this amendment quite as long as it appeared necessary to debate the other one, because the Prime Minister has not indicated that this matter can be left to a free vote of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not very free, judging by the way those Liberal whips got around.


Major James William Coldwell: I think it should be a free vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe this one will be free too.
I think we are having an illustration of the problem that is involved in this type of legislation in the kind of speech which the hon. member for Eglinton gave us a few moments ago, coupled with his amendment. He asks the committee to face up to the dumping problem. But then he moves an amendment that turns a bill which is aimed at the prevention of dumping into a form of protection. The minute you take out those words you have a section which simply leaves it to the opinion of the minister, without any restrictive definition, as to whether the prices of certain goods have been declared too low. Bearing in mind the spirit and the attitude in which the house has been prepared to accept this legislation-not happily but because of a particular situation-it seems to me that we should keep it on the restrictive basis in which it came to us in the first place.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is dumping wrong only for textiles?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact that it is difficult to stay on one side or the other of whatever line there is between dumping and protection was I think clearly demonstrated a few moments ago in the exhibit A, which was introduced by the hon. member for Hamilton West. She certainly was under the impression that that was an example of the kind of evasion that could be practised with respect to this law. Most of us felt that that was an 83276-59
Customs Act
example of the kind of evasion that might be practised with respect to the tariff law, but that it had nothing to do with dumping.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I felt that the same confusion existed in the mind of the hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can he not see that the purpose of referring to that exhibit was to indicate the difficulty of determining, on the one hand, what are manufactured goods and, on the other hand, what are goods that are to be further manufactured?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have already settled that question, have we not, by a vote of the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the hon. member is referring to something that occurred on the discussion of the previous amendment, which apparently he does not understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not citing exhibit A, which was brought in by the hon. member for Hamilton West, with reference to the question of manufactured or non-manufac-tured goods. I was citing it to prove my point that hon. members get confused between anti-dumping legislation and tariff protection. I suggest that no one is more confused on that point than the hon. member for Eglinton himself, who shouts at the top of his voice in this house calling upon us to recognize the dumping problem, and then presents us with an amendment that turns a piece of anti-dumping legislation into a form of tariff protection.
I just have one further word. The hon. member for Eglinton has expressed concern that American exporters will find some way of getting around the terms of the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: American dumpers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has shown us that he wants the restriction to be clear and specific so as to keep out goods.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Stop dumping.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shouting again will not convince us that the hon. member is not trying to use this anti-dumping legislation to further the cause of protection. My concern is the other way. My concern is that unless the legislation is very clear and very restricted, unless these words make it clear that parliament regards it as an emergency piece of legislation-and I agree with those who say

Customs Act
it should be on our statute books tor only a year-those who have to administer it may go too tar with it.
We have had plenty of experiences of that kind. I will not take the time of the house now because it is just about the hour for private and public bills, but I had occasion not long ago to refer to a squabble between the tariff board and the minister over the administration of another act. My fear is that unless this amending bill, which hinges so heavily upon the opinion of the minister, has a clear definition in it, there will be a danger that those who administer it will move from anti-dumping over to protection, which obviously is what the hon. member for Eglinton wants. Therefore I am against the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has imputed to me a desire to do something which I have said is completely at variance with the facts. That is an imputation. The hon. member, who has a good deal to say about the rules of the house, should not be the first to indulge in such a flagrant breach of the rules. He has imputed to me a desire-


David Arnold Croll: Motive.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, motive-to introduce a form of protection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that not correct?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not only untruthful but it is a breach of the rules of the house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. If I had considered that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was out of order I certainly would have corrected him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only say, sir, that if he was not out of order I would not have risen to say what I did. I urge upon you that he was out of order and that he was committing a flagrant breach of the rules of the house in imputing motives to hon. members, particularly when these motives are disclaimed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since when is telling the truth out of order?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If it comes down to that, the hon. member cannot meet the amendment on the facts, and apparently he has to resort to this kind of distortion with a view-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Eglinton will kindly confine his remarks to the amendment which is now before the house, and which is his own amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and to these bogus arguments that have been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Not

only have they no facts to support them, but I am saying now that the hon. member apparently is not prepared to meet this amendment on its terms and on the facts but resorts to this bogus argument, this distortion of the facts, in order to discuss something else and try to frighten the house into thinking there is some matter of protection involved here.
I will meet that situation right on this bill. If there is protection, the protection is in the government's bill; the protection is in section 35 of the Customs Act and has been there for 49 years. It was put there in the first place under a Liberal administration and it has stayed there ever since under Conservative and Liberal administrations.
We are dealing with dumping, and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre probably could have summed up his argument in words as brief as these; that he likes dumping, that he approves dumping and he wants dumping to continue to the disadvantage of Canadian workmen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, I suggest that the hon. member for Eglinton should not be permitted to put words in my mouth or to make statements that bear no relation to what I have put forward. I remind the hon. member for Eglinton that the whole text of his speech this afternoon, of his amendment and all his shouting has been to the effect that the bill does not go far enough. He wants something more.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, much as I like a fight, I am not going to get into this private fight between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Eglinton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is public.


An hon. Member:: No holds barred.


James Joseph McCann: I had hoped we might finish by five o'clock because we move into private bills at that time, and if we are not finished we will not be able to take up this legislation again before the holiday season. So far as the amendment of the hon. member for Eglinton is concerned, the government does not accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


James Joseph McCann: Put the question.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived: Yeas, 32; nays, 104.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Canada Grain Act (distribution of box cars).
Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: I should like to say a few words about this bill. As you know we were discussing this bill last Tuesday when I was interrupted by the six o'clock recess. Since I have a few minutes at my disposal, I should like to deal with one further point.
When we were discussing this bill last Tuesday, a good deal was said about the car order book system. Indeed, the suggestion made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in Bill No. 3 is an alternative method for the distribution of box cars to the one which already exists in the Canada Grain Act. The reason given by the hon. member for suggesting the alternative method was that the car order book system had been suspended by the controller.
Some time ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) announced that the car order book system would be reinstated yesterday. I presume it is in operation today. As long as the car order book system is in effect, the method suggested in this bill would not apply. As a matter of fact, when 1 was speaking on this question I said, as will appear from page 715 of Hansard for December 8, 1953, that it appeared to me the hon. member for Assiniboia did not believe the car order book system was a good one to follow. The hon. member interrupted me at the time to say that was not what he said. I went on to say that was the impression I got. It was the impression I got at the time, and upon reading the remarks of the hon. member in Hansard I am still under the same impression. Here is what the hon. member said on page 711 of Hansard for December 8, 1953:
The car order book system as we now have it is being used for purposes for which it was not intended. Because of that it is a clumsy and outdated method.
Naturally I got the impression from those words that the member was not in favour of the car order book system.


Mr. Argue:: It is still not right.


René Jutras: That may be, but I have just read Hansard. I want to be fair to the
83276-59J
Canada Grain Act
hon. member. I am not suggesting that he is advocating the abolition of the car order book system. I am inclined to agree with him that the car order book system, under a condition of acute shortage of box cars, is difficult to operate fairly and equitably. It was for this reason the controller suspended the operation of the car order book. After this action was taken the controller was criticized extensively, and no doubt as a result of that criticism the car order book is now being reinstated.
I want to make my position clear on the question of the car order book. As I said before, I believe the system is a good one, and there is no question but that it should be retained in the Canada Grain Act. As a matter of fact, a lot of the criticism that was levelled at the controller left the impression that he had removed this provision from the act. Of course he had not done that, but had simply suspended the operation of the car order book for the time being. I am certainly convinced that this provision should be kept in the Canada Grain Act. I must admit, however, that I have grave doubts that it can be operated successfully under present conditions. As I said before, I would not be surprised if the car order book system had to be suspended again within a few months.
The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that the pool organizations would use the car order book system to their own advantage, and to the disadvantage of others, to secure a larger number of box cars. There is no doubt that many organizations will likely take advantage of this provision to get a larger allocation of box cars, but that is really not the purpose of the car order book provision. Its purpose is to give the individual producer an opportunity of getting a car that he can load direct without having to go through the local elevator. The argument used in favour of this alternative method is that it will ensure a greater choice to the producer and permit him to deliver to the elevator of his own choice. 1 am inclined to think that if this provision were enacted the practical effect would be to reduce the free choice of the individual producer.
For one thing the individual producer would, in effect, lose his choice over the delivery season, because under this system he would have to set down his acreage with a certain company, and for that season he would have to make his deliveries to that elevator. The allocation of box cars would be made to that elevator.


Hazen Robert Argue: It does not say that.

Canada Grain Act


René Jutras: Yes, it does say that. Section 72A says:
Any producer, as defined in section 15 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, may, before the first day of October in any year-
I may just say there is a technicality there. In the district from which I come we have completed our harvesting and in some cases our plowing by the 1st of October. The harvesting season is over by the 1st of October. The date would have to be moved at least a month ahead.
-enter in the car order book his acreage seeded to grain as shown in his permit book pursuant to sections 18 and 19 of the said act, and may assign that acreage among the elevator companies at his marketing point.
Once the producer has made his choice he has to deliver his grain to that company. Under the provisions of the act as they are today, I might start the year by delivering my grain to a certain company. After delivering a few bushels there I may have a disagreement with that company and switch to another elevator company. There is nothing to prevent me from going from one elevator to another, if there is space and I can be accommodated there.


Hazen Robert Argue: You can still have the same privilege.


René Jutras: If you put in the provision that you can still go to any elevator you choose, then you could allocate your cars to one elevator and deliver to the other. You would have a most inequitable distribution of box cars if that were so. Unless you stuck by it, you would have an even more inequitable distribution.
I just mention this to point out that it is a rigid system. As I said before, we have one which is not half as rigid as this one; and even that one, the car order book, is at the moment very difficult to apply. If we accept an alternative suggestion, which is even more rigid, it would be almost impossible to apply.
I do not see how this suggestion could be applied so as to render the distribution more equitable. As I said, I do not share the feeling that the distribution of box cars is as bad as the hon. member has described, or even as bad as he believes it to be out in his area. I must say that in my area we have no great complaint on this score. I do not say that it could not be better, and I fully realize the difficulties in the situation. When there is not a car, there is not a car- and it is difficult to split one. But all in all I think it is fair to say that the railway agents and the board have done their best to distribute the cars as equitably as possible. I am sure that if at any given point
IMr. Argue.]
there was a real case of inequitable distribution, if it were brought to the attention of the controller he would certainly do his best to correct the situation. In my section of the country, and I believe in others, the total possible acreage to be handled by each elevator company is sent to headquarters of the Canadian wheat board at the beginning of each crop year. With this information before them the railways try to allocate cars on the basis of acreage. That is the basis upon which they try to do it.
I think we are better off to leave them some alternative. And as I have said, while it is not his specific job I am sure the controller would look into a situation if it were brought to his attention. I am afraid, however, that the bill might make the situation even worse than it is today, because it would not permit the leeway we now have. For these reasons I cannot support it.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with what I wish to say I shall read the amendment as it appears in the bill. It is as follows:
72A. Any producer, as defined in section 15 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, may, before the 1st day of October in any year, enter in the car order book his acreage seeded to grain as shown in his permit book pursuant to sections 18 and 19 of the said act, and may assign that acreage among the elevator companies at his marketing point.
72B. If, at any time, no unfilled application for a car appears in the car order bock at a marketing point, the railway agent shall then apportion railway cars among the elevator companies in the proportion that the acreage has been divided among the elevator companies.
To save myself talking 30 or 40 minutes to say what I should say in three or four, I shall read the explanatory note because it expresses the point of view hon. members of the Social Credit party wish to support. I say that because since we came to the House of Commons 18 years ago we have adopted the principle of supporting good legislation, regardless of where it originates. In our opinion this is good legislation, and we intend to support it.
The explanatory note states:
The purpose of this act is to provide in a new section of the car order book a rule for the fair allocation of box cars among elevator companies at a marketing point where the car order book, as presently constituted, is not in effect. By allocating their seeded acreage among the elevator companies at a marketing point, producers themselves will determine the distribution of box cars at that point.
As a farmer who has been actively engaged in the business for 33 years and as one who had quite a bit to do with the organization of the Alberta wheat pool, I feel that under the present set-up the farmers are being

denied the right to use the facilities they have provided by contributions made during the early years of the pool set-up.
I cannot see anything the matter with the bill. I do admit, of course, that in extraordinary times such as we are passing through today there might be some little difficulty. But in normal times, for which I believe the bill makes provision, farmers would have the right to use their own facilities rather than go somewhere else.
While I am on this subject I would say that the abuses of the Canada Grain Act by the elevator companies in the early years of our experience in the west were responsible for the organization of the pool elevator system. I am glad to say that in most cases those abuses do not exist today, because of the corrective influence of the wheat pool organizations.
We have been told that the shortage of cars is a recent trouble. I can remember a time nearly 40 years ago when I hauled grain to the elevators, although in those days we did not grow as much wheat as we do today. I remember many of my neighbours hauling grain a distance of 30 miles with a four-horse team. When we got to the elevator we would find that everything was flooded with grain.
Sometimes overnight a car would be brought in and spotted. Many of us would get up long before daylight in order to get in line at the elevator with our wheat in the morning. One of the tricks of the elevator companies in those days was that, regardless of the grade of grain brought to them, they would say that they had room for only grade 3 or grade 4.
I remember well on one occasion taking in a load of No. 1 wheat and being told by the agent that the best he could do for me would be No. 2 grade. He said to me, "There is a frozen kernel." This particular agent had had a small chunk taken off one of his fingers-perhaps it should have been off his head instead. Looking at the damaged kernel he said, "This is No. 2; you cannot get better than that." I said, "Find another one"; and although he rummaged around for a long time he could not find a second damaged kernel. I was short of money to pay my hotel and other expenses and had to accept the No. 2 grade. Many others were placed in a similar position and had to accept a loss of two or three grades below that which their grain actually graded.
I do not feel that under present conditions we are badly abused. We have the car order book at certain points, something for which the farmers have fought for many years. Hon. members in this part of the chamber
Canada Grain Act
do not want to see the loss of that privilege. I realize that it has been necessary under present extraordinary conditions to have it suspended for the time being. But I believe no system is so good that it cannot be improved, and Bill No, 3, introduced by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), will help make some definite improvement.
The advocates of the system that compelled us to build our own elevators and have our own selling organization are now in this position. On December 2, the president of that organization addressed the chamber of commerce at London, and apparently felt that he would find some support there amongst people who are not familiar with the tricks of the grain exchange. On that occasion he called for the restoration of the open market and said:
. . . the present system of marketing Canadian wheat has failed to move abundant production into use.
I must immediately take issue with Mr. Jones who, I might say, has visited me here in Ottawa on different occasions, and who is a good friend of mine. But his organization is certainly not a good friend of mine or of the farmers of the prairie provinces. The article goes on to say:
The Canadian wheat board has handled all Canadian wheat sales since wheat futures trading was suspended on the Winnipeg grain exchange ten years ago.
May I add a word to his statement and say they have done an excellent job in the handling of sales. Further along Mr. Jones called the wheat board method of selling "monopolistic price fixing". 1 want to advise Mr. Jones again that there is no price fixing so far as the wheat board is concerned. They sell the grain, but they do not fix the prices. An initial price is fixed, but the final price is arrived at after the year's grain has been sold.
In referring to Canada's very high wheat stocks, totalling 805 million bushels in mid-November, Mr. Jones said:
The solution to the problem is sales.
I can agree with that statement, but I say it is sales and transportation. Again I agree that the Canadian wheat board is the organization that ought to do the selling, because the organization over which Mr. Jones presides does not care whether we grow a billion bushels of wheat or only a few million bushels. They sell wheat. In many, many instances in the past they sold wheat that had never been grown or even sown, and the fact that they charged the same commission for paper wheat as they did for actual wheat is one reason the exchange should be put out of business.

Canada Grain Act
I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in his seat at the present time. He lives fairly close to the Winnipeg grain exchange. When he is dealing with the Criminal Code I would suggest to the minister that he place those people in the same class as he places other gambling dens. I see the minister is feeling happy about it, and I hope he will take note of that fair suggestion.
Mr. Jones has criticized the price of our wheat at the present time. I have followed the president's steps fairly closely, and also the steps of the commissioners of the wheat board. I can remember that when the grain exchange had full control of the selling of grain away back in the 1930's, those of us living in my part of the country were compelled to accept 19J. cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat. If that is any recommendation for the building up of the grain exchange, then I think somebody ought to have something done to his head.
I do not know whether I should say very much more about this. I repeat that the farmers of the prairie provinces believe in the wheat board for marketing their grains, and as proof of that I might point out that a couple of years ago when we were discussing the sale of oats and barley by the wheat board the farmers of Manitoba voted 89 per cent in favour of using the wheat board system. Even though they had some hon. members from the other end of this house out there and also the farmers' protective association which, in my opinion, is a branch of the grain exchange parading under false colours, they voted 89 per cent in favour of the wheat board. The farmers of the other prairie provinces would vote even stronger than 89 per cent, because we do not have these parasites that the Manitoba farmers had to contend with rambling around our part of the country.
Again on behalf of this group I want to support Bill No. 3, moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to say a few words in regard to this bill, and I shall address my remarks strictly to the terms of the bill and not go into the general question of grain marketing, the Winnipeg grain exchange, and so forth.
I am opposed to this bill on three general grounds. First of all, no demand has been made for it by the western farmers themselves. It is true, as indicated by the hon. member for Assiniboia, that the Saskatchewan wheat pool last year passed a resolution favouring a fairer method of distributing box cars. The Alberta wheat pool in Calgary some two weeks ago passed a resolution

along the same lines; but that does not mean they favour this particular piece of legislation or this bill.
There is no doubt that the wheat pools, and I suppose farmers generally, would like a fairer or better method of distributing box cars. What they really want is more box cars. The minister indicated in his speech that even the pools themselves are not in favour of this particular bill; that the solicitor of the Saskatchewan wheat pool wrote him and said that in his opinion the bill was not workable and was not practicable.
That is the first ground on which I oppose the bill. The farmers themselves are not in favour of it; the wheat pools themselves are not in favour of it, and I do not believe we should be passing legislation in regard to box cars or anything else in regard to wheat which farmers as a whole are not in favour of and which is contrary to what their senior officials at least believe to be in their best interests.
The second ground on which I oppose it is that I believe it would introduce a rigid system which is not practicable. It would make the distribution of box cars more difficult than at the present time, and would lead to a considerable number of inequities and general difficulties as far as moving our grain out to market is concerned.
I can anticipate this sort of situation developing at a delivery point, a village where we will say there are three elevators. Probably only 30 per cent of the farmers in that area assign up their acreage to one elevator. The other people do not assign it at all. It would not be obligatory. It is not obligatory under this bill to have a man sign up. As far as I am concerned I would refuse to assign my acreage to any elevator. I would want to be in a position to deliver the wheat within my control to whatever elevator had room for it, and wherever I could get it in, and I would personally be opposed to assigning my acreage to any particular elevator.
Take the case, we will say, of the 30 per cent of the farmers in this place where there are three elevators. They have assigned their grain to one elevator; the other two elevators have no acreage assigned to them. I know this is a hypothetical case, an extreme case, but it could happen. What would happen under this bill? All the box cars that came into that village would go to the one elevator, and the other two elevators would get none. In other words it would be an impossible situation. There are all sorts of examples of things along that line that you could take that would tend to show that at least the bill is not practicable and not workable.

The third ground upon which I would oppose it is that in my opinion it would retard the building of more country elevator space. I think this is probably the strongest argument against this bill. If this bill were put into effect there would be no incentive for the companies which did not have a large acreage assigned to them at any particular points to build more elevators. As a matter of fact, if this bill went through there might be many areas where elevator companies would close down their elevators, because they would not find sufficient business to make it profitable to carry on. It would certainly not give them any incentive to build any more elevator space. On the other hand, with a large proportion of the farmers signed up at a particular point there would not be any incentive to build more elevator space because they are going to get the business anyway.
Therefore, from both points of view, that of the elevator which has the people signed up and that of the one which has no one signed up, or a very few, any incentive to build additional elevator space is gone. So in my opinion the effect of the bill would be to stop the construction of country elevators in the prairie provinces which-


Mr. Nicholson:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute; let me finish my sentence-which I think is perhaps the strongest argument against it, because there is no doubt that one thing we need and need very much in Canada is more country elevator space as well as more terminal space and more space for granaries on farms. Now, what is your question?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is it not a fact that the hon. member voted for an identical bill a year ago, and did not other members of his party?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, I did not vote for an identical bill. We voted on a motion for a six months' hoist. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) moved the motion to give that bill a six months' hoist, and we voted against that six months' hoist. We in this party have nearly always voted against the six months' hoist relating to any bill. It sometimes puts the bill out of the way and prevents a straight expression of opinion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Souris spoke in support of the bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Souris said it was a step in the right direction. At first I thought myself it was a step in the right direction, but after examining the question very thoroughly I came to the conclusion that it was not a step in the right direction
Canada Grain Act
and that the opinion that the member for Souris and I held was a mistaken opinion based on insufficient knowledge.
These are three main reasons on the basis of which I propose to vote against the bill. There are various other objections which, however, I will not take up the time of the house in discussing.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this bill I believe is identical with a bill that was presented at the last session. I spoke on that bill, and I do not intend to repeat all I said at that time. I am still opposed to this bill. I have looked into its provisions at some length since it was last debated in the house. I have not found anyone familiar with the grain business who believes this bill is workable.
It is an attempt to make the distribution of cars more rigid by law than it is at the present time, and hon. members will know that under conditions of congestion we were not able to work out a satisfactory marketing without waiving the car order book. There is another difficulty in that the bill does not require the farmers to deliver grain to a particular elevator. The farmers may simply enter their names in a book as wishing to support a particular elevator, and then they could deliver their grain somewhere else.
Obviously that system could be operated very unfairly indeed. Anyone not sympathetic to the views held by my hon. friend could easily defeat the purpose of the bill. There are other difficulties about the bill. For example, even if it were enforced a few people could operate a car order book to make the assignments entirely unworkable, because the car order book can properly have precedence over this legislation.
We are not discussing grain marketing in general but a particular bill related to it, and if there are weaknesses in that bill, obviously the bill should be opposed whether you like the principle or not. We are not debating a principle, we are being asked to adopt a particular bill. My hon. friend made several statements about car distribution as it works today. He said that one elevator- one car is the rule. Obviously it is not. During the past year every elevator has been working to the capacity that the distribution of cars will permit. What is the result? Last crop year the Manitoba pool operated 257 country elevators, which constitute 36-92 per cent of the elevators in Manitoba. The pool elevators handled 49 [DOT] 86 per cent of all the grain that was handled in Manitoba. Obviously they must have been getting 49-86 per cent of all the cars that were supplied at elevators in Manitoba.

Canada Grain Act


Hazen Robert Argue: How many were on the car order book?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know; perhaps all of them. I cannot say. In any case it is not a particularly unfair distribution, I suggest, when 36-92 per cent of the country elevators handle 49 * 86 per cent of the grain. You may say that it was beginning to work more favourably last year because pool elevators did better than in the past, but as a matter of fact that was the highest percentage the Manitoba pool elevators ever handled. They had 196 elevators operating in 1942-43, and in that year they handled 33 per cent of the grain. The next crop year they had 209 elevators and handled 36 per cent of the grain, and so on down to 1952-53, when they had 257 elevators, or 36-92 per cent of the elevators, and they handled 49-86 per cent of the grain.
That situation is not peculiar to Manitoba. In Saskatchewan last year the pool operated 2,979 country elevators, which is 38-84 per cent-


An hon. Member:: Would the minister check these figures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes; that was the total number of elevators. The number of pool elevators was 1,157. Thank you for the correction. That is 38-84 per cent of the total number of country elevators in Saskatchewan, and those pool elevators handled 47-42 per cent of the wheat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the minister the previous percentages?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can go back to 1942. Perhaps I could put the table on Hansard if you wish, but my hon. friend will not be able to prove what he thinks he can prove. At one stage, in 1949-50, these elevators handled 51-43 per cent and in 1947-48, before the current congestion, they handled 50-13 per cent.


Mr. Casileden:: Has the minister the percentage of pool farmers and the percentage of deliveries to pool elevators?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. It is all very well to say that a man who would like to deliver to a particular elevator must be enabled to deliver to a particular elevator. The belief that elevators have unlimited capacity if they get an unlimited number of cars is wholly fallacious. According to my hon. friend's view you could wipe out all the privately-owned terminals and elevators and still handle the same amount of grain. Surely he is not that silly.


George Hugh Castleden: I just asked a simple question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I know, but-


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister will permit me, I was just about to point out that in Saskatchewan in 1952 according to the minister 38-84 per cent of the elevators delivered about 47 per cent of the grain. Many pool members who wanted to deliver to the pool could not deliver to pool elevators under the present set-up.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would not matter if 90 per cent of the people wanted to deliver to the pool. I am simply saying they could not do it. It is not physically possible for that many elevators to handle the total quantity of grain available and that is the case as regards pool terminal elevators as well. It just is not possible, and there is no point in talking about something that will not work. I am talking about an actual number of elevators, and I am refuting the statement that distribution today means one elevator-one car. That is not the case at all.


George Hugh Castleden: I am just trying to point out that the delivery of grain to pool elevators is less than the actual pool grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the condition of congestion means the delivery of grain where there is an opening for it. The hon. member knows that as well as I do.
In Alberta the pool with 486 elevators, which is 29-47 per cent of all the elevators, last year handled 33 per cent of the wheat.
So much for the suggestion that the present system is unfair to the pools. I have never heard the pools say they are being unfairly treated. There has been some suggestion at the pool meetings about a better system of car distribution. I have never seen any suggestion put forward by the pool's, in cold type, as to the system they would like to have adopted. Mr. Milliken wrote to me some time ago. He pointed out that this bill was unworkable. He said he had been trying to draft an amendment along the line desired by the Saskatchewan pool, that he had been wholly unable to do it, and that no one whom he had consulted had been able to suggest an amendment that is workable.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are working on it. The
officials of the pool said it was the best idea they could get.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is
that I have a letter here from Mr. R. H. Milliken dated November 25, 1953, in which he states:
I have before me bill endorsed by Mr. Argue to amend the Canada Grain Act. Frankly, X do not think there is any possibility of such amendment being made to work.

Those are his comments on the hon. member's bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: His bosses did not have the same comments to make. He is just the hired man.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He is a fairly intelligent hired man. I wish my hon. friend would serve in his law office for a while and then come down here and talk about grain legislation. Perhaps he would be wiser. Mr. Milliken is perhaps the most experienced solicitor in the prairie provinces with regard to grain legislation. I consider him to be the most reliable adviser among the legal talent on the prairies. I do not know whether my hon. friend is a lawyer or not; but if he is, I say that with all due apologies to him.


Hazen Robert Argue: His "ministers" have different ideas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: His minister?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is right. His bosses have different ideas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have discussed the matter with the president of the Saskatchewan pool at some length, and he did not suggest the wording of an amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: They will have one soon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They may have, but I have my doubts. I do not think enough attention is being paid to the car order book. The car order book legislation is the oldest piece of grain' legislation we have. It dates back to 1903, before the Canada Grain Act. I should like to put on Hansard the history of the car order book, because I think a good many people who talk about the car order book do not understand it. I am wrong; the date was not 1903, it was 1902.
The car order book was instituted in 1902 by an amendment to the Manitoba Grain Act, 1900. This amendment was repealed in 1903 and replaced by more detailed provisions for the operation of car order books. The general principles then established were as follows: The railways were required to keep a car order book at each station where there was an agent and from which grain was shipped. Applicants for cars were defined as "any person who owns grain for shipment in car lots or who is an operator of a public country elevator, warehouse or flat warehouse". Applicants could order at one time as many cars as they required, and cars were required to be supplied in the order in which the applications were made. Applicants could appoint, in writing, an agent to act for them in applying for cars; there was no restriction on the agent acting for other applicants. Applicants could designate the place at which the car or cars should be spotted, namely at 83276-60
Canada Grain Act
an elevator, loading platform or siding. This gave the producer with a car lot of grain for shipment freedom of choice as to the particular elevator, loading platform or siding at which he wished to load his grain. Applicants were prohibited from transferring or selling their rights to a car.
While the statute provided that applicants could apply for two or more cars at one time, it also provided that if cars did not become available to fill all orders, then each applicant would receive one car in turn in the order in which applications had been made.
Minor amendments were made in 1906, and in 1908 provision was made requiring the railways to appoint custodians of car order books at flag stations or sidings.
The Manitoba Grain Act was repealed by the Canada Grain Act of 1912, but the same car order book provisions were carried forward into the new act. Changes were made from time to time in certain provisions by amendments to the Canada Grain Act.
The 1929 amendment provided that every order for a car should be entered in the car order book. The agent for an applicant could only act as agent for one applicant. No applicant could have more than one application in the book at one time, although elevators could receive two cars on each allotment and other applicants one only. No car could be furnished to any applicant unless ordered in accordance with the provisions of the act. The board, with the approval of the governor in council, could modify the car order book provisions of the act for the purpose of more fully protecting the interests of the producers of grain and facilitating the distribution of cars without discrimination as between producers, country elevators or otherwise. This provision was not carried into the 1930 act. The penalty clause re transferring or selling the right to any car was dropped. Two or more producers could jointly make application for a car.
The Canada Grain Act of 1930 provided that no applicant except the manager of an elevator could have more than one unfilled application in the car order book; that the manager of an elevator could have not more than two unfilled applications in the car order book.
No further changes were made in the car order book provisions until 1944. Briefly, the car order book provisions at that time were:
1.	Railways to furnish car order book to agent at each point from which western grain was shipped.
2.	Agent at shipping point to fill in applications except for signature of applicant.



S38 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canada Grain Act
3.	Elevator manager entitled to have two unfilled applications in book and other applicants one only.
4.	Untrue representations in applications made applicant liable to penalty.
5.	Agent for applicant could only act as agent for one applicant.
6.	Applications received and completed in order of arrival of applicants at place where book kept.
7.	Applicants permitted to specify car of any standard capacity or of two or more capacities alternatively.
8.	Book to be open for inspection by any person but inspection to be made in presence of agent who is responsible for safe custody and proper condition of book.
9.	Each car available at the point to be placed in order in accordance with the outstanding unfilled applications in the book, except for cars ordered by the board of grain commissioners to be placed out of turn for special reasons.
10.	Cars placed for an applicant who is unable to load to be assigned to the next applicant for a car at the place where the car then is.
In October, 1939, the board of grain commissioners laid down the principle that a grower in selling wheat in store, who had a car ordered on the car order book, had transferred his right to the car in question to the elevator as part of this sale. In July, 1944, a railway official queried this ruling of the board. The question was referred to the board's counsel, who stated he could find no provision in the statute to support the board's ruling, and that under the statute the applicant was the only one entitled to use that particular car. The board then referred the question to the deputy minister of justice, who gave the opinion that the board did not have the power under the act to authorize an applicant who had subsequently sold the grain to transfer the car, placed pursuant to his application, to the purchaser.
To regularize the position, order in council P.C. 7594 dated October 3, 1944, under the War Measures Act, ordered as follows:
That where an application for a car for grain has been properly entered in the car order book, a subsequent change in the ownership of the grain, on or after delivery to a country elevator, will not affect delivery of it to a car so ordered.
This provision was embodied in the Canada Grain Act by chapter 3 of the 1947 statutes by the addition of the appropriate subsection to section 62.
When this amendment was before the agriculture committee, members of the board indicated that the significance of the change 
is most apparent where there are ear shortages. The farmer may wish to sell the grain to avoid storage charges or interest on advances and cannot afford to wait too long for a car, so that the ability to transfer the right to the car strengthens his position.
The car order book provisions are undoubtedly framed to give to the producer who had a car lot of grain to ship, or to two or more producers who jointly had a car lot, the right to obtain a car to ship such grain direct to a terminal, either through the elevator of his choice or over a loading platform, or even from a siding. Previous to the 1944 order in council, through the car order book system each elevator at a point, provided it had grain to ship, could receive the same number of cars as the other elevators at the point. Additional cars, however, would be loaded at the different elevators in accordance with the number of its customers who wished to ship their own grain. With the right established to transfer the car on selling the grain, it is in the interest of the farmer, who has a carload to dispose of, to apply for a car before selling the grain to the elevator irrespective of whether or not he is interested in shipping his own grain to the terminal.
With the present congested condition it is also in the interests of the elevator operator to encourage his customers to do so, with the result that there can be as many as fifty or more consecutive applications on the book, all for loading at one elevator. While small quota deliveries are in effect, the number of farmers who are in a position to ship a car is very much reduced but this is overcome, to a certain extent, by joint applications from two or more farmers.
It must also be remembered that a farmer does not have to be in a position to load a car when he makes his application. Cars can be ordered before the grain is harvested, the farmer hoping that before the car is supplied he will have the grain available. If it is not, then his application is cancelled and he makes a new application which, of course, has a lower priority in the book. The same applies to quotas. The farmer hopes that the quota will be raised before his car is supplied. If it is not and he is not in a position to load, then his application is cancelled and he can make a new application with lower priority.
With the present congested condition at all points, available storage at terminal and other forward points must be used for handling grains or grades that are in current demand, so the wheat board must order the country elevators to ship these grains or grades and retain in the elevators the grains or grades that are in good supply in forward

positions and not in market demand. Priority must also be given to grain required for domestic outlets.
With the absolute need for priority shipments, the distribution of cars in accordance with the applications in the car order book cannot be properly carried out. To check every application to ensure that the grain to be shipped has a preference is impossible, and would unnecessarily delay shipments. The continuance of the car order book under these conditions leads to continual complaints and dissatisfaction among the different interests; also the tendency among agents to fail to comply strictly with the statutory and regulatory provisions re car order book procedure.
I suggest to my hon. friend who is presenting this bill that anything he can do under his bill can be done under the car order book. There is no limit to the number of applications for cars that can be put in. Every member of the pool who wishes to deliver to a certain elevator can enter his name on the car order book and, except for extraordinary marketing conditions which I think it is in the interests of everyone to recognize, the car order book can do everything that my hon. friend intends to do under his bill, and can do it without tying up the whole transportation system, as would be the inevitable outcome of this bill.
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, as a practical farmer I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I appreciate the subject matter of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue). I am thankful that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has presented the history of the car order book and has made the statement that it is entirely satisfactory in meeting the requirements of western farmers.
But I recall reading published statements by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool to the effect that the car order book as used at the present time is cumbersome and unwieldy. I think the car order book was originally implemented to give farmers the opportunity of marketing their grain in competition with the line elevator companies. That was prior to the era of the Canadian wheat board. At the present time the car order book is, to my knowledge, being used by Canadian farmers as a mechanism to allocate box cars to the elevator of their choice, or is being used to perform the function envisaged by this bill.
Since the car order book is failing to carry out the function for which it is presently being used, and Bill No. 3 gives farmers an opportunity to designate the elevator of 83276-60J
Canada Grain Act
their choice, and allows them the privilege of delivering their grain to that elevator it is a vast improvement, and will work in conjunction with the car order book.
On motion of Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock, the house will resume at eight o'clock consideration of the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I presume that means we are to continue with Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes-


Mr. Harris:: I take it that someone is inquiring what we are going to do?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked if we were going to resume consideration of Bill No. 29 in committee at eight o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: No; we are going to start with the Criminal Code at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. CUSTOMS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 29, to amend the Customs Act-Mr. McCann-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
William Alfred Robinson: Order. When the committee rose at five o'clock we were considering Bill No. 29. Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law.
He said: In opening the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 7, Mr. Speaker, I should like first to express my appreciation for the co-operation which has been extended by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and his lieutenant in this connection, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton); to the leader of the C.C.F. party and his assistant in this connection, the hon. member

Criminal Code
lor Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis); to the hon. leader of the Social Credit party and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), for their co-operation in joining in our recommendation to the members of a method of debating this bill. I feel that this method will save a great deal of time and effort, and produce a far better result than if we were to debate it in the usual way in which bills are debated.
In dealing with a bill to consolidate a code of laws we must realize that such a bill on second reading presents a very different problem from the discussion of the principle of an ordinary bill. Our code is intended to cover the whole ambit of the criminal law in this country. It occupies a field here which, in the United Kingdom, is covered by more than 150 criminal statutes. In doing so the one code has to deal with such diverse crimes as treason, murder, criminal libel, sedition, rape and so forth. Each of these crimes and the sections dealing with it has its own principle which is dealt with in the sections of the code relating to it.
If, as has been correctly said, we debate the principle of a bill on second reading, then it is quite obvious that to discuss all these widely varying principles of the various clauses of a criminal code bill simultaneously would make for great confusion. Let us try to imagine, if it is not too preposterous to do so, what a parallel situation would be in the United Kingdom. A large number of separate bills amending separate acts would simultaneously be brought down, each involving its own principle, and then an endeavour would be made to debate all of the principles of all those amendments simultaneously on the same second reading.
This is the problem which confronts this house in dealing with the second reading of the Criminal Code consolidation, Bill No. 7. I am very happy that, through the co-operation of the hon. members whom I have named, we have reached an understanding upon the strength of which we recommend to the members of the house that on the second reading of this bill we should debate only the one principle which applies to all sections of the bill, namely that a criminal statute which has been on the law books of this country for a period of 60 years needs now to be consolidated and revised.
Our thought is that when we get into committee of the whole we shall follow the example which proved so profitable in the committee on banking and commerce in the other place and in the special select committee of the House of Commons to consider the criminal law at the last session, and go through the sections of the Criminal Code bill

one by one in numerical order, setting aside those which any member of the house would like to reserve for further debate or in respect of which he feels he would like information which may not be immediately available.
In that connection, the government would wish to set aside certain clauses of the bill as well, for the reason that although, in accordance with the understanding which we have reached with the members of the other parties, we have brought in Bill No. 7 in virtually the same form it was reported upon by the special committee of the last parliament, since that time we have received from sources which we regard as reliable suggestions which we think are worthy of the attention of hon. members.
Then there are one or two points of substance, in respect of which the government itself is anxious to lay before the members of parliament its suggestions which we think are preferable to the recommendations of the special committee.
That being the case, I think my first task is to place on the record certain representations which I made, and on the strength of which those members of the other parties have been good enough to join with me in recommending this procedure to the house.
I represented first that the bill now in the hands of hon. members is in all respects the same bill as passed by the Senate in December, 1952, as amended and reported by the special Commons committee, except for six small matters involving only eleven sections, namely 336, 375, 467, 469, 473, 687 and clauses 747 to 751. None of these matters and none of these changes that are set out in these sections to which I have referred is particularly important. I shall, of course, be pleased to explain each of them when we reach those sections in committee.
I should like next to refer to one of the main terms in the final report of the special House of Commons committee at the last parliament. It reads as follows, on page 606 of Votes and Proceedings for May 4, 1953:
The clause by clause study of Bill 93 was in itself a tremendous task, because as each clause of the bill, in respect of which objections thereto or representations thereon had been made, was reached, these objections and representations were in all cases placed before the committee for consideration.
At various times during the course of its work, the following matters pertaining to the criminal law were directed to the attention of your committee; namely:
(a)	The defence of insanity.
(b)	Capital punishment.
(c)	Ccrporal punishment.
(d)	Lotteries.
Although these matters are well within the scope of the terms of reference, your committee is of opinion that these questions are of such

paramount importance that they could and should not be dealt with merely as incidentals to the consolidation or revision of the present Criminal Code embodied in Bill 93.
That is to say, Bill No. 7 that we have in this parliament was Bill No. 93 in the last parliament. The report goes on:
The committee, upon the material before it, was not prepared to recommend a change in the present law respecting the defence of insanity, lotteries and the imposition of punishment by whipping and by sentence of death, but unanimously has come to the conclusion, and so recommends, that the governor general in council give consideration to the appointment of a royal commission, or to the submission to parliament of a proposal to set up a joint parliamentary committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, which said royal commission or joint parliamentary committee shall consider further and report upon the substance and principles of these provisions of the law aforesaid, and shall recommend whether any of those provisions should be amended and, if so, shall recommend the nature of the amendments to be made.
Now, sir, at the time the House of Commons committee made this report from which I have quoted the royal commission which had been appointed by the government of the United Kingdom as far back as 1949 to consider the question of capital punishment had not at that time made its report. It did not become available to us here in Ottawa in printed form until about October 1, 1953. But when we got this report it seemed to us in the Department of Justice, upon careful analysis, that the ideas, thoughts, statistics and other material which it had gathered not only in the United Kingdom but also in a number of countries in Europe, as well as in several of the states in the United States of America, and the conclusions which it had reached in relation to capital punishment could, we thought, be collated with comparable ideas, thoughts, statistics and other material available in Canada in relation to capital punishment.
It seemed to us that all of this material could then be supplemented by representations from those who were interested in the subject of capital punishment, either for or against, and that it should be possible that this material of the United Kingdom report and the material gathered in Canada, supplemented by these oral representations, could be made available to a joint committee of parliament. We thought that a joint committee of parliament could consider all of these materials, as well as such further facts and things as it might consider relevant, and upon the basis of the whole reach conclusions which would be as wise and as likely to inspire confidence as those which could be reached by any royal commission.
We therefore are of the view that the proper course for us to recommend to this
Criminal Code
house is the appointment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament to inquire into and to report upon the question of whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment; (b) corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent.
After careful consideration, however, we reached the opinion that the defence of insanity to a charge involving criminal responsibility, as laid down by the law and applied by the courts, is a question involving expert legal and psychiatric knowledge in respect of which it seemed to us that it would be at least difficult in the first instance for a committee of laymen to reach a dependable opinion which would inspire confidence.
To us therefore it seemed preferable that the question of the defence of insanity on a charge involving criminal responsibility should be studied by a royal commission made up of recognized experts in the fields of law and psychiatry. Then if it were considered helpful or appropriate the report of such a royal commission could be made available to the parliamentary committee in connection with its consideration of the subject of capital punishment.
Therefore after the passage of the motion now before the house I am prepared, if I may have unanimous approval, to move that a joint committee as aforesaid be appointed- that is to say, to take the first step necessary to set in motion the procedure which will result in a joint committee; because, of course, the other place has to make its contribution in due course to any such committee.
For the record I think I should say, in carrying out the understanding which has been reached with the other parties, that the government has under consideration the early appointment of a royal commission to inquire into and report upon the question of whether the criminal law of Canada relating to the defence of insanity should be amended and, if so, in what manner and to what extent.
Pending the reports of the proposed royal commission and the proposed joint parliamentary committee I recommend to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my fellow members in the House of Commons that we would be wise in following the recommendations of the House of Commons committee which was appointed at the last session of parliament, to examine the criminal code bill in the manner they suggested when they said, as is set out in the report:
The committee, upon the material before it, was not prepared to recommend a change in the present law respecting the defence of insanity, lotteries and the imposition of punishment by

Criminal Code
whipping and by sentence of death, but unanimously has come to the conclusion, and so recommends, that the governor general in council give consideration to the appointment of a royal commission,-
As I understand that recommendation, it means that we shall leave the clauses relating to these four subject matters, namely the law respecting the defence of insanity, lotteries, and the imposition of punishment by whipping and by sentence of death, in the form in which they now stand in Bill No. 7; that is in the form in which they have stood for many years; and that parliament should pass these clauses in their present form, upon the government's undertaking that we shall appoint a parliamentary committee, the first step of which I propose to take tonight, if I may have the unanimous consent of the house; and that we would appoint the royal commission which I have already given an undertaking to do. It is hoped that by these instruments we may have placed before us that more complete information which, I am sure, the members of the special committee of last year as well as most other hon. members in this chamber now feel we must have before we assume the grave responsibility of changing the present law in respect of these four subjects.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has authorized me to say that the government undertakes to give the most serious and conscientious consideration to the reports of these bodies as and when they are received.
I give that undertaking because the other day, in discussion with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) he said: "Well, it is all very well for you to give an undertaking to appoint this commission and the parliamentary committee; but suppose they make a report and you just pigeonhole it; then where do we stand? Will you give us an undertaking to implement these reports?" It seemed to me that no prudent government with due regard to its responsibility could give an undertaking to carry out a report which then did not exist. So I suggested to him that the government, being a serious responsible government, would either accept these reports when they became available or would present to parliament strong reasons for not doing so, or for doing so only in part.
And if, sir, for such strong reasons the government should not introduce legislation based on these reports, I pointed out to my hon. friend, and I believe he recognized the force of the point, that it would be possible for any of the opposition parties or members, on the basis of the information disclosed by these reports, themselves to bring legislation into the house, to amend existing law. This would not be a money bill. They have as

much right to amend the law as the government. He said, "Oh, yes, but what assurance would we have that these bills moved by private members would not be manoeuvred down to the bottom of the order paper and thus fail to become law?" I said: "Well, I will secure from the Prime Minister"-as we had previously done in connection with another bill which I think it is still respectable to mention, namely the Emergency Powers Act-"an undertaking that the government will expedite the prompt consideration by this house of any such legislation introduced by the opposition based upon either of such reports as I have referred to."


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about private members on the government side?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They can be taken care of.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They have not raised this point, but I would not have the slightest hesitation in extending the same assurance to them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did you discuss that with your whip?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In this connection the government believe that in this present bill there are a number of principles which are moral in character. We think it would be in the public interest if the government inform its members that they should vote according to their conscience upon those clauses, and I would hope that the leaders of the opposition parties might perhaps be able to urge their members to do the same. Because I think we all hope that the new Criminal Code which will become law upon the passage of Bill No. 7 in its final form will be the achievement and responsibility of parliament itself rather than merely that of the government.
Now, sir, with these preliminaries out of the way, we have to consider on second reading, I suggest, the principle of this bill, namely whether after 60 years we should consolidate our Criminal Code; whether the provisions of Bill No. 7 have been arrived at by competent lawyers and legislators after adequate research, study and discussion; whether there has been ample opportunity for representations concerning this legislation to be made in a thoroughly democratic manner by interested organizations and individuals, and whether in consequence of all of these steps the provisions of Bill No. 7 now before us are adequate for their high purpose.
To answer these questions I should like to review-and I shall do it as briefly as I can-the development of the criminal law in Canada and the steps through which this present legislation has passed prior to its appearance on the order paper tonight.

Like other very large countries with widely and unevenly dispersed population, such as the United States of America, Australia and the U.S.S.R., Canada has found it advantageous to have a federal system of government under which governmental powers of responsibility have been divided between the government of Canada on the one hand and the government of its ten provinces on the other. Under this division the enactment of the criminal law is the responsibility of the national government and the parliament of Canada; but-and I do not think this point can be emphasized too strongly-once Canadian criminal law has been enacted its enforcement, with some minor exceptions, is the responsibility of the provincial authorities which are constitutionally charged with the administration of justice. It is therefore very important that we enact here laws which the provincial authorities will wish to enforce without reluctance.
In the past Canada's large-scale efforts at criminal law-making, such as this Bill No. 7 now before us, have been wise, few and far between. In 1869 the parliament of Canada passed five principal acts relating to the criminal law based on or adapted largely from the provisions of the similar consolidated' acts passed in the United Kingdom in 1861.
In 1878 a body of commissioners was established in England to prepare for that country a draft code of criminal law, and Sir James Stephen, who was the outstanding expert in that field in the United Kingdom, and had prepared the year before his well-known "Digest of Criminal Law", was a member of that royal commission. In due course, after considerable time, the United Kingdom commissioners reported, but to this day the parliament of the United Kingdom has not seen fit to enact a -code of criminal law and procedure. Instead, as I indicated earlier in my remarks, it has on its statute books upwards of 150 separate criminal statutes.
It was not until 1892 that Sir John Thompson, the then minister of justice, introduced in the parliament of Canada a criminal code, which he was able to persuade the parliament of that day to pass in the same year, unlike the one we are now considering, Mr. Speaker, which has been under preparation and consideration for nearly five years. This 1892 Canadian criminal code adapted the provisions, so far as they were applicable to Canada, of the English draft code which the English themselves had not enacted. The 1892 Canadian criminal code also attempted to assimilate and make uniform the criminal laws of the Canadian provinces which they
Criminal Code
had inherited as colonies of Great Britain as these provincial criminal laws stood at the time the provinces entered the Canadian confederation.
It is this code, introduced by Sir John Thompson, in 1892, and as amended from time to time since, that Bill No. 7, now before the house, is designed after 60 years to consolidate and in some respects to revise.
In the 1892 code there were 950 sections. Since that time there has been scarcely a session of parliament at which amendments have not been made to that code. As it stood in the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1927 it had grown to 1,152 sections. Of course one of the important reasons for this large number of clauses has been a main principle of our code, that Canadians should not be punished for conduct unless parliament had expressly declared that conduct to be unlawful.
In this present Bill No. 7 we have retained this principle, and indeed we have applied it more closely and more fully to our criminal law. If, therefore, our code is to be comprehensive of all of these things which parliament declares to be crimes, it must necessarily contain many sections. But I think, Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy and it reflects a good deal of credit upon the draftsmen and others who have taken part in the preparation of Bill No. 7 that as now before you it has 400 fewer sections than the code which is chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada of 1927; and it has 200 fewer sections than even the original code introduced by Sir John Thompson in 1892.
By the year 1948, as one would expect, the Criminal Code required a thorough overhaul. As a result of many amendments that have been made during the course of some 56 years there was a lack of uniformity of language and many provisions were ambiguous and unclear. It contained inconsistencies and anomalies. It was sometimes difficult to find the law in connection with the particular matter because separate provisions relating to that matter had been placed in different parts of the code at different times during these years. What was even a graver offence was that as a result of these extensive amendments made over a long period of time there was a substantial amount of overlapping and repetition. This state of the criminal law constituted a very serious inconvenience to practising lawyers and to the administration of justice.
Provisions relating to matters of procedure which were quite appropriate in 1892 were not at all suitable in the light of the substantial increase in the work of the criminal

Criminal Code
courts resulting, among other reasons, from the very substantial increase in the population of Canada between 1892 and 1948. Accordingly the examination and study of the Criminal Code was authorized by order in council P.C. 527 on February 3, 1949, during my term of office; but the original recommendation for the adoption of this course had been made by my distinguished predecessor, Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, as the then minister of justice early in 1948, almost, I would point out, six years ago.
The task of preparing the new consolidated code was assigned to a commission consisting of Hon. W. M. Martin, chief justice of Saskatchewan, chairman; Mr. Justice Fauteux and Mr. F. P. Varcoe, Q.C., deputy minister of justice.
In relation to the charge that is sometimes made that too many prosecutors have been engaged in the drafting of this code, I would like to point out that the counsel for this commission was a very able criminal defence lawyer of long experience, Mr. Arthur Slaght, Q.C., of Toronto.
The commission was to have the assistance of a committee comprising Mr. Robert Forsyth, Q.C., now Judge Forsyth, Toronto; Mr. Fernand Choquette, Q.C., now Mr. Justice Choquette, Quebec; H. J. Wilson, Q.C., deputy attorney general of Alberta, and again two outstanding defence lawyers, Mr. J. J. Robinette, Q.C., Toronto, and Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., Toronto. The personnel of the committee was subsequently increased and Mr. W. C. Dunlop, Q.C., Halifax, Mr. H. P. Carter, Q.C., St. John's, Newfoundland, and Mr. T. D. MacDonald, QC., Ottawa, became members of the committee.
Then, as some members of the commission and the committee found that their judicial duties or their law practices made it impossible for them to devote the very large amount of time that was necessary to get their commission work completed, the committee was reorganized by an order in council on September 26, 1950. Again on May 10, 1951, by order in council a second commission consisting of Hon. W. M. Martin, chief justice of Saskatchewan, chairman; Hon. Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette, Quebec, His Honour Judge Robert Forsyth, Toronto, Mr. H. J. Wilson, Q.C., Edmonton, Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., Toronto, and Mr. A. A. Moffat, Q.C., Ottawa, was set up and they proceeded with the work and largely finished it.
The terms of reference are, I think, important because they indicate the objectives which the commission had in front of them in their work of consolidating the code. They were these:
[Mr. Garson.l
(a)	To revise ambiguous and unclear provisions.
(b)	To adopt uniform language throughout.
(c)	To eliminate inconsistencies, legal anomalies or difficulties.
(d)	To rearrange provisions and parts.
(e)	To seek to simplify by omitting and combining provisions.
(f)	With the approval of the statute revision commission, to omit provisions which should be transferred to other statutes.
(g)	To endeavour to make the code exhaustive of the criminal law, and
(h)	To effect such procedural amendments as are deemed necessary for the speedy and fair enforcement of the criminal law.
The commissioners applied themselves to this task with the assistance of Mr. J. C. Martin, for many years a provincial magistrate at Weyburn and a well-known student of the criminal law in Canada, who acted as counsel to the commission. In the actual drafting of the bill the commission received assistance from Mr. A. J. MacLeod, who is the senior advisory counsel to the Department of Justice itself. I have named all of these gentlemen to show that we have drawn on legal talent of very varied experience from all parts of Canada to assist us in this matter.
The commission submitted its final report, together with a draft criminal code consolidation bill, to the government on January 22, 1952.
The government spent a few months giving consideration to the draft and then it was introduced into the other place as Senate Bill No. H-8 on May 2, 1952. It was referred to the Senate banking and commerce committee which appointed a subcommittee under the chairmanship of Senator Hayden to examine the bill clause by clause and to report upon it. Amongst the other senators from the other place who served prominently on that committee were Senators Farris, Roebuck and Haig. I would ask the house to note that these are not prosecuting lawyers. They are all widely known, experienced and successful criminal defence lawyers.
The bill was considered by that subcommittee until the end of the session early in 1952 and although that subcommittee met four or five times each week, time did not permit the subcommittee to make a final report to the main committee before parliament adjourned.
The bill was revised again by the Department of Justice in the summer of 1952 in the light of the discussions in the other place

and in its committee, and in the light of representations which we received from individuals and organizations. It was again introduced in November, 1952, as Bill O in the other place where it was again referred to the banking and commerce committee.
The banking and commerce committee set up the same subcommittee which after considering the bill clause by clause, reported it on December 16, 1952 with no less than 116 amendments. Some of these were slight and technical. Some, on the other hand, indicated differences of opinion on matters of substance and demonstrated that the other place was not accepting automatically the recommendations of those men, including members of the royal commission, who had previously worked on the legislation, however eminent and able they might be.
The high sense of legislative responsibility with which the other place and its committee examined the bill is indicated by its recommendations of changes of substances in clauses concerning amongst others the following matters:	Appeals from convictions for contempt
of court, treason, duelling, explosives, corroboration in sexual offences, failure of persons to provide necessities of life for persons dependent upon them, presumptions arising out of evidence of recent possession, custody and disposal of things seized under a search warrant, backing warrants, election of mode of trial by an accused, procedure on forfeiture of a recognizance and appeals in summary conviction cases. These were the chief matters in respect of which amendments in substance were made.
After being passed by the Senate on December 17, 1952, the bill was sent to this house substantially improved. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons in January, 1953, as Bill No. 93 and after second reading was referred to the special committee of 17 members, mostly lawyers, for examination and report. That committee was under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown).
If it is not unbecoming of me as a lawyer myself to say so, that committee did such a conscientious and outstanding job of considering and revising the bill that I think I should certainly identify its membership on Hansard. They were, as of May 1, 1953, the following:	Messrs. Browne (St. John's
West), Cameron, Cardin, Churchill, Crestohl, Gauthier (Lake St. John), Garson, Henderson, Huffman, Maclnnis, MacNaught, Macnaugh-ton, Montgomery, Noseworthy, Robichaud, Shaw and, of course, the chairman, the hon. member for Essex West.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: All lawyers.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Along with the members of the royal commission and the others who have taken part in the preparation of this bill, I think they are entitled to a substantial share of the credit for the piece of legislation we now have before us. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this committee certainly held and presented strong views, with great force and zeal; and sometimes their controversies became a bit heated. But they were always objective and, best of all, they were non-political. This committee held 37 meetings. A subcommittee held 12 sittings to settle such matters as questions of procedure and to deal with the task of summarizing the great volume of representations made to the committee.
The committee heard oral representations by delegations appearing on behalf of the following national organizations. I make this point, Mr. Speaker, because there has been throughout the country a tendency upon the part of editors and others to say that we in parliament have rather supinely accepted a draft bill prepared by a royal commission and that we have not, in relation to that bill, properly discharged our legislative functions. Such charges are completely without foundation. I do not think there has ever been brought before this house, during the time that I have been here, a bill which has received more careful, detailed and systematic consideration than has this one, nor in respect of which there has been greater opportunity for democratic representation.
Here are just some of the national organizations which were heard by the House of Commons committee: The Canadian Congress of Labour; the Trades and Labour Congress; the Canadian Jewish Congress; the Premium Advertising Association of America Incorporated; the League for Democratic Rights; the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America; the Congress of Canadian Women; the Association of Civil Liberties; the Canadian Welfare Council; the Canadian Mental Health Association; the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (Canadian section); the Canadian Restaurant Association. Is there any indication here that we have barred any segment of public opinion, however radical it might be, from a hearing?
Then in addition to hearing those organizations who sent delegations to appear before the committee, we gave detailed consideration to briefs and resolutions addressed to the committee by over 80 organizations, of whom the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, the National Council of Women, the Manitoba Bar Association, the civil liberties committee of the Canadian Bar

Criminal Code
Association, the bar of the province of Quebec, the International Association of Machinists and the committee on criminal procedure of the Canadian Bar Association are only a typical few. There is not a clause of the bill now before hon. members that was not examined in detail by the committee.
Among matters in respect of which the special committee recommended amendments, which have been accepted and are now incorporated in this bill, were the following: appeals in contempt of court cases, treason, sabotage, witness giving contradictory evidence, corroboration in sexual offences, trespassing by night, homicide, administering drugs, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, criminal breach of contract, mischief, offences that must be tried by jury, arrest, election of mode of trial, compensation for loss of property resulting from the commission of offences, whipping, tariff of fees in summary conviction matters, and transitional provisions.
The report of the special committee, recommending amendments in respect of these matters that I have just mentioned and other consequential amendments, was tabled in this house in May, 1953. However, as the members of the present house who were members of the preceding house will recall, the remaining time before the prorogation of parliament was not sufficient to enable the bill to be proceeded with and it died on the order paper. With the exceptions which I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, this Bill No. 7 with 753 clauses which is now before the house-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; 744 clauses.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. If you go on a little bit further you will find the others. This bill is the same bill as that which was passed by the other place in December, 1952, with the amendments thereto recommended by the special committee of the last parliament in May, 1953.
I should now like to point out a few matters in respect of which changes are effected by this bill in the present law of Canada. In the first place, common law offences are abolished. Hon. members will recall that in their terms of reference the commissioners were directed to endeavour to make the code exhaustive of the criminal law. The commissioners concluded that the code should be exhaustive in so far as the definition of criminal offences is concerned, but that the criminal common law of England, as presently in force in Canada, should be continued in respect of other matters in so far as that law had not already been codified in this country. Those were matters 
relating to procedure, matters of defence, including justification and excuse, and rules of evidence.
The result, therefore, under this bill is that the common law that is now in force in Canada in respect of criminal law and procedure remains in force except that the bill precludes the institution of criminal proceedings for common law offences.
Does that mean that common law offences have been abolished by this bill? Yes; they have been abolished as common law offences, but most of them have been replaced by offences codified in this bill. What has happened is that the royal commission consulted with the provincial law enforcement officers and found that resort had been had to common law offences, over the past 60 years, in only a very limited number of cases. These cases have now been incorporated in this bill, in codified form, as Criminal Code offences. In this way we have reached the position which we think is desirable, namely that no Canadian can be charged in Canada with an offence unless the conduct which constitutes that offence has been proscribed by the Criminal Code.
The second point which I think is worthy of notice is that the royal commission recommended the abolition of minimum punishments; that is, it gave the court complete discretion to go as low in the punishment as it wished to go. It also recommended the abolition of increased maximum punishments for second and subsequent offences. Under the present law minimum punishments are provided for the offences of driving while intoxicated, driving while ability is impaired, theft of certain matter from the mail, theft of a motor car and robbery of the mail. The government did not feel that it could, at this time, accept the recommendation of the royal commission in respect of the abolition of minimum punishments for all of these offences; and in the result minimum punishments are retained for the offences of driving while intoxicated and while ability is impaired, and in respect of thefts from the mail. The view of the government in this regard has been accepted by the other place and by the special committee of the House of Commons at the last session of parliament.
With regard to the question of punishment generally, the royal commissioners noted that the sentences provided in the present code follow no apparent pattern or principle, and in the view of the commission these punishments were frequently not consonant with the gravity of the offences to which they related. The commissioners were of opinion that there should be a few general divisions of punishment by imprisonment, and that each offence

should then be assigned to one of these divisions. Accordingly, apart from those cases where the sentence of death may be imposed, maximum sentences of imprisonment for all offences under this bill fall into one of five classes, namely, life, fourteen years, ten years, five years or two years. For all summary conviction offences under the bill one maximum punishment is provided, namely, a fine of $500 or six months imprisonment or both.
I have referred to these matters particularly for the purpose of indicating to the house some of the typical sections of the bill as drafted by the Department of Justice upon the basis of the royal commission's reports, which the Senate and the House of Commons committee thought worthy of special attention and amendment. This list of such examples is not exhaustive of course, but it is typical.
My main purpose, however, has been to satisfy members of this house first, that our Criminal Code requires consolidation; second, that this present legislation, Bill No. 7, was prepared after long study and research by a royal commission of eminent lawyers, including some of the leading criminal defence lawyers in Canada; third, that it received the most thorough and1 detailed consideration, clause by clause, by the other place, by its committees, and in particular by the special House of Commons committee; fourth, that anyone or any organization who wished to make representations concerning this legislation was given ample opportunity to do so in person or in writing, and that a substantial number of amendments indeed were made in the legislation in its evolution from the original draft received from the royal commission to the form in which it now appears before hon. members, as a result of such representations; fifth, that the consideration which this legislation has received to date has been long, patient, careful and thoroughly democratic, and that scores, if not hundreds, of Canadians have taken an honourable part in that consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, if I can remember it correctly I think I should like to begin somewhere near where the minister left off. That was a little while ago, at the stage when he was paying tribute to the committee of the house which reviewed the legislation now before us, now known as Bill No. 7 and known last year as Bill No. 93.
I was very glad indeed to hear the minister pay that tribute to the committee, because as I recall it, in the early stages of the last session of the last parliament we were not apt to hear quite so much tribute paid in advance to the work that a parliamentary
Criminal Code
committee might do. Indeed, I recall that it was suggested that the bill had been thoroughly reviewed in various other places, including the royal commission and the other house of this parliament and that in fact it might be expected to go through this chamber without really very much discussion.
Perhaps I may be entitled to say for the members of the official opposition that we take some credit for this, that had it not been for the attitude expressed by this party, joined on that occasion by the other parties in opposition, I think quite possibly the bill would have proceeded through this chamber with only a cursory examination. That appeared to be the desire of the minister at that time. But we were successful in having it referred to a parliamentary committee, not in fact to a joint parliamentary committee but to a committee of this house which, as the minister has said, consisted of 17 members who gave it the detailed examination to which he has referred.
I mention these facts not merely to remind the minister and the house of what happened, but to draw attention to the fact that there is probably no more important legislation confronting the house, no legislation of greater interest and concern to the people of Canada, than the bill to revise the Criminal Code.
What happened last year when the bill was referred to a special committee of the house? In that committee the bill received over 70 amendments and, as the minister pointed out, it is the bill as amended by the special committee of this house which is now before us. In that committee alone it received over 70 amendments. That, as the minister has said, was after the bill had been considered by a royal commission, by a special committee and by a committee of the other place on two separate occasions. It had received four separate considerations before it ever came before a committee of this house.
In the committee of the other place on the first occasion it received, as I read the debates of that place, over 63 amendments, and on the second occasion 117 amendments, making a total of 180 amendments written into the legislation by the banking and commerce committee of the other place before it ever came before the House of Commons. Then, as I say, it received a further 70 amendments by the special committee of this house, and those 250 odd amendments are now incorporated in Bill No. 7 which is before the house at this session.
Therefore it seems to me that is a measure, if any such measure were required, of the importance of the legislation now before us and of the requirement of careful consideration and scrutiny which it is incumbent upon

Criminal Code
this house to give the legislation. That being the ease, it seems to me that one should refer for a moment to the history of the criminal law as outlined by the minister.
I am quite certain that the house and the country as a whole will be grateful to the minister for the very careful and exhaustive review he has given us of that subject. I think he told us that the first time a criminal code was enacted in Canada was at a time when Sir John Thompson was minister of justice, and that at that time the first codification of the criminal law was embodied in a statute of some 960 sections. It has not been revised, as he said, for some 60 years until the present time when it is now to be embodied, if the bill goes through with the present number of clauses, in a bill of 753 sections.
I could not help but be struck by the possibility of comparison. When it was first enacted in Sir John Thompson's time it was a statute of 960 sections, and not a bad code, Mr. Speaker, I think you will admit. It stood up to the test of time, with considerable modification and amendment. But if it was enacted in 960 sections in one year and has stood the test of time, and if the reduction to 753 sections under the aegis of the present Minister of Justice has taken five years, then God save America if we ever try to reduce it to 100 sections. I wonder if it means that Canadians are becoming somewhat more criminal in tendency? I do not quite understand why it should take us five years to reduce to 753 sections what we were able to codify in 960 sections in one year back in the 1890's. I do not think we are very much more criminally inclined now than we were then.
Perhaps our theories about punishment and penal reform are responsible; I do not know. But it does seem to me, and I suggest this to the minister and to hon. members in this house, that our approach to the question of the Criminal Code could be summarized and perhaps simplified if we embodied it in a section which 1 have already suggested as a title, and that is, an act for the prevention and punishment of crime. That is what we are concerned with in this mass of legislation before us.
I suggest, and I hope the minister will agree with me, that extraneous subjects such as penal reform and things of that kind should not be part of the Criminal Code of Canada. I agree with the minister to that extent, that the only principle before us here is the question of whether or not the Criminal Code is now due for revision and codification. I say without reservation that we in the official opposition agree with

him wholeheartedly that it is due for revision and codification. It will not be necessary, therefore, for us to long delay the debate at this stage, because we are in agreement with the principle of the legislation.
I have referred already to the careful consideration which this measure has received in the various committees of parliament, and that the fact indicates the importance of this measure to the people of Canada. I should like to lay before you, sir, some statistics indicating the importance of this legislation to the people of Canada. According to figures originally produced in the debate in the Senate on this subject, in the year 1948 the total number of convictions under criminal or quasicriminal processes in Canadian courts amounted to 918,277, as revealed in the Canada Year Book of that year. By reference to the bureau of statistics I am informed that the latest figures for 1952, four years later, show the total number of convictions in Canadian courts to be 1,355,399, or an increase of over 400,000 in the four years.
It must be admitted immediately that these figures are influenced by the admission to confederation of Newfoundland. I would certainly be the last to suggest that the newest province and oldest colony of the British Empire is entirely responsible for the increase in the figures. I would decry any such suggestion. It is significant when you stop to think that out of a population of about 14 million you should have 1,355,399 convictions in courts in one year. If I am not mistaken that is approximately 10 per cent.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, figures can be quite misleading. I do not want to suggest that all those are convictions under the Criminal Code because obviously, as the minister and most members of the house will appreciate, a substantial proportion of those convictions will be for traffic offences which are not under the code at all. The main feature, it seems to me, is that the procedure, by and large, under which all these offences are tried and which resulted in these convictions is generally laid down and prescribed by the Criminal Code of Canada. This is true even although the offences may have been under provincial statutes.
All these statistics, combined with the number of amendments made already to this particular legislation, indicate the tremendous importance of this legislation to the people of Canada. It is hardly necessary to try to emphasize the fact that the Criminal Code of the country is that body of law by which the rights and liberties of the citizens are determined. The embodiment in that criminal law of the principle of British justice that a man is innocent until he is proven

Criminal Code
guilty, from which I am glad to say that with certain minor exceptions there is no detraction in the legislation now before us, is one of the most important things to the people of Canada because upon it depends the fundamental tradition of the freedom of the subject.
I mention these things, Mr. Speaker, not because I want to prolong this debate, although one could if he wished become quite emotional concerning these principles. I do not think it is possible to stress too greatly the importance of the task upon which this house is about to embark, and that is the clause by clause consideration of this bill to codify the Criminal Code of Canada.
There remain only a few things I wish to mention. Since the minister has laid special emphasis upon the work of the special committee of this house, I feel I, too, should pay tribute to that committee. It was composed of 17 members of the house, and it gave exhaustive and careful consideration to the legislation before us. Without seeking in any way to single out one member of that committee above any of the others for special mention, after consultation with all the members of the committee drawn from all parts of the house I think it is fair to say that there was no member who made a greater contribution than the former member for Gloucester, Mr. Albany Robichaud. Mr. Robi-chaud is no longer the member for Gloucester, although the sitting member bears the same name. I am certain that he will do his best, as the former member did, to represent that constituency. Mr. Albany Robichaud, a lawyer learned in the criminal law, gave of his best to the work of that committee and made a tremendous contribution. Another member I should like to mention, whose advice we in this party particularly like to have, is the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery), who is the sitting member for that constituency and was a member of the committee during the last session.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, the only other thing to be gone into at this point is the question of the procedure to be followed in dealing with this legislation. I must say at the outset that, according to my understanding, the minister has scrupulously followed the general understanding we arrived at on the basis of private discussions. The procedure as suggested is that, after second reading, we should proceed clause by clause with the consideration of the bill in committee of the whole. While it is hoped that those clauses which were considered in detail by the special committee last year-and this, of course, comprises the majority of clauses
in the bill-will not require much discussion, nevertheless if or when any clause arises upon which a member desires to have some discussion, there will be no attempt to curtail debate. If it appears that the debate upon that clause or the principle embodied in it will be somewhat lengthy, the suggestion will be made that consideration of the clause in question be postponed to a later time and that, particularly with respect to these four special subjects of capital punishment, corporal punishment, insanity and gambling laws, as the clauses are reached they will automatically be stood over for further consideration.
So it might be hoped that we would pass in committee, without extended debate, the great bulk of the clauses of the bill; and then all those clauses in respect of which it is indicated by any member that there is a desire for extended debate will be returned to and discussed clause by clause.
I take it from the minister's attitude at the moment that he agrees that I have correctly interpreted our previous discussion. On this basis I think it is proper to anticipate that the bill could be passed into law at this session of parliament without any great difficulty. But I think it only proper to make to the house on this occasion the reservation which I stated previously to the minister. 1 know there are a number of members-and I am not indicating that I share their views, because as a matter of fact I do not-who have a reservation with respect to the question of capital punishment.
What they are being asked to do, what the house is being asked to do and what the committee will be asked to do, is to enact into law and continue in force capital punishment-and I am just singling this out as one particular subject in respect of which they may have grave disagreement. Therefore it is only to be expected that when those clauses dealing with capital punishment are reached there will be most protracted and strenuous debate on the part of those members.
I wish to make that perfectly clear. I wish to make it clear that I have in no sense indicated to the minister that we would curtail debate on controversial clauses merely because of the assurance that special committees will be appointed to deal with those controversial subjects. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I think the minister, if I may say so, has suggested a very methodical and common-sense method of procedure. I agree with that method of procedure; but, speaking, as I have the honour to do on this occasion, on behalf of the official opposition, I do not want to be taken as indicating that we are seeking to restrict the right of any
9S0

Criminal Code
member to debate any of those controversial subjects even though they may be referred to a special committee.
I think the only other point necessary to mention is that we appreciate the minister's assurance that when these subjects have been referred as indicated, three of them to special committees and one to a royal commission, the government will introduce legislation based upon the recommendations of those bodies. But, as is quite possible, the government may find itself in disagreement with those recommendations. Therefore we would not expect it to consider itself bound by any undertaking it might now attempt to give by way of introducing legislation based upon recommendations with which it disagreed.
Therefore the government, in accordance with the undertaking given tonight by the minister, will facilitate the consideration of private members' legislation, or legislation introduced or placed upon the order paper by private members, based upon the recommendations of those committees, even though the government itself does not propose to introduce legislation on that basis.
I think it fair and proper to say that this is as complete an assurance as one might expect from any government that this subject will be dealt with impartially and in a spirit which will enable the House of Commons to consider the matter as a deliberative and not as a political body. We appreciate the length to which the minister has gone in giving us assurances in that regard.
In conclusion I should like to make a few general observations. Notwithstanding the previous very careful and full consideration given to this matter by the various committees, commissions and bodies the minister has mentioned, we do not abrogate in any respect our right or obligation to give the fullest scrutiny to the details of this legislation. Let me repeat what I said on the previous occasion when this bill was introduced for second reading, in the last parliament-and may I say that I am not going to indulge in the temptation which is quite frequently indulged in by members who take the liberty of reading what they themselves have said on previous occasions. I shall say simply that I adhere to the principles I enunciated at that time, as they are set forth at pages 1276 and following of Hansard for January 23, 1953.


An hon. Member:: It is worth repeating.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, if the hon. member thinks it is worth putting on Hansard again I will leave to him the opportunity of doing so. But I have never thought my own remarks were worth repeating.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be so modest.


Mr. Adamson:: Oh, Davie!


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Can we quote you on that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, I have always felt that my remarks have registered so well in the first instance that it has been unnecessary to repeat them.
While wishing to facilitate and assist in the process of the codification and revision of the criminal law of Canada, by and large those of us in the official opposition feel that the most important essential is to preserve in no way unimpaired the principles of British criminal justice which have been the hallmark of this and other members of the commonwealth nations since their inception.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that this legislation comes before us at the present time after a great deal of study by a great many people. I do not need to take time to rehearse the history of that study, which has been so well and so fully placed before us by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), including of course the very thorough study and examination of Bill No. 93 which was made by a committee of the House of Commons in the last session of the last parliament.
However, I think it should be said, in line with the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) toward the end of his speech, that if Bill No. 7 which is now before us is to be passed by this parliament, the responsibility for it rests finally upon the members of this present parliament. Therefore we must take that responsibility seriously; we must not at any point slide over sections of the bill when we are in committee, because someone says these sections have been studied thoroughly by commissions and committees over the past five or six years. I am sure the Minister of Justice, even though he may be anxious that this bill get through at this session instead of dying on the order paper as it has on two occasions, will agree with me that the responsibility for the act as it is finally passed rests upon the members of the parliament in which it is passed.
A good deal has been said tonight as to the procedure that has been agreed upon between the Minister of Justice on the one hand and representatives of the various opposition parties on the other. It is fair to say that the procedure as outlined by him is the procedure that we in our group understood from the report made to us by our colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis).


However, in connection with the procedure there are one or two comments that I should like to make. There can be no quarrel with the minister's statement that it is difficult on the second reading of a bill, with 753 sections and a great many principles, to try and discuss the principle of that bill. There is a good deal to be said not only from the government's point of view but from the point of view of hon. members generally for the proposal that we have our general discussion divided into a number of general discussions, and that those discussions take place in the committee of the whole on the bill. That being so, it puts a little different complexion on the motion for the second reading of this bill than is usually the case. Usually when a bill has had second reading it means that the house has approved of the principle of that bill. Usually that principle is one principle, and stands out rather clearly.
In this instance we want it clearly understood that so far as we are concerned, when second reading of this bill has been agreed to by this house, all that we shall have agreed to is that the code should be revised and that the house should go into committee of the whole to consider not only the various sections as they come along but the various parts of the code with the different principles that underlie these various parts. In other words, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear that there may be certain sections of the bill which, when we come to them in committee, we shall find ourselves in this group unable to accept. We do not want it said at that time that we agreed to those sections when we agreed to let the bill be read a second time.
I think the smile on the minister's face indicates that he agrees with these reservations, and I am sure he understands our position in that connection. As a matter of fact I imagine the minister is in something of that position himself, because he has indicated tonight that when we get into committee of the whole there will be some more amendments from the government to be made to the bill. In other words he himself, in approving second reading of the bill, does not wish to be tied1 to the suggestion that he has at this point agreed to everything in the bill as it now sands. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it should be clear that there are these four subjects which the minister referred to, which are going to be discussed at some point in this procedure.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) took a slightly different approach to this problem from that which the Minister of Justice took. The Minister of Justice was assuming that the house would let these sections in the bill that deal with insanity,
Criminal Code
capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries go through on the ground that that was simply carrying forward the law as it now stands, with the understanding that it may be changed later on as a result of the report of a committee of parliament and of a royal commission.
When the Minister of Justice was proposing that these sections be dealt with in that way I certainly had a question in my own mind, and one of my colleagues came and spoke to me about it, as to whether that was not asking us to do too much. The point made by the hon. member for Kamloops is well taken, that even though when we get to these sections it might be argued that it is just a case of carrying forward the law as it now is, in point of fact this parliament will be re-enacting these provisions, and I suggest no attempt should be made to curtail discussion on the part of hon. members who are interested in those clauses when we come to them.
In addition, since it is the government's desire to deal in committee of the whole with all of the clauses of the bill except the clauses relating to these four subjects, it does occur to me that maybe there is room for discussing some of these subjects right now when we are on second reading of the bill. If the minister does not favour that procedure, then I suggest that at least there is room for discussing them-very clearly there is room for so doing-on the minister's motion that a special committee be set up. The minister said tonight that when we finish second reading of the bill, he would, if he had the consent of the house to do so without the required notice, move the motion that such a committee be set up. He said he would make his motion bearing in mind that other steps would have to be taken. That of course is a debatable motion and certainly any comments with respect to the subjects included in the minister's motion would be relevant in that debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, upon a point of pseudo-privilege-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is quite an admission on the minister's part.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -to make this suggestion. All that we have sought by the arrangements I attempted to outline tonight is to achieve an orderly method of debate that will give all hon. members the best possible facilities and opportunity for a proper discussion of the bill, and to debate it, and to vote on it intelligently. In my humble view that will be achieved by the course that I have already advocated for consideration of the bill in the manner in which I have indicated.

Criminal Code
If when we reach these clauses dealing with capital punishment and the other three subjects in the committee of the whole hon. members would wish to debate them or make speeches in relation to them, I am sure that no informal understanding that had been reached between the parties could have the effect of curtailing the right of a member to speak on that section if he wished to do so. But having regard to the fact that any discussion which does take place must take place in the light of the government's undertaking to have these very things examined by a parliamentary committee and a royal commission, to the end that we shall all be in a better position more intelligently to discuss and legislate, I should have thought that most hon. members would think their contributions to such a debate might be deferred until such time as they had the Denefit of the knowledge which these investigations would bring out. And that especially is this so where the government has undertaken either to implement the reports of those bodies if they conscientiously thought it was appropriate to do so, or that if the government could not do so the government would expedite consideration of any legislation which opposition members might wish to introduce.
If we debate these subjects such as capital punishment when the bill is in committee of the whole we are debating them in the light of these facts, and the man who debates them in the light of these facts is really taking the position:	"I am going to insist
upon the right to make a speech upon this subject even despite the fact that the chances are ten to one that when I get the report of the royal commission and the parliamentary committee I will be able to make a better and more intelligent speech than I can make now. I am going to express my own ego and my own views regardless of the fact that I may be able to make a better speech later."


Stanley Howard Knowles: The exchanges we have just had help to clear the air in part and do the other thing as well. At any rate I think this should be said. We have been discussing, the minister and I just now, two questions. One is the right of members to discuss these questions of capital punishment and so on at various stages in the procedure that has been outlined. The other is the minister's judgment or pseudo-judgment, to use his own prefix, as to whether or not it is a good idea. I wanted to have that clear-I did not ask for that obiter dictum-namely that members have the right if they wish to do so to discuss these questions at one or other of the stages I have indicated.

I do not propose to do so myself. That is not because of the opinion just expressed by the minister, but because I have several other things I wish to say and I prefer to leave these matters to some of my colleagues. It is not perhaps unusual that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and I have taken this time to discuss these procedural arrangements, for we wish to know where we stand both in the house and in committee in regard to this important bill.
We agree that after 60 years it is time for the criminal law of this country to be revised, codified and consolidated. But when that process is being carried out surely certain things should be considered. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops when he said he felt there should be nothing in the criminal law dealing with such subjects as penal reform. I remember, as a matter of fact, that he made an interjection which carried that implication at a certain point in a speech I made on the subject last January.
Despite the position he takes, and no doubt he takes it because he is a lawyer, it seems to me there is room in the Criminal Code- perhaps it should have a better name-for some indication that society has moved on and made progress in its thinking with regard to the philosophy of dealing with crime and its prevention. Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that Bill No. 7 includes many amendments and changes from Bill No. 93 and from Bill H of the year before, and the drafts that we have had down the line, I see in it as it is now before us nothing to suggest an appreciation of the advances that have been made in the thinking on this important question.
It seems to me there was merit in the suggestion in the brief submitted by the Canadian Welfare Council that there might well have been included in the Criminal Code a preamble outlining its purpose. I will not take up the time of the house to repeat the quotation I made from that brief last year, or repeat the other submissions made along this line.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What do you think of the title I suggested at that time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My quarrel with that title suggested by the member for Kamloops is that it seems to narrow the bill within the confines that I am now objecting to, whereas it does seem to me we should treat crime as something not only to be punished but to be prevented.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is what I suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I have misunderstood my hon. friend I will certainly-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I may just quote a passage from page 1288 of Hansard dated January 23, 1953:
I suggest that the title should be "An act for the prevention and punishment of crime." That is what it is concerned with.
I wonder if you would care to comment on that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My comment on that title- and we are getting off the problem a bit, Mr. Speaker-was made a moment ago in relation to the point the hon. member for Kamloops made that he did not think matters relating to penal reform should be in the Criminal Code. I do not see how you are going to have an act which is concerned in part with prevention of crime if it does not contain some reference to penal reform. However, perhaps we are just differing on terminology.
My main quarrel is not with the hon. member for Kamloops. My main quarrel is with the Criminal Code itself or with the government that has brought it in for failing to infuse into the criminal law the results of the advanced thinking by psychologists and philosophers who have studied this whole problem.
Without getting into any of the details or sections of the bill which it is not in order to discuss on second reading, it does seem to me something of that approach should be included in the revision or codification of the Criminal Code after all these years. Then too, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that when we are revising the Criminal Code we should bear in mind that it may be another 60 years before it is done again, and we should consider as a result of that situation whether the purpose of the Criminal Code is to secure convictions or to prevent crime.
I am glad to know that our comments or representations on this point last year both in the house and in committee have been noted by the minister. He apparently was conscious of them, for he went out of his way several times tonight to draw to our attention the fact that the men who served on the commission and the people connected with the rewriting of the code over the past few years included a number of defence lawyers as well as criminal lawyers. I always smile when I hear the term "criminal lawyer" but I only take those words out of the minister's mouth.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, my term was "criminal defence lawyers".


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are having the best of both worlds.
Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any case the minister has tried to make the point that there were defence lawyers interested in this codification as well as lawyers for the prosecution, but it seems to me that the code as a whole has not yet got away from that earlier view that its purpose is to secure convictions.
Another comment is this. Here again, Mr. Speaker, it is a criticism that we made last year. I have not taken the time to check through all the sections in order to see whether changes were made, but certainly in some cases that I pointed out last year we still have rather heavy increases in the punishments to be meted out. I think in particular of one that I mentioned last year where there was an increase in the amendment made in 1951 and now there is a heavy increase again in the new code.
Perhaps this is just another phase of what I have been speaking about up to this point, and it is just this. When we are revising the code I think we should be concerned with the whole philosophy of the treatment of criminals and crime. My view is that merely to stiffen the penalties is not to reveal the fact that a great deal of studying and thinking has been done in this field. From my point of view, it is that sort of approach that should be involved in a 60-year revision rather than just a concern to end up with a code that has a few hundred sections less than was the case before.
That may or may not be a good thing. Maybe it would be a better code if it had 2,000 sections instead of being reduced to 753 sections. My point is that the important aspect of this whole problem is to make sure that our modern knowledge and modern understanding of crime, its treatment and its prevention, and our modern ideas as to what to do to make sure that we are not making worse criminals out of people who break the law-all of that-should find its expression in the criminal law of this country.
There are just one or two other things I want to say. We feel also that at a time when the Criminal Code is being revised we should be extremely careful. I go along with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton); perhaps I go a little bit further, but I certainly go all the way with him in his insistence that there be no departure or no detraction from the basic principles of justice that have been enshrined in Canadian criminal law and in British criminal law down across the years.
I am glad to hear the statement of the hon. member for Kamloops, as a lawyer, that he knows of few if any instances where there

Criminal Code
has been, in the code, a departure from the basic principle that a person is innocent until he is proved guilty. But I suggest that there is even more than just that principle which comes into play only when people come before the courts. I have in mind the whole basic question of freedom which is so terribly important to the future of our society.
I am sure that all of us who read the statement attributed to Mr. Adlai Stevenson the other day realized that he was saying something that had to be said; but it hurt when we noted that he said that people today- and he was speaking, of course, mainly of his own country-are living not under four freedoms but under four fears. I will not repeat them all, but the one that hit me most squarely between the eyes was his suggestion that there was now a very real fear of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that our situation in this country seems to me much better than the situation in that great country to the south of us in this respect, at least at the present time. I certainly hope that what they are going through down there at this time is just a phase that will pass. At any rate our concern is with our own atmosphere. If I may once again paraphrase the words that Sir Winston Churchill used a year and a half ago in this connection, may I say that we must not lose confidence in democracy's capacity to tolerate free speech. I know the minister will say that he agrees with me in that regard, that he could not agree more, and that there is nothing in the code that interferes in any way with that basic principle.
I just want to say at this time that one of the reservations I was making a few moments ago, when I said on behalf of this group that agreeing to second reading of the bill does not mean agreeing to all of the principles involved in the bill, was that we are not so sure but that in some of the sections dealing with sedition and treason the code borders fairly closely on an attempt to legislate as to people's thinking and as to people's utterances.
I suggest that we must be extremely careful in this field. Let us lean over backwards. Freedom is one of the great traditions that we have inherited from the British side of our history. It is one of the great traditions of this country. Like the hon. member for Kamloops, I do not want to indulge in anything emotional; but this is certainly a field where feelings are deep and where we are dealing with something extremely sacred. I merely suggest that when the Criminal Code is being revised it is a time to be on guard to protect those freedoms rather than a time

when any of those freedoms or civil liberties should be interfered with or cut down in any way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear my friend the hon. member for Kamloops say "hear, hear" at that point. I remember something he said along those lines a year ago. I may not quote him exactly, but if I do not paraphrase him correctly he will set me right. He said that we should take a stand such as the one I am now indicating without being deterred from it because some people who have ideas that we do not agree with take the same position. Let us not let the law of association that is applied in some localities deter us from doing what we believe to be right and what we believe to be part and parcel of our traditions and our destiny in this important aspect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let us not be afraid because other people may have already muddied the water.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member has looked up his speech and is now quoting himself.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; the hon. member is quoting me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to do so if he will give me the reference to the page.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, never mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As reported at page 1278 of Hansard of January 23, 1953, he said:
I take the view that notwithstanding the fact that the communists may have muddied the water, we should not refrain from expressing our own considered opinions . . .
Those are the words of the hon. member for Kamloops. I am glad he yielded to the temptation to quote himself.
Mr. Speaker, there is just one other reference I wish to make. We feel that when the Criminal Code is being revised is no time to bring what belongs in the field of labour legislation into the Criminal Code. Since I believe in obeying the rules of the house I cannot refer to the sections of the bill; I will not even look at it, though it is here on my desk. The minister knows what I have in mind. The members of the committee, of course, know the hours that were spent in that committee on this question during the last session of parliament. The fact of the matter is that we have labour laws in this country. As a matter of fact we have eleven of them. We have our own federal labour code, and each of the provinces has its labour legislation.
We feel that the handling of labour matters should be left to those labour laws. When you import into the Criminal Code

sections or regulations that affect the rights of labour, the rights of trade unionists, and particularly when you make reference to what is provided by law-bearing in mind the fact that that law can be eleven different laws-you run the risk of putting in the hands of some people a club against labour and against the rights of trade unionists in this country. We are opposed to any move in that direction.
I do not want to infringe upon the rule which says we are not to discuss the sections of a bill when we are on second reading, but I do want to make it very clear that one of the numbered sections to which the minister referred in his summary a while ago is a section concerning which, when we get to it, we shall have something to say and, indeed, in its present form we would find it impossible to accept. We take that position because we feel very strongly that the rights that have been won by labour in this country are part and parcel of our great democratic tradition, part and parcel of the traditions of freedom that mean so much to the life of this country and that should not be lost in any way.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we are prepared to agree to the procedure that has been suggested, accepting it solely as procedure, namely that the bill be given second reading so we can get into committee, and it is understood that that does not carry with it approval in principle of the sections of the bill. As the minister suggested, we will deal with the sections when we come to them in the committee, and our principal interest when we come to these sections will be to make sure that nothing is done in this revision of the Criminal Code to interfere with the established rights of labour or the great traditions of freedom that mean so much to our Canadian democracy.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, we regret that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), who was our member on the committee, is not able to be here tonight because it was his intention to speak for the Social Credit group in this debate. So it devolves upon me to fill in for him.
I should like to assure the Minister of Justice that we are in full agreement with the procedure which has been agreed upon by negotiation with the party representatives in connection with this bill, although at the same time we will be concerned about every opportunity for full and free discussion by hon. members of every phase of law that is to be found in the bill. I hope it will be possible for us to preserve the vast amount of work that has already been done. I hope
Criminal Code
that we will not need to have any substantial repetition of that work during the coming year.
I think the special committee did most excellent work last session. In my judgment they heard representations from a great many individuals and groups of people and organizations, and gave them every opportunity to present their views with respect to the revisions that ought to be made in the Criminal Code after 60 years of experience with it. So I say I hope we will be able to preserve all the good work that has been done and make the wisest use of it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that after 60 years the criminal law should be revised and brought up to date. He felt that it should be, and X thoroughly agree with him. We have made progress. Human beings in their social affairs and social contacts have made great progress over the years, and I suppose we will now look at some things somewhat differently from the way people did 60 years ago. But I remind the hon. member that what is in this Criminal Code is pretty much what was laid down in fundamental law as far back as the time Moses received the tablets of law on Mount Sinai, and that was a good many years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There were only ten clauses in that law.


Solon Earl Low: That is quite true, but those are the fundamentals of law and they have not changed one particle since that time. I do not expect that I would be favourably inclined to changing any one of them now in the way they are applied in our Criminal Code. The rights of man are bound up in these ten commandments, and they are so important that we should make certain none of them is changed.
Although I certainly will go along with those who say that we should now be giving considerable thought to the question of the philosophy of the treatment of crime and criminals, as stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, nevertheless I disagree with him when he says that sort of thing should be written into the Criminal Code. You cannot write that sort of thing into law. The philosophy of the treatment of crime and criminals is a social matter that has its roots in the home, the school and the church.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And may be reflected in the law.


Solon Earl Low: As the hon. member for Kamloops says, it may be reflected in the law; but these are matters about which you simply cannot

Criminal Code
lay down any expression in law. It seems to me that we should be urging a widespread study of these social problems that have their roots in the home, the school and the church. I think they involve the matter of fundamental respect for law, and I should like to say at this point that it is my conviction that the social emphasis we place on the Criminal Code should centre around three factors which I believe are essential if we are going to have rule of law in our country.
The first is good, fundamental law. That is what we are trying to write into the Criminal Code. But that would be useless if we did not have the other two factors. The second is well organized courts composed of righteous and just men and women. These first two would be worth very little if we did not have amongst the Canadian people widespread support for the courts, people who are prepared to uphold the courts and their dignity and responsibility so there can be enforcement. These, it seems to me, are matters that involve the social aspect.
I should like to hear a good, broad discussion on the social aspects of law, particularly those that revolve around the treatment of crime and criminals, but I hope we will not get into that kind of discussion when we are considering this fundamental law, the Criminal Code, because I do not believe this is the place for it.
I see that it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and it is not my intention to go on too long, but let me just say that while we agree with the procedure that has been announced by the minister we feel as members of the House of Commons that it is our responsibility to give all of the clauses of the bill, and more particularly those that have been singled out as being so important to the Canadian peop the fullest discussion and consideration. In addition it is our responsibility to preserve completely unimpaired, as was so well stated by the hon. member for Kamloops, the fundamental principles of British justice which will of course involve the freedoms of individual citizens of this country.


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


Harold Edward Winch: I would ask leave to move the adjournment of the debate until tomorrow's sitting of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Before you put the motion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I had hoped we could have completed this debate tonight. I was under the impression, sir, that the debate, while not limited-because we do not do that here-was nevertheless going to be participated in by representatives of the parties concerned. While I appreciate the hon. member's desire to take part in the debate,

I wonder if it would be possible for him to make his remarks now, with the consent of the house, so we could get second reading tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member does not propose to speak on second reading?


George Alexander Drew: Let us examine this situation reasonably. Certainly there can be no suggestion that anyone in this house can deny any other member the right to speak on any subject. However, the discussion proceeded and continued after an extended exchange of opinions concerning the appropriate procedure, with the thought that we would then be able to pass from this stage and be able to examine the measure along the lines that have been suggested. I repeat that I am the last to suggest that any member should be denied the right to speak, but I do not know what purpose will be served in extending the debate now unless we know what the understanding is. We might be sitting here until tomorrow morning.
I do not know that this is the last change in the understanding that existed between us. It was only an understanding, and it could be no more, but it is one of those understandings which does, on certain occasions, permit orderly procedure in this or any other similar legislative body. I certainly have no desire to insist upon the rules, but I do think before we extend this debate now we should be sure where it is going. I must say that I do not think anything is going to be gained by permitting the debate to proceed at this time, especially if it is going to be extended to subject matters that are going to be referred to a commission.


Harold Edward Winch: I can assure the hon. member that I have no desire to delay the procedure of the house. I should like you, sir, and hon. members to know that I had no knowledge there was a commitment that there should be only-


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was no such commitment.


George Alexander Drew: May I interject at this point. I was not suggesting, and I thought I had made it clear, that there could be any commitment which could bind members. There has been discussion ever since we arrived in the middle of November concerning the best method of dealing with this bill. Questions were asked on the very first day, and we discussed the business in relation to procedure.
Now, the hon. member who has taken the floor has a right to do so. I would point out, however, that he is not in a position to tell us whether there are other members who are

going to speak. Unless there is some understanding along those lines, then I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the wisest course is to call it ten o'clock and be done with it.


Harold Edward Winch: I still want to facilitate the procedure of the house if I can. My main reason in rising and asking for the adjournment is confusion which was brought about in the discussion concerning the position of a member in discussing this most important bill. A question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and in reply the Minister of Justice stated that he had no objection during the debate on second reading to a discussion of the principle of the bill. Speaking from memory I believe the minister added that if an hon. member did so he would be expressing egoism-I think that was the word-in speaking without the report of the royal commission or the committee.
This disturbed me greatly, sir, because in his original statement the minister made it very clear-I think these are his words-that this bill should be considered as a bill of the house and not a bill of the government. We would have, therefore, to be voting on the principle of the bill as it is before us, and one or two sections of the bill contain principles to which I am unalterably opposed, even though the minister has said these matters are going to be referred to a joint committee of this house and the other place or a royal commission. I could not see myself, Mr. Speaker, in the position of being asked to vote upon and pass in principle something to which I am unalterably opposed.
The only opportunity I could see for speaking on this principle, therefore, was on the second reading of the bill. I hope, sir, you understand the position in which I find myself. If there is any way of clarifying it in order to speed up the procedure I would be only too happy to abide by it. At the same time I want to preserve my right to speak on principles to which I am unalterably opposed, because I am not going to vote for them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Vancouver East, who has just taken his seat, Mr. Speaker, has referred to some language of mine which I am anxious to explain to his satisfaction as not being susceptible of the interpretation which, from his standpoint, he has perhaps properly placed upon it. I thought I had made it clear, not once but several times, that it was the view of many that the most orderly manner of proceeding to debate the Criminal Code, which embraces so many principles, would be to treat the principle of
Criminal Code
the bill on second reading as being merely the question of whether a statute which had been on the books for 60 years should be now consolidated. This arrangement expressly contemplated that when we got into committee of the whole the fullest possible opportunity would be given to all members, including the hon. member for Vancouver East, to express to his heart's content the views that he has with respect to, shall I say, the question of capital punishment-


Harold Edward Winch: That is the one I have in mind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -notwithstanding the fact that subject would have been, in the meanwhile, sent to a joint committee of parliament for consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? If it is sent to a joint committee is the matter not sub judice and out of order for discussion in the house?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that can be cleared up. There is certainly no intention that either the hon. member or any other member of the house would be deprived of an opportunity to discuss it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is perfectly understood.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is, if he wished to do so without the report. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East will not object to my having the feeling that I would prefer to get the report of the joint parliamentary committee or the royal commission before I discussed it, but I would be the last man in the house to deny his right to discuss it, with or without a report of the royal commission or a joint committee. I do not think there was any thought that the hon. member would be deprived of the fullest opportunity of discussing that particular clause when the bill is before the committee of the whole.


Harold Edward Winch: I could not ask for more. I give way.


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. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Stand.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
958	HOUSE OF
Joint Committee on Criminal Law



JOINT COMMITTEE TO REPORT ON SPECIFIC MATTERS RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL LAW

Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, during the course of my remarks on seoond reading of the bill I stated that the government-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is this a question of privilege?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; it arises out of my remarks made earlier this evening. I do this without any desire to detain hon. members, but rather to discharge an undertaking given to the effect that at the first opportunity the government would move for the setting up of a joint committee to consider the subject matters to which I referred. If I may have [DOT]the unanimous consent of the house I would be glad to make that motion now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just a moment; if the minister wishes to acquaint us with the motion he would like to move, that would be acceptable. But I do not think it is fair-and I do not like to use that word-I shall say I do not think we can consent to a motion being made at this stage of procedure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not wish to press it at all. But I had said in my remarks, and I would assume that it was in part on the strength of those remarks that my hon. friend and other hon. members agreed to the method followed in the second reading, that I would move this motion. But if I have not unanimous consent, then I shall not be able to do so now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the house would consent to the minister making his motion so we would have it before us. Then he might immediately move the adjournment of the debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I shall be glad to do that. I move:
Resolved, that a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to inquire into and report upon the questions whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment, (b) corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent:
That 17 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house, and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;


And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


Mr. Casselman:: Why is there a membership of 17?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The membership of 17, Mr. Speaker, was found in the special committee on the Criminal Code which sat during the last parliament to have been a membership that worked very well indeed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will you move the adjournment of the debate?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no debate.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the house, it seems to have been the opinion of most members who have discussed the matter with me today that it might be agreeable to all hon. members to have tomorrow devoted to government business, in the hope that we might adjourn tomorrow evening. If that meets the desire of all hon. members I would move:
That on Wednesday, December 16,	1953, the
hours of sitting and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on a Thursday (government day) notwithstanding the provisions of any standing order in relation thereto.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, as a private member I wish to say that in this instance a private members' day is being taken away from us. While I do not want to be classed with those in the house who might be described as objec-tionists or obstructionists, nevertheless I do hope the government will give some undertaking that the time private members lose tomorrow will be made up subsequent to the Christmas recess. Will the government give that undertaking?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give us one more day than you were going to give us otherwise.


Walter Edward Harris: I should be glad to accommodate the hon. member but it is difficult to say that I can because no decision has been either made or announced to the house as to when eventually we might ask the house to abandon private members' days. So any assurance I might give would have no effect at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When you ask us to abandon them we will ask for another day.


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps so.


Agar Rodney Adamson: As I have said, I do not wish to be an obstructionist; everybody wants to get home. Apparently one has to have the title of M.P. S.O.B. in this House of Commons to get one's opinions across. I would hope that we would not have to resort to those tactics in this instance.
It is to be hoped that we as private members, who have few enough rights in the House of Commons, will be given consideration when we agree to this. And remember, we are agreeing unanimously; one single objection could stop the whole thing. Yes, just one single objection could stop this thing tomorrow. I would hope that, while I am agreeing, this might be considered by the government after the recess.


Walter Edward Harris: We will do that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: One question before the
motion is put. In order that we will not be taken by surprise, and that there will be no further mess, let me say it was not my understanding that anything with respect to
Business of the House
the Criminal Code, except approval to proceed in committee of the whole on the bill, would be taken tomorrow. Therefore I would not care to agree to the motion the hon. member has put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have it the wrong way. It is understood there will be no attempt to proceed in committee of the whole on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will begin with the house again in committee on the Customs Act, and then we will take the resolution with respect to housing. We would hope to carry through to first reading so the bill might be distributed; then the second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the War Service Grants Act; second reading of Bill No. 80, respecting the Canadian forces; second reading of Bill No. 78, to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom; then second reading of Bill No. 77, to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories.
It being 10.25 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Wednesday, December 16, 1953	MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS