1954-02-24

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the house will have noticed that on Monday the Speaker laid before the house a report of the civil service commission with respect to the revision of salaries in the parliamentary library. By leave of the house, therefore, I should like to move:
That the report of the civil service commission respecting revisions in the salary ranges of certain employees of the library of parliament, laid upon the table of the house, Monday, February 22, 1954, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved:: That the petitions for private bills, presented respectively on February 10, 18 and 23, 1954, together with the reports made thereon by the clerk of petitions on February 11, 19 and 24, 1954, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable, namely:
1.	Of Ronald Arthur Leslie, divorce:
2.	Of Arthur Hamilton Johnston and others for an act to incorporate Baloise Fire Insurance Company of Canada, Limited:
3.	Of Claude Raphael Sacchitelle, divorce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Alfred Rubens.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Clara Stein Rosenberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Birdie Gladys Schwarz Bard Yudelson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Lilli Schwab Barber.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Laura Fanny Hoddinott Peckford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Michael Samulack.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Natalie Wynohradnyk Wolcovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Joan Bechard Tutty Copeland.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Georgette Mertens Herscovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Mary Veronica Carmichael Mosher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of George Thomas LeGrow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Marie-Reine Roy Laflamme.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Gabrielle Gagne Nantel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Velma Mack-land Giles Boyer.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Bessie Katz Elman.-Mr. Hunter.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the government given consideration to the request of the retired Canadian National Railways veterans association for an increase to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways who are receiving only the basic pension of $25 per month?
2.	If so, has a decision been made as to whether legislation will be introduced at the present session to provide for such increase?


Mr. Chevrier:: I should like to answer this orally, if I may. The question is of the same nature as that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) first in November last and again in January. On both occasions he agreed to withdraw his question on the understanding that he would renew it at the time certain statistical data he was also requesting would be ready, which will probably not be for some weeks yet.
The request of the retired Canadian National Railways veterans association for an increase in the basic pension granted to retired employees of the Canadian National Railways has been received, but there has been no change in the position since it was fully discussed in the house and in the railways and shipping committee in 1952.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	How many officers of the Royal Canadian Navy have been released, or have been given notice during the past year that they will be released, because there is a surplus in their rank to the authorized establishment?

Questions
2.	Have similar releases, or notices of release of officers taken place in the Canadian army and in the Royal Canadian Air Force? If so, what are the numbers?
3.	What are the ranks in which this action has been taken, and how many officers are affected in each rank?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	None.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.



BRITISH EMPIRE GAMES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation entered into a contract to broadcast the British Empire games to be held in Vancouver this summer?
2.	If so, what'is the price to be paid?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes. The franchise covers world rights for sound radio, television, and motion picture coverage.
2.	$50,000.



CANADIAN NAVY-&quot;WAR AT SEA&quot;

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence expend any funds for the purpose of securing any coverage of the role played by the Royal Canadian Navy in world war II, in the Columbia Broadcasting System production "War at Sea"?
2.	Did this production deal mainly with the role of the United States navy?
3.	How much was paid to secure mention of the role of the Royal Canadian Navy?
4.	Approximately what percentage of the total coverage of the production was devoted to the Royal Canadian Navy?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	No. In co-operation with the United States navy, the National Broadcasting Company produced a film, "Victory at Sea", dealing principally with the role of the United States navy. It is understood that 14 other nations, including Canada, were asked to contribute film records of the work of their navies. To meet this request in behalf of an allied power, selected film from the library of the national film board was made available and some of this was used. The cost of this film of $1,651.22 was paid by the Department of National Defence.
2.	Yes.
3.	Nothing.
4.	Approximately 2 per cent to 4 per cent.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- EMPIRE GAMES

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation enter a bid for exclusive rights to radio, television, motion picture and photographic coverage of the forthcoming British Empire games at Vancouver, or for any such rights?
[Mr. Harkness.l
2.	If so, was the bid wholly or partly successful?
3.	What are the particulars of the successful portion or portions, and the amounts involved?
4.	If a tender was entered as to motion picture or photographic rights, on what basis was it decided that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should interest itself in this field, and how is it proposed to handle these rights?
5.	If no bid was entered for motion picture or photographic rights as such, will the effect of such rights as have been granted be to exclude any other person or concern from obtaining the right to take motion pictures or photographs of the games for commercial use?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation first entered a bid for the right to broadcast the British Empire games by sound and television. It later found that sale of inclusive world rights for radio, television and motion picture coverage in one unit was being considered, and it felt it should bid for this in competition with private advertising interests in order to assure good sound and television broadcasting coverage in Canada and other commonwealth countries. The latter bid for this at $50,000 was successful. The franchise of the corporation does not include rights for news coverage. It does include still photographs for use in conjunction with television and theatrical exhibition. Parties interested in motion picture coverage can apply to the corporation.
2,	3, 4 and 5. See answer to No. 1.



DOMINION BONDS PURCHASED BY U.S. CITIZENS

Mr. Quelch:: What is the amount of dominion bonds purchased by American citizens non-resident in Canada, in each of the years from 1946 to 1953?


Mr. Dickey:: Detailed information not available as requested but the annual changes in holdings by United States residents of government of Canada direct funded debt are estimated as follows:
(Millions of dollars)
1946		 + 19
1947		 - 36
1948		 +110
1949		 + 69
1950		 +165
1951		 -122
1952		 -140
1953		 -130
(preliminary)
These changes reflect international trading in outstanding issues, sales of new issues, and retirements, as well as estimated effects of migration, inheritances, etc.



WHEAT PRICES, LIVERPOOL AND FORT WILLIAM

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What was the date of the last sale of No. 1 northern wheat on the Liverpool grain exchange?
2.	What was the price per bushel of this wheat sale?
3.	On the same date, what price was the Canadian wheat board offering to sell No. 1 northern wheat f.o.b. Fort William?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	As the Canadian wheat board does not sell wheat on the Liverpool grain exchange, the government has no knowledge as to the date of the last sale of No. 1 northern wheat on the Liverpool grain exchange.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.



BRITISH EMPIRE GAMES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Will private radio broadcasting companies be permitted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast from the British Empire games in Vancouver during the coming summer?
2.	If so, will actuality broadcasts or descriptions of the games recorded on tape require specific permission from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before the same can be put on the air?
3.	If live broadcasts by private radio are commercially sponsored, will payment be asked for by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation any plans whereby it can recover or be reimbursed for the price paid, or obligated to be paid, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the British Empire games committee?
5.	If so, how much of the said contract price does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expect to recover, and by what means?
6.	To what extent will routine newspaper coverage of the games be restricted or affected by the terms of the contract between the British Empire games committee and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes, on a sustaining basis subject to prior permission from the corporation in order to co-ordinate use of facilities.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	The corporation expects to recover part of the contract price through payments from other broadcasting, film and commercial interests. The amount cannot yet be determined.
6.	Routine newspaper coverage will not be affected at all.



WEST KILDONAN, MANITOBA, SUB-POST OFFICES

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Have any changes taken place this year in sub-post offices in West Kildonan?
2.	If so, what changes and who were the applicants for a sub-post office?
83276-152J
Questions
3.	Were petitions presented to the department advocating any particular location for a sub-post
office?
4.	If so, on whose behalf were such petitions signed?
5.	How many signatures were there on the petitions?
6.	Was the final decision made as to any changes, in Ottawa or Winnipeg?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Winnipeg-Kildonan West was moved to another site with a new sub-postmaster following the resignation of the previous incumbent.
The applicants were:
Myron Hunter (Hrankowski), 1785 Main St.; A. E. Beek, 1757 Main St.; W. R. Gunn, 1839 Main St.
3	and 4. Yes-favouring Beeks Pharmacy, 1757 Main St.
5.	109.
6.	Ottawa.



BUTTER PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	What was the production of butter in Canada, by provinces, for the following years: 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953?
2.	What was the consumption of butter per capita in Canada, during the same years?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.
Creamery butter production
	1950	1951	1952	1953
		thousand pounds		
Canada. .	. 261,464	257,165	280,746	302,606P. E. I. .	. 4,626	5,012	4,886	5,727N. S. . . .	. 5,927	5,080	4,953	6,079N. B. . .	. 7,320	6,767	6,969	7,988Quebec. .	. 87,488	91,363	102,346	112,179Ontario .	. 68,699	67,137	78,915	82,622Manitoba.	. 22,522	22,277	23,549	24,992Sask. . .	. 28,972	27,903	27,811	27,660Alberta .	. 31,238	28,960	27,647	29,993B. C. . .	. 4,672	2,666	3,670	5,366
2.
Per capita consumption of creamery butter in Canada
Pounds
1950		 19-98
1951		 19-1T
1952		 19-05:
1953		 19-32*
* Preliminary



FEDERAL BUILDING, SMITHERS, B.C.

Mr. Green:: 1.	What price was paid for the property in Smithers, British Columbia, upon which a federal building has been erected?

Orders for Returns
2.	From whom was such property purchased?
3.	What was the date of purchase?


Mr. Winters:: 1. $2,000.
2.	Benevolent and protective order of elks.
3.	June 15, 1950.



FISHERIES ADMINISTRATION, P.E.I.

Mr. Kickham:: How much money was spent In the province of Prince Edward Island since 1946 in connection with all administration services of the federal Department of Fisheries?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Fiscal Year
1946-	47	
1947-	48	
1948-	49	
1949-	50	
1950-	51	
1951-	52	
1952-	53	
Expenditure $ 229,194.02 196,008.28 229,194.51 303,822.38 296,748.03 304,578.60 306,489.37
Grand Total	 $1,866,035.19



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1 How many persons, by provinces, are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
2.	What is the average monthly payment, by provinces, being made under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
3.	Are any persons 70 years of age or over in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
4. How many blind persons are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act?
5.	How many persons in receipt of pensions for blindness, under the provisions of the former old age pensions act, as at December 31, 1951, have been transferred to pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act?
6.	Are any benefits or provisions accorded by federal legislation to blind persons under 70 years of age, other than the means test pension under the provisions of the Blind Persons Act?
7.	Are any benefits or provisions accorded by federal legislation to blind persons 70 years of age or over, other than the $40 pension under the provisions of the Old Age Security Act?


CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	What is the total amount of the assets and Investments of the life insurance companies in Canada?
2.	To what extent did they co-operate with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide loans for housing?
3.	What is the total amount of the assets and investments of the fire insurance companies in Canada?
[Mr. Green.l
4.	To what extent did they co-operate with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide loans for housing?


EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Thomas Joseph Kickham: How much money has been spent by the federal government in Prince Edward Island since 1946 in connection with the experimental station at Charlottetown and other illustrative stations in the province, including rentals and salaries of personnel?


FLUORSPAR IMPORTS
Mr. While (Hasiings-Fronienac):: 1.	From what countries does Canada import
fluorspar?
2.	What was the total amount (a) by tons; (b) by dollars, of fluorspar imported into Canada from each of these countries, during the years 1948 to 1953 inclusive?
3.	What was the rate of duty on fluorspar?


TALC IMPORTS
Mr. While (Hasiings-Fronienac):: 1.	From what countries does Canada import talc?
2.	What was the total amount (a) by tons; (b) by dollars, of talc imported into Canada from each of these countries, during the years 1948 to 1953 inclusive?
3.	What was the rate of duty on talc?


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What are the unemployment figures in Canada for each year since 1929?
2.	What sums were paid out from the federal treasury in unemployment relief each year from 1929 until the inauguration of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
3.	What sums have been paid out annually in unemployment insurance benefits since the inauguration of the scheme?


LIQUOR-TAXES AND SALES
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How much was collected by the government from various taxes on liquor in 1953; (a) wines; (b) beer; (c) spirits?
2.	What was the total value of liquor sales in Canada in 1953?


MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: How much was collected by the government in the year 1953, by provinces, from (a) sales tax on motor vehicles; (b) excise tax on motor vehicles; (c) customs duty on motor vehicles?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, P.E.I.
Thomas Joseph Kickham: How much money was paid out in the province of Prince Edward Island since 1946 in connection with unemployment insurance benefits, including administration, rentals and salaries of personnel?


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF DIVERSION AT CHICAGO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. If the legislation recently passed by the House of Representatives in the United States permitting Chicago to make a water diversion from the St. Lawrence watershed becomes law and is acted upon, will it prejudice the seaway or power projects?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a hypothetical question, and it is not in order to ask such questions. There would be no point to the question if the legislation contemplated does not pass. I would imagine that if the legislation had been passed the hon. member could ask what would be its effect, but the hon. member is basing his question upon the possibility of the legislation passing.


Howard Charles Green: If I may point out to Your Honour, I believe that Canada has made strong representations against this legislation. It is a very urgent matter and time is of the essence. I would ask that the minister be allowed to answer the question which is of great importance to Canada.


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: Ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister feels that he can comment upon it, all right; I leave it to him.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I agree fully that the question is based upon what is likely to happen in congress, and whether or not congress does approve of the application for the diversion of certain waters. I would hesitate to make any comment upon it, but should congress approve of the diversion, against which Canada has protested very vigorously through the office of the minister of external affairs, I would say that I am informed that it would have some effect on power but little effect on navigation.
When one realizes that the application is for the diversion of 1,000 c.f.s. for a trial period of three years and the present flow in this month of the year is 240,000 c.f.s., one can make a calculation as to just what the effect will be. The engineers inform me that from the point of view of power it will mean a loss of 31,000 horsepower to Canada, about one-half of it at Niagara, and it will have a slight effect in lowering the levels. To answer the hon. member's question, in so far as what the prejudicial effect may be upon the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned, I would say that it will reduce power to the extent
Inquiries of the Ministry that I have mentioned but would have little effect upon the navigational features of the St. Lawrence seaway.


INQUIRY AS TO LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES COURTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell us the present status of the litigation in the United States courts regarding the licensing of the power authority of the state of New York as federal agent to carry out the power phase of the St. Lawrence seaway project? Can he also give us a reliable estimate as to when the final judgment of the United States courts will be rendered?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to ask this question. It is rather difficult for me to answer, because when one attempts to say with any degree of reliability when a judgment is likely to be handed down in one's own country the answer is difficult to give. But when it has to do with another country it is even more difficult.
However, in order to assist the hon. member, perhaps I can say that the licence which was applied for by the power authority of the state of New York to the federal power commission has been granted. From this grant there was an appeal by three different groups to the court of appeals of the district of Columbia at Washington and three appeals have been dismissed by that court. One of the appellants has since withdrawn from the case but there is a period of 90 days for appeal by the two remaining parties from the court of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. The period of 90 days runs from February 19. I am afraid I cannot enlighten the hon. member further except to say that I hope there will be a rapid and favourable disposal of the case by the court of last analysis.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I addressed a question to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) which I think should more properly have been addressed to the minister of external affairs. Because of the very conflicting reports of the matter to which I referred I should like to
2394	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ask him now whether or not the newspaper reports are correct that the Prime Minister will deal with India's opposition to reported plans of the United States to supply arms to Pakistan. I added, as reported on page 2301 of Hansard:
In, view of remarks also attributed to the Prime Minister in Pakistan, will the government inform the house of its policy about a matter which is causing concern to friends of both India and Pakistan.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion in the press statement that the Prime Minister had dealt with or was intending to deal with this matter of United States aid to Pakistan, in the sense that he was intervening in discussions in Karachi or New Delhi, is inaccurate. It is quite true that he has had talks at New Delhi and Pakistan with members of those governments, and in the course of these talks that subject may well have arisen. But it is certainly not the intention of the Prime Minister to deal with it in any way which would constitute intervention in this matter.


ALLEGED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I direct another question to the minister of external affairs, and I do this because of the interest which has been raised by the questions asked earlier. The suggestion has been made that the minister pledged Canadian help to the United States in the event of war. He is reported to have said:
We range ourselves on the side of freedom, under the leadership of the United States of America.
I have now read the minister's speech and I think it would be well if he would elucidate the report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this morning I sent a copy of the statement in question to my hon. friend and also to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) who had expressed interest in this matter. I think that in reading the text those hon. members will feel, as I do, that there was nothing in that speech which would justify the interpretation given to it by certain press accounts. To make that quite clear I think possibly I had better put on the record the last paragraphs of this statement as so much attention seems to have been devoted to it. I said in the statement which I made at Rollins College, Florida:


You will find Canada no automatic "yes man" but a staunch and loyal friend, especially in time of difficulty.
I went on to give some evidence of that in peace and war, and then I finished my statement as follows:
Canada is a young country, crying out for development; a country of vast distances, expensive and difficult to govern and to administer. Hers is not a determining voice when the big international decisions are to be made, nor will her contribution be decisive in the conference room or where the conflict rages. It might therefore be tempting to try to stand aside in any struggle between the giants and excuse that course by arguing that those who call the tune should pay the piper.
But that is not the way we feel about it. The conflict today is not between empires, or between one super-power and another, but between freedom and slavery, despotism and democracy, right and wrong. So we range ourselves on the side of freedom, under the leadership of the United States of America, and we will play, I hope, a good part in the long and unending fight for peace and a decent world.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At what time did this government decide that the United States had taken the place of Great Britain as the leading nation in the struggle for freedom?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: 

HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, George H. Hees (Broadview):: Could the Minister of Public Works advise when the government expects to be able to announce the interest rate to be charged on National Housing Act mortgages?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: It will be necessary first of all to have the bill passed and I would hope that that could be done at the earliest possible date.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Proudfoot (Ponliac-Timiskaming):: Is the Minister of Public Works in a position to table copies of correspondence exchanged between the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government relative to the proposed Allumette island-Pembroke bridge, which was passed as an order for return last December 7?


Robert Henry Winters: The house will recall that this motion was passed subject to the reservation that it would be necessary to obtain the consent of the provincial governments concerned. We have that consent from the government of Ontario but have not yet received it from the government of Quebec.


John Hugh Proudfoot: Could the minister say just what correspondence he has had with Quebec? Was it by letter or telegram?


Robert Henry Winters: I dispatched several communications. I wrote the minister of highways, Mr. Talbot, on December 8. He replied saying that the communication should more appropriately be directed to his colleague the minister of public works, and that he was so doing. I wrote to Mr. Lorrain on the 12th of January. I wrote to him again on February 2 and sent him a telegram on February 16, and I have no reply.


John Hugh Proudfoot: Pending receipt of the
necessary permission from the province of Quebec, would the minister table the correspondence between the federal government and the province of Ontario pertaining to this bridge?


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be very glad to do that.


Major James William Coldwell: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, to what extent this courtesy is to be extended? It seems to me
that if the hon. member is to be given the reply, then in the interests of the house and the public the minister should table that return if the provincial government does not respond to this parliament's act of courtesy.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Labour and I trust he will take this as notice. Has the Minister of Labour any recent information with respect to the number of persons on short time in the textile industry?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he is yet in a position to reply to the question I asked a week ago Monday concerning the badge of the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to reply.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENT OF SUBCONTRACTOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I did not give him notice because he does not require it. I received an urgent request from a man who subcontracted on the trans-Canada highway-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -and he wants to be paid. I am asking the minister, to whom shall I direct his plea for payment? Is it to be directed to him or to whom?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, contracts for the trans-Canada highway are awarded by the provincial governments, and I would therefore suggest that the hon. member advise his friend to direct his plea to the provincial government.
239G	HOUSE OF
Export Credits Insurance Act



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 295, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, there is not much that can be added to the very full statement made by the minister in moving the resolution preceding this legislation, but perhaps it might be helpful to hon. members if I were to deal briefly with various points raised during the debate on the resolution stage.
One of the questions asked was whether the corporation would agree to insure shipments to so-called iron curtain countries, and also whether any business of this nature had been turned down. As the minister pointed out in the debate on the resolution, the main criterion which is employed by the corporation in dealing with applications for the insurance of exports is whether it can be reasonably anticipated that the purchase price of these exports will be paid on the due date.
Naturally, the corporation has to consider other matters such as the proposed terms of payment and the nature of the commodity concerned. But the important and essential consideration is whether they think in their judgment the account will be paid when due.
The corporation has insured shipments aggregating $3,800,000 to Czechoslovakia and some $600,000 to Poland. Most of the commodities covered by these figures were moved during the years 1948, 1949 and 1950. Some $138,000 was insured to China but that was prior to the establishment of the red regime.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized once again that so far as the corporation is concerned there are no restrictions and they will insure exports to all countries. As long as an exporter can get an export permit, and as long as the sale is considered to be an insurable risk from the point of view of the corporation, there is no reason why that insurance should not be provided.
However, as the house is aware, there are other agencies of government which have the responsibility of deciding whether an export permit to iron curtain countries should be granted.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has asked if figures could be given covering the approximate amount of business outstanding at any one moment. In


answer to that, Mr. Speaker, I might say that under the policies in force at December 31, 1953, the corporation had a maximum liability of about $31 million. This liability is set at 50 per cent of the total shipments an exporter expects to make during the currency of his policy, and accordingly that figure is based on anticipated exports of about $60 million. Today, as of this date, the maximum liability of the corporation under all policies in force is $37-6 million.
This figure is the maximum amount the corporation could be called upon to pay. While the corporation cannot tell what might be actually outstanding from day to day, I am advised that a reasonable guess might be that it would be somewhere in the order of $15 million. In other words, that is the amount the corporation might have to pay out in claims today if all the outstanding accounts with respect to all commodities and to all countries were to go bad at once. The provision of the additional capital proposed in the present bill will enable the corporation to insure additional exports even where the concentration of risk in individual countries is greater than it can handle under the present capitalization.
In looking at the volume of business the corporation has covered in relation to Canada's total exports, it should not be forgotten that the corporation does not generally insure exports to the United States of America. There is a private insurance company which insures credit risks on shipments between Canada and the United States. It is for that reason that the corporation does not generally insure exports to that country. For this reason two-thirds of Canada's total exports are not eligible for insurance under the corporation. Similarly, many of Canada's major exports such as wheat, newsprint and metal are sold on a cash basis, and accordingly no insurance is required.
Some time ago the corporation made a detailed analysis of the maximum volume of business that they might reasonably hope to do, and the conclusion at which they arrived was that at that time they were covering approximately 50 per cent of the available business. A few weeks ago the corporation had serious inquiries on hand for insurance covering prospective sales of capital goods totalling some $110 million to several countries. Of this total, $9 million has already materialized; that has occurred in a period of about two weeks. This is export business that the manufacturers would not have taken themselves had the facilities of the corporation not been available to protect them against the possibility of non-payment by the foreign purchaser.

I think it should be reiterated, Mr. Speaker, that there are no private insurance companies anywhere in the world carrying on the type of business done by the corporation. In other countries where similar insurance protection is provided, it is invariably done through the medium of a government department, a government-owned company or a company with direct government backing.
I should like to advise hon. members that at the committee stage an additional amendment will be proposed. It is an amendment which is consequential upon the amendments contained in the printed bill. I will explain it more fully at the committee stage.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the parliamentary assistant for the statement which he has made. If my memory serves me correctly, it covered practically all of the questions asked at the resolution stage except the one with regard to the Ming Sung affair. Perhaps that matter can be raised when we get into committee again.
As I think I pointed out the other day, this corporation was brought into existence with the approbation, I think, of everyone in the house and with high hopes for its success. I think it is fair to say that it has succeeded. It has had the advantage of some able and senior civil servants at the head of it as executive officers. It has also had the advantage of the advice of the board which has included a wide range of businessmen. Further, I think it is fair to say-as the parliamentary assistant has already said- that it has covered a field which is not covered by private enterprise because of the unpredictable risks which are involved.
The parliamentary assistant has explained that a good deal of the export business is not subject to insurance because it is done on a cash basis. He has also explained that exports to the United States are not included. That statement goes far to explain what would otherwise be a disappointing total. When I first heard the total of $235 million or thereabouts, as the statement of the business over the years, I was disappointed. But when one takes these other matters into account, I think the disappointment is inclined to be less. It is perhaps more disappointing that the business has actually been shrinking in the last three years. The rough figures are as follows, beginning with 1949. In 1949 the total was $36 million; 1950, $33 million; 1951, $49 million and 1952, $36 million; and for the first eight months of 1953, $15 million or just over $20 million for the year. I take it that the simple explanation of that shrinkage, particularly in 1953, is that our exports to the 83276-153
Export Credits Insurance Act countries where the business was being done are substantially down. For example, if you look at Latin America, where a good deal of the insuring was done, the figures are as follows: In 1950, the total was $12 million; in 1951, $17 million; in 1952, $15 million and in 1953, for eight months, $8 million.
One might have thought that with business showing a shrinkage and not an expansion, it would be rather unnatural to come and ask for additional capital. But on that point the minister the other day gave an explanation from which I should like to read briefly because I think it is important that we should have that point covered. I think the minister has covered it. In the debate the other day, as reported at page 2218 of Hansard, the minister said:
In considering applications for insurance the board must exercise reasonable prudence, and it feels it cannot take on liabilities in any one foreign country which may be excessive in relation to its capital. Accordingly the present capital limits the corporation's effective scope particularly because today's pattern of sales of agricultural equipment and capital goods such as locomotives tends to concentrate large sums at risk in individual countries. While it is not practicable to determine the precise extent to which the corporation should commit itself in any one market, as an example the corporation was recently asked to consider a program involving several million dollars in one country on normal payment terms. But it was already committed in that country to the extent of about $5 million. This additional business would obviously involve too great a concentration of risk in relation to its $10 million capital. And yet it is this type of business which the corporation was originally set up to encourage.
I remark again in passing that the figures of the corporation do not include the Ming Sung transaction, which was under part II of the legislation and which was carried out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) with no relation whatever to the operations of the Export Credits Insurance Act.
One point on which I should like to make a few comments was raised the other day. I refer to trade beyond the iron curtain with respect to which the minister answered a question and which the parliamentary assistant has also mentioned. In answer to a question on that point the minister said, as recorded at page 2170 of Hansard of February 17:
Trade between Canada and any country behind the iron curtain is carried on subject to permit. In other words a permit must be issued by my department for any transaction concerning exports to those countries. There has never been any prohibition against trade in certain commodities, while there is a definite prohibition against trade in commodities that are on the restricted list. I refer to strategic materials. Subject to that reservation, if any Canadian merchants can arrange trade with Soviet Russia, his application will be considered by the department.

Export Credits Insurance Act
Further on he said:
. . . the government will be glad to consider the nature of the transaction and either to issue a permit or not do so, as the circumstances warrant.
I am not going to dwell on the matter of strategic materials. I suppose if you want to press the definition to the utmost you can argue that almost anything is a strategic material to the extent that it helps the economy of the importing country. But I am not going to pursue that at the moment. As to the general desirability of trade beyond the iron curtain, it seems to me in the broad that if there are any genuine signs of wanting to trade we should be responsive to them, and I emphasize the word "genuine". It does not seem to me there is much hope for peace and a quiet life as long as our chief joint occupations with people beyond the iron curtain are to make faces at each other and listen while they call us names.
Therefore I say that we should trade when there are genuine opportunities. However, on that point there is a great deal of room for uncertainty, and as I think the matter important I want to put on the record one or two short statements from London which I have run across and which seem sensible to me on this point. I read them into the record for two reasons, first of all because I think we should not allow ourselves to exaggerate the possibilities of this trade, and second, because I think it is desirable to have on the record what has been and what apparently is the attitude of business and government in Great Britain inasmuch as there have been rather loose statements made as to the attitude of the United Kingdom and perhaps other European countries towards trade beyond the iron curtain. I wish to read briefly first from an article which appeared recently in the Daily Telegraph of London. It is by David Floyd, who is the Daily Telegraph special correspondent on communist affairs. He has this to say:
The steady post-war decline in the volume of trade between east and west probably slowed down during 1953, although precise figures are not yet available. We know that the Soviet government, having appeared in a more reasonable frame of mind at the Geneva conference on east-west trade in April last year, concluded a series of bilateral trading agreements with eleven non-communist countries including Iran, France, Sweden, Greece, Argentina, Italy and Egypt.
Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, the director of the economic commission for Europe and an untiring advocate of east-west trade, is about to leave for Moscow, convinced that the Russians are genuinely anxious to extend trade. It is reported that the Soviet government is prepared to allow a group of British businessmen to visit Moscow privately, without the help of communist sponsored "promotion committees".
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
Further on in the same article he says:
Interested propaganda of the left would have us believe that the countries of the Soviet bloc and communist China represent vast and ever-expanding markets for the products of western manufacturers and an inexhaustible source of much-needed foodstuffs and raw materials. This is far from the truth. Even before the last war, the countries which now constitute the Soviet bloc accounted for less than 3 per cent of total British exports and for only 5 per cent of our imports.
After the war, but before the Labour government imposed restrictions on the export of strategic goods in April, 1949, the relative importance of this trade declined still further. In 1948 the communist countries took only just over one per cent of British exports and provided only 2i per cent of our imports. Direct trade with China declined to about half its pre-war level, although there was some increase in our exports to Hong Kong.
Later he says:
Explaining this policy-
That is to say, Soviet policy.
-in the pages of the official journal of the Soviet ministry of foreign trade, Mr. B. Vaganov said:
"The establishment of a monopoly in foreign trade prevents the formation of contacts between the capitalist elements, still to be found in the countries of people's democracy, and international capital . . . At the same time, the concentration of foreign trade in the hands of the state guarantees the countries of people's democracy the possibility of conducting a successful battle against the hostile foreign trade policy of the capitalist countries."
Again, he says:
We saw in 1948 how, in a matter of weeks, it was possible for the Kremlin to bring all trade between eastern Europe and Yugoslavia to a halt as part of the campaign to bring Marshal Tito to his knees. Politics always take precedence over economics, as in 1947, when the Kremlin forced its satellites to reject the offer of Marshall aid, despite their crying needs. The danger of becoming too deeply involved with such a totalitarian economic empire is obvious.
Finally, I quote:
It is certainly not the Soviet government's intention to allow trade with the west to rise to more than a marginal amount of the eastern bloc's foreign trade. Nor are there any Signs that it proposes to let such trade interfere with the steady integration of the satellite economies with its own.
I should like to read a word or two from the report of the East-West trade panel of the federation of British industries. It is very much along the lines of what I have just read but I think it is worth putting on the record as a statement of the feeling of British industry. It reads:
Summarizing our conclusions, we are of the opinion:
(i)	that trade with countries of the eastern bloc is likely permanently to offer fewer opportunities than before the war, and that trade with China has only modest scope for expansion on account of her limited capacity as an exporter and earner of sterling coupled w!lh the reduced market for Chinese exports;
(ii)	that such or portunities of east-west trade as exist in non-strategic goods should, nevertheless, be pursued without any inhibitions arising from political considerations;

(iii)	that members of the federation in their dealings with Russia, countries of the eastern bloc, and China, should avoid panels which are likely to turn matters of commerce pure and simple to account for the purposes of communist political propaganda.
I should like to give a further quotation to explain the last point. They say:
Since the Moscow economic conference in April, 1952, there have come into prominence a number of bodies, including the British council for the promotion of international trade which, it has been stated by the president of the board of trade, and more recently by the foreign secretary, have as their object the furtherance in the economic sphere of the general purposes of communist propaganda in the cold war.
I have taken the time of the house to put these statements on the record because it seems to me that they are relevant, having regard to the discussions of trade beyond the iron curtain, concerning which we are hearing a good deal now.
In view of the record of the corporation, despite the recent shrinkage in its operations, and in view of the explanation given by the minister and the parliamentary assistant, I think that this measure is worthy of support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Agent of Her Majesty.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say a word on this, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to support this bill, attempting as it does to strengthen the Export Credits Insurance Act. We understand that the purpose of this legislation is to make possible trade which otherwise might not have taken place. We believe that it is good for the economy of Canada, that it is good for the well-being of the whole world, to free the channels of trade. In pursuit of that purpose, we are glad to see legislation of this kind on the statute books.
Perhaps what I have said goes without saying, but I felt I should like to say not only that but to welcome the remarks that were made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Greenwood. He was, if I may so put it, echoing in part at least the view expressed a few days ago by my colleague the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. If the principle is a valid one that trade is good for our own economy, and that it is good for the world not to have sections of it isolated from other sections, I think it follows that trade with any country should be encouraged without too much fear of the political colour of any particular country. I was glad to hear the statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood. I hope, if there is a genuine effort on the part of the Soviet 83276-153i
Export Credits Insurance Act union or other countries associated with that country to develop trade with us, that we will pursue any such efforts as effectively as it is possible to do.
At the same time, might I offer this suggestion to the minister and to the government? The purpose of this legislation is to make possible trade which otherwise might not have taken place. He has indicated that this has nothing to do with trade with the United States. Nevertheless, I hope that while the minister is being concerned about trade with other countries he will not overlook the importance to our economy of trade back and forth with the United States. I hope he may pay some attention to some of the things that are happening in the department of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. It seems to me that steps are being taken there which interfere with trade with that country, and that seems to me to be in the opposite direction to the aim of the legislation which is now before us. I for one do not like departmental or administrative interference with trade with that country.


Mr. Henderson:: I should like to say a few words in favour of the purpose of this bill. I should like to congratulate the minister and the staff that administers this act upon the fine co-operation and work they have done in order to encourage trade at this time throughout the world, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned. Probably we could best realize the benefits of this bill if we examined the operations of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
From the commencement of operations in 1945 to the end of 1952 the corporation paid claims of $1,702,704. The recoveries amounted to $592,000, while irrecoverable losses totalled $18,000, leaving a net outstanding of $1,092,000. As to whether or not the work of the corporation is increasing, it might be noticed that at December 31, 1952, there were 180 policies in force as against 168 on December 31, 1951. This leads us to believe there is more need for this corporation. The policies in 1952 were divided as follows: general commodity policies, $55 million and capital goods policies $1,800,000. This is trade which, under normal circumstances, Canadian exporters would not have had because, as the parliamentary assistant has stated, there are no private insurance companies that would underwrite the risks involved.
I believe that if we analyse the operations of this corporation during 1952, the year for which we have a report, we will find that there were twenty commonwealth countries dealt with by way of trade in an amount of


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I asked the minister the other day about the position of the Ming Sung company, and my recollection is that he said he would advise us on second reading.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The original amount of the loan, Mr. Chairman, was $12,750,000, with interest at 3 per cent. It was to be repaid in ten equal instalments beginning on January 30, 1951. The first payment of $26,855.22 was made in 1950. Interest payments were kept up until the middle of 1951, whereupon this government started to pay the banks interest and principal, and interest on interest. This latter payment was due to the lapse of time involved in ascertaining whether the Chinese were going to pay.
The balance outstanding of principal, to which has been added the interest, is $12,723,174.78.1 may say that the government regards this as possibly recoverable. The boats are still in existence and there have been some approaches which lead us to believe that those now in possession would value a good title. While I am not promising the house that the amount due will be collected, I am not saying it is a hopeless account.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Have the ships, at the moment, just been confiscated by the Chinese government or do we know who purports to own them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were taken over and are being operated by the Chinese government. They can only be operated in Chinese waters because if they come out of Chinese waters they will be seized.


Mr. Pearkes:: Might I ask whether the transactions which are now taking place, the transfer of Canadian vessels to foreign flags, will be under this corporation? Will this corporation make any guarantee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, there is no cash involved in such transfers; it is simply a transfer of registration. This corporation has nothing to do with it.


Howard Charles Green: Are these Ming Sung ships still flying the Canadian flag?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not seen them; I could not tell you, but I think it is very unlikely.
rMr. Henderson.]


Howard Charles Green: Surely, some department of the government has some information concerning the ships.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Secretary of State for External Affairs confirms my position that they are in Chinese waters, and neither of us has any informants from that area; we do not know. They may not be flying any flag at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister not think that he should have made clear that this Ming Sung transaction had nothing to do with the officials of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation at all; it was entirely a government matter, carried out by the governor in council through the Minister of Finance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I feel under no obligation to make that clear at all. I think it was a creditable transaction, whoever carried it out. I do not think that either the insurance company or the government expected a revolution in China at that time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not commenting on that at all. I am just saying that the credit or discredit does not belong to the executive officers of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation.


Howard Charles Green: There is discredit on somebody else's part in the government when they allowed the Chinese to fly the Canadian flag after the ships had been turned over to China.


Mr. Monieilh:: Can the minister tell me whether or not there is any breakdown of the type of exports made possible under this act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Generally speaking, they are non-perishable items; that is, they are machinery or some capital item. It does not always apply, but it is usual.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Is any percentage available at all as to the amount of farm machinery that comes under it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, we have. This corporation has insured a very considerable value of farm machinery.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On that question, it seems to me it would be of great interest if we could know whether the general impression given, indeed I think the minister strengthened it the other day, that the market for farm machinery was not any too good, is actually the fact. I am just wondering whether, in view of what he has said, and particularly what I read this afternoon as to one of the needs of new capital being

to assist exports of farm machinery, he can in fact indicate the amounts, and whether they are significant in the operation of our farm machinery companies.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the occasion of the visit of agricultural workers I was able to point out that in that week we had guaranteed loans on agricultural implements up to $10 million. I think over the years it would easily be perhaps ten times that amount.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
John Horace Dickey: Mr. Chairman, as I informed the house, at this stage I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move an amendment which is a consequential amendment on the increase in capital. As the committee will observe, in section 10 of the present act which is quoted in the explanation of clause 4 of the bill, the original capital was all to be subscribed and paid up, and in fact the present capital is all paid up. One of the main purposes of this amendment is to increase the limitation on the maximum business that the corporation can underwrite in terms of ten times the aggregate of the amount of the capital plus the surplus.
Section 14 of the act sets out this limitation, and in the act the term "paid up capital" is used. That was perfectly satisfactory and applicable when all the subscribed capital was paid up, as was the case of the original capitalization.
The proposal in this new bill is to create new capital, which will be subscribed, but not paid up. Therefore there is a consequential amendment required to section 14, substituting the words, "subscribed capital" for the word "paid-up".


Walter Edward Harris: I move that Bill No. 295 be amendeu by adding thereto the following clause:
6. Section 14 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"14. The liability of the corporation under the contracts of insurance issued and outstanding shall not at any time exceed a total of ten times the aggregate of the amount of the subscribed capital and the surplus of the corporation."


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Criminal Code


Mr. Fraser (St. John's East):: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee reported progress last time we were considering clause No. 164. Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
On clause 164-No apparent means of support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the minister has done some good hard thinking on this matter since it was last before the committee.


Mr. Garson:: I am going to suggest to the committee that we let this clause stand in the fond hope that it will be possible for representatives of the opposition parties and myself to work out a wording which will meet the point which they have raised without in any way damaging the enforceability of this clause against vagrancy.
Perhaps I was personally at fault in that during the last debate, when it became apparent that there was a deep-rooted difference of opinion concerning certain aspects of this clause, I did not suggest earlier that it should stand. In line with the policy which 1 indicated when we were on second reading in relation to the disposition of these clauses in committee of the whole, I should like, where it appears when we come to similar clauses that there is a deep-seated difference of opinion, to stand them over at an early stage of the debate. Then we can come back to them later on at a specified time, when I think we can do a greater amount of justice to them in a shorter period of time than we can with the more extemporaneous debate that we had the other day. On that basis I would like to suggest that 164 stand, and that at the request of the hon. member for Prince Albert 165 should also stand.


Mr. Campbell:: Before clause 165 is allowed to stand I should like to make a suggestion with regard to it if you are through with 164.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to 164, I am sure that all of us are glad to have the suggestion that this clause stand for the time being and

Criminal Code
I dare to hope that in the meantime something can be worked out that will be satisfactory to all concerned. However, I would not want the minister to assume that we will necessarily get together, as he indicated just now. The feelings indicated last time we were dealing with this matter were pretty sharply divided. Our main concern is that there not be any law that baldly says that a person who is without money and without a job is automatically to be declared a vagrant. Perhaps I should not have said even this much if I am going to agree with the idea that the matter stand. At any rate, that is our position. We are glad to allow 164 to stand.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the committee agree to the arrangement outlined by the Minister of Justice, which I understand is that where a clause is called, upon which hon. members wish to speak extensively or provoke a debate, it shall be allowed to stand and that we consider at this first run through the code those clauses upon which there is no major disagreement? May I take it that that is agreed to by the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 165-Common nuisance.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is considering bringing in an amendment to this clause that would prevent the pollution of interprovincial rivers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought that I had made it clear on previous occasions-I certainly tried to-that we are prepared to consider whether, in the light of such facts as may be apparent from the investigation now going on into the North Saskatchewan river, this clause 165 should continue in its present form or whether those facts would make it appear that 165 is not adequate and that some amendment should be made to it in order to make it adequate. Until we get those facts I do not think anyone, no matter what his attitude may be toward amending clause 165, could really reach a proper opinion as to whether an amendment should be made or not.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I am receiving many wires and so many letters asking me to try to get the government to bring in legislation which would protect the people in one province when pollution is taking place in another province. The minister well knows, and the house should know by this time, what the situation is in Saskatchewan. I am going to run over it briefly. Pollution of the North Saskatchewan river is taking place in Alberta.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the committee will agree with me that in a discussion of the wording of clauses of the Criminal 
Code, to discuss a situation existing between two provinces, and the pollution of a river, which so far as I know is not specifically referred to in the sections of the code, is not in order. I think the committee will sympathize with the Chair, as I try to sympathize with the hon. members concerned. The subject which the hon. member now proposes to discuss has been discussed in this house on the orders of the day and at other times. I ask him to agree with me that a discussion of the situation now existing on the North Saskatchewan river is not in order when we are discussing the wording of sections of the Criminal Code.
If it were in order, perhaps the hon. member would then agree with me and, if he has extensive remarks to make, abide by the agreement of the committee that the sections which are going to be the subject of long discussion should stand and not be taken up at this first reading of the code. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks at this time to clause 165, which I understand was to be permitted to stand, and bring his remarks clearly within the purview of the code.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, it was my understanding that the clause was to stand and the purpose of asking that it stand was to avoid discussion at this time which probably would be pointless in view of possible amendments which might be made or further explanations that might be given. While I completely sympathize with the hon. member for The Battlefords in his desire to bring to the attention of the committee conditions which have been discussed on many occasions,
I feel his purpose would be much better served if we allowed the Minister of Justice to give to this section that consideration that has been promised by having the clause stand.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: If I was quite certain that the minister would bring in legislation within the next two or three weeks that would provide protection for people, I would be satisfied; but I am not sure. That assurance has not been given. To bring myself in order,
I am going to move that clause 165, which comes under the heading of "nuisances"-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the hon. member reads his amendment, which I am not ruling out of order in advance, may I say that it is my understanding that there is a rule in Beauchesne that where an amendment is moved to a clause, the clause cannot stand.
I draw the hon. member's attention to it without looking it up so that he will realize the position in which he is going to put himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I might make a suggestion. The hon. member for The Battle-fords has an amendment which he would like to propose and he understands that the minister wishes the clause to stand for further consideration. I am sure that my colleague has no objection to that. Would it not be helpful if he were permitted to read his amendment and place it on the record so that it would be there for the minister to consider along with the other points in connection with this clause that are to be considered?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am in the hands of the committee. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: I shall not move the amendment but I will place it on the record so that the minister may see what the idea is behind it. I have had legal advice and I believe that if the amendment were put in the Criminal Code it would answer the purpose. My suggestion is:
That subclause (2) be renumbered as "(3)" and that the following be inserted as subclause (2):
"(2) Every one who, by himself, his agent or employee, places or discharges, or causes to be placed or discharged, or suffers to be placed or discharged, in, upon or near, springs, lakes, streams, or rivers, any industrial waste or any other polluting material of any kind whatsoever, which either by itself or in connection with other matter may corrupt or impair the quality of the water thereof in another province or render such water in such other province unfit for accustomed or ordinary use is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years."
An amendment of this kind would not interfere with provincial rights in connection with any river wholly within a province. I believe it would give protection where pollution, taking place in one province, does no harm to people in that province but, when it reaches the next province, creates harm to the people there. As I said, I will not try to impose my views on the committee if the minister will consider this. If the situation is not cleared up by the Alberta government in the very near future-and I think they could deal with it if they so desired-we could turn that water the other way-


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this does show the danger of relenting. The committee was good enough to allow the hon. member to put forward the amendment which is now before us, but he is now going on and accusing people and stating that he is not satisfied the Alberta government is doing everything it can. I am precluded by the rules of debate from even answering that point, and I would suggest that this is a matter for discussion. I do not
Criminal Code
believe it is fair to suggest that one hon. member more than another is anxious to see this matter corrected. I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, to see that the hon. member is held strictly to account.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: A point of order has been raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think he must be right, because his point is along the same lines as the point I raised myself. I would suggest to the hon. member for The Battle-fords that since he has placed an amendment before the minister for consideration, and if it is the intention of the committee, as suggested by the minister, that clause 165 be allowed to stand, it should now stand, and when the clause is recalled for full discussion, as it must be, that will be the moment to enter into a full discussion, at which time the then chairman will have to decide whether the remarks being made are strictly in order.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I did not quite complete what I was saying. If we could reverse the flow of the river running through Edmonton for 24 hours so as to make it-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that you cannot reverse the flow of a river under the Criminal Code. Does clause 165 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause 165 stands.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to intrude into the proceedings, at this time, the particular matter I have in mind, but I did unsuccessfully attempt to catch your eye a number of days ago on this point. I am referring to a certain matter in clause 160, subsection (c), and we seem to have moved on so quickly with other clauses that 1 was not able to make my point. With your permission I would like to raise it now.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is not within the purview of the chairman to grant permission to revert to clause 160, which has been carried, unless the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the committee, in whose hands I am.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is really no objection to a single instance of this kind, but if we do it for one we will have to extend the same privilege to every hon. member. We have a long, heavy, and very extensive task before us. Unless we have some order in our procedure we are not going to make very

Criminal Code
satisfactory progress. I do not think any great hardship would be caused the hon. member if he would raise this matter again when we are going back through some of the more difficult clauses, because I believe it would be better if we proceeded at the present time according to the agreed order.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I happened to be in the house when my hon. friend tried to catch the chairman's eye. I believe he was on his feet on three or four different occasions and failed to obtain a hearing. However, I do not know if there will be another opportunity.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In order to avoid any discussion on this matter at this time, might I ask whether it would be possible to allow clause 160 to be considered as having been permitted to stand instead of carried in order that it might be brought up later on with, shall I say, the more contentious clauses. The matter I have in mind is related to questions which are covered in certain other general sections of the code which will be up for discussion at a later stage.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Might I suggest to the hon. member that if the matter he was proposing to raise, in addition to being related to clause 160, to which he has already made reference, also relates to some other clauses we have not yet come to, then he should raise it when we come to such clauses. I think he would find me very receptive if he brought the matter to me personally so that at this time we would not need to detain the whole committee to cover the point he has in mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would be agreeable to that.
On clause 166-Spreading false news.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish the minister would comment on this clause. In the first place, I believe the penalty has been raised. It used to be one year, as set out in the former section 136, and the penalty is now two years. Secondly, what does the minister understand by the phrase "spreading false news?" The clause reads:
Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Hardly a week goes by-in fact we had a point of this nature raised today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs-when someone does not raise in this house a claim that our friends of the press have misinterpreted something that was said. Does that sort of thing come under the ban of clause 166, or is there a line drawn somewhere?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In all these cases there is a line to be drawn. This line clearly is indicated in the clause before us. The accused must wilfully publish a tale or news that he knows is false. The crown must prove such knowledge. In the case my hon. friend refers to I imagine that those who were responsible for publishing the news would certainly deny that they knew it was false. The crown must also prove that the publication is of matter which in the language of clause 166 is "likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest".


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is "a public interest" in that context?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think probably as good a way to answer that question is to cite-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tremeear.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -yes, Tremeear in reference to an actual case which arose, because the best test of how a section operates is to examine the way in which it has been invoked and in which it operated in a given case. The facts of this case set out in Tremeear at page 142 were these. A merchant in Alberta announced a "closing out" sale by using these words:
I have decided to leave Canada. Americans not wanted in Canada. Investigate before buying land and taking homesteads in this country.
It was held that the accused was guilty of an offence under this clause. The news was false and wilfully published and was against the public interest, which at that time was to attract settlers to Alberta. That is a case in point.
I admit that the problem arises every time a matter of this kind comes up, the prosecuting authorities have to make up their mind whether the facts appear to disclose an offence. If they think it does then they lay a charge. They then have to prove their charge. If they cannot prove it the case under this clause fails.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Might I revert to the first question I asked. Why has the penalty been increased from one to two years?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Because, as I have explained on several occasions previously, it was thought desirable by the commission that we should not have an assortment of offences under the code but that they should be all included under some five separate groupings. The lowest of these is two years, then five years and so on. This particular case fell into the lowest grouping, but that had the effect of increasing the penalty from one to two years. My hon. friend himself, I think, during the previous debate on this bill raised the point

that these are all maximum sentences. In a proper case the judge might impose a penalty of one day's imprisonment, if he wished to do so. There is no minimum penalty under the new code.


Ernest George Hansell: I should like to say a word on this clause. I am not now particularly asking the minister to comment. I cannot see that there is any great difference between this clause and the Alberta press act that was passed some few years ago. That act, of course, was sent to the courts and was declared to be unconstitutional. It can therefore perhaps be regarded as a dead issue today. Nevertheless there are a good many people in the country who will not permit it to be a dead issue and who are bringing it up continually as a means of attack upon our own Social Credit position by saying that if ever we got into power we would attempt to control the press.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think this clause attempts to control the press any more than did the press act passed some years ago by the Alberta government. In fact, on comparing the press act of a few years ago with this section, I think that act was quite a modification of this particular section. All that press act did was provide that when there was a news release by the government, should that news release be printed falsely or give a false impression or include false statements, the same periodical or paper would be compelled to print the correct release in a place just as prominent as that in which the false one was printed.
A great deal of comment on that act in recent years, in fact in the last election campaign, would leave the impression that a newspaper or periodical would not be permitted to criticize the actions of the government. There was nothing of that kind at all in that press act. Editorial comment could be made. They could criticize the government. They could call the government anything for which they could find appropriate phraseology. There was nothing at all wrong with that course. It was simply a press act that insisted that when false statements were made with respect to news, they had to be corrected the next day. I rose to point that out, because I fancy those who are our opponents will continue to mislead the people with regard to the matter. It is a dead issue today. We have no desire to control the press.
I am not talking against this section. I think it should be there. I do not know whether this is the section that necessarily covers libel, but it appears to me that it
Criminal Code
does. I want to have that statement on the record. False news should not be reported. What we want is the truth. Just so long as the truth is published, no one is going to complain. We believe in the freedom of the press, but we believe that the press is free to print that which is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 167-Not burying dead.
Major James William Coldwell: I want to ask a question about this clause, as the result of reading it over. How does this clause affect cremation and the remains of those who have been cremated? It would seem to compel burial. What is the interpretation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Again I think the answer can be found in the wording of the section which reads as follows:
Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed upon him by law or that he undertakes with reference to the burial of a dead human body or human remains, . . .
I take that to refer to the proper carrying out of burial, if that be the method which he chooses to dispose of the human body or human remains.


Mr. Rowe:: Would they be human remains?


Major James William Coldwell: After cremation, are they human remains? That is the point.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In any event, it is only where he fails to perform a duty that is imposed upon him by law or that he undertakes. I think it has to do more with the manner in which he carries out that duty than with the question of burial or cremation; that is, as to whether it is burial of the body in the ground or burial of its ashes in an urn. In other words, the gravamen of the offence is in the carrying out of the burial in a manner, for example, which is disrespectful to the dead body, in a careless and indifferent manner and so on, and not whether they bury the human body or cremate it.


Major James William Coldwell: The point I had in mind was as to burial of the remains. In cremation the remains may not be buried. That is the point. In cremation the remains may not be buried for a considerable time or may not be buried at all. What is the interpretation of the word "burial"? That is the point I had in mind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I still come back to my point that the gravamen of the offence is neglect to perform a duty that is imposed by law or that a person undertakes to carry out, as my hon. friend will see, with reference to the burial of a dead body or human remains. That is

Criminal Code
all it says. It does not necessarily make any reference at all to cremation. If cremation is lawful under relevant statutes, then it is just as lawful as burial.


Major James William Coldwell: That would constitute burial?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In such case it would be
lawful.


Major James William Coldwell: The fact that the body was cremated would be burial, under this clause. Is that right?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, no.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the point I am
making. Suppose the remains after cremation are not buried.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is no offence unless there is a breach of duty.


Major James William Coldwell: There is no offence if the remains are not buried?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is an offence in respect of the manner in which burial is carried out.


Major James William Coldwell: It is an interpretation of
the word "burial" that I am after.


Mr. Trainor:: I should like to ask the
minister whether this clause is supplementary to or was designed to reinforce provincial laws. Are there provincial laws existing with regard to burial which this clause is designed to reinforce?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; because it says:
Every one who
(a) neglects, without lawful excuse, to perform any duty that is imposed upon him by law . . .


Owen C. Trainor: That is provincial law?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. The law may vary from one province to another, but it is his duty as a citizen to carry out that direction of the law. If he fails to do that in respect of burial, then he brings himself under this provision of the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 168-Bet.
Mr. Hahn:: We find here that a new subsection 3 has been added, which places the onus on the accused. We had the same thing with respect to clause 162, trespassing at night, in which the onus was placed upon the accused. I wonder if we are not setting a dangerous precedent and losing a fundamental and basic principle of British freedom when the onus is placed entirely on the accused rather than the state having to prove that the accused is guilty.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will examine the preceding subsection I think he will see a provision there to the effect that a place is

not a common gaming house within the meaning of the various subparagraphs there listed when it is occupied or used by an incorporated bona fide social club or branch thereof, when certain conditions which are prescribed prevail. If an accused in a case of this sort is actually innocent the facts in proof of that innocence are entirely in his possession, and it would be a matter of no difficulty at all for him to show that the place which had been raided was actually not a common gaming house.
The necessity for subsection 3 arises from the fact that as a rule when these raids are made, especially if it is a gaming house run by an experienced operator, the police may have some difficulty in securing entry in the first place. When they do get in they often find that the proprietor has made provision for doing away with great rapidity with all of the indications of gaming and the like. The people who are found there are all just innocent people taking part in a friendly game without any professional element in it at all. In order to give protection to society in a case of this kind, it does not seem unreasonable to say that the onus of proving that it is not a gaming house can be fairly placed upon the accused when, if that be the fact, it is so easy for him to establish.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I am suspicious of any section of the Criminal Code that puts the onus of proof of innocence upon the accused. I think it is a departure from the British practice that we have followed for so long, and if we begin by putting such a provision in one section we may wind up by having it in all sections, with the result that no matter what the charge against an accused may be he will have to prove that he is innocent.
The minister says it will be an easy matter for an accused to prove that it is not a common gaming house. If it is an easy matter for him to prove that it is not, then it should be an equally easy matter for the crown to prove that it is. The crown is only going to assume the onus of proof when it is easy for the crown to do so, but when it is hard the crown will shift the burden to the accused. As a principle in our Criminal Code I dislike it very much.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am in complete agreement with my hon. friend in disliking just as much as he does this principle in any criminal law of shifting the onus of proof upon the accused. But in those cases in which the means of proof are peculiarly in the possession of the accused; where it is almost impossible for the crown to offer the necessary proof, if the

proprietor and found-ins stand mute then I think this is not the first occasion by any means when an accused has been called by statute to adduce evidence peculiarly in his possession to disprove the charge against him. With great deference to my hon. friend I would not agree that because this provision is put into a section respecting an offence of this sort, it would be proper to put it into other sections dealing with other offences. My hon. friend can see, as we go through the code, that there are very few sections in which it has been put, and that such provisions are confined to a very few sections which are of the same general character as this one.


Donald MacInnis: My understanding is that this part of the clause is new and was not in the old law. We carried on for quite a long time with the law as it was, and I do not think anything very serious happened. Surely if a place is kept as a common gaming house the necessary paraphernalia will be visible, and surely every time the police care to raid a place the occupants or owners should not have to bring forward proof that it is not a common gaming house. The minister said a few minutes ago that this is the first time this provision has been introduced. That is my point. It will be such an easy thing to make a practice of introducing such a provision here and there. We are all looking for easy ways to perform our various duties, and it will be an easy way for the police or the crown, whichever term one uses, to make an accused prove that he is not guilty. I think we should be very careful about it.


Mr. Fulton:: I do not think I am qualified nor do I desire to defend the Minister of Justice or, indeed, the new Criminal Code in matters of this sort. But if I were to let the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, for whom I have high regard, particularly with respect to his interest in persons who may be accused and who require every assistance to defend themselves, go without reply it might be taken as meaning that we do not share the concern he has expressed that as a general principle a man is innocent until he is proved guilty and that the onus of proof of his guilt should be on the crown. No one could subscribe more strongly to that conviction than I or my colleagues sitting around me and those who are members of this party generally.
Therefore, while I do not agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I felt that if I kept silent and simply let the matter go without any comment it might be taken
Criminal Code
that we were not as concerned about these things as he is. But there is a reply to him in this particular case which can and should be made. Taking clause 168 and comparing it with the old sections 226 and 227, one sees that the new clause proceeds on a rather different basis. The old sections 226 and 227 defined a common gaming house and made no exceptions. Under the new clause 168 an exception is created by subsection 2. In other words, it is continued as an offence to keep or to be in a common gaming house, but there is now an exception. Subsection 2 says:
A place is not a common gaming house within the meaning of paragraph (i) or clause (B) or (C) . . .
-if it conforms to certain standards which are then laid down.
What is now said is that we continue the offence of a common gaming house but we create an exception to that offence. We create an exception if the place falls within the category described, and it is then not a common gaming house; but we put upon the accused the onus of proving that the place falls within the exception. When you are in effect creating a specific defence to a charge, which defence is that the accused's place falls within the description of the exception to a common gaming house, it is fair to place the onus of proving that defence, by proving that the place falls within that exception, upon the accused. The crown still has to establish its case by proving that the place is a common gaming house, and it is up to the accused to prove that the place falls within the exception. This exception is now defined by the statute in a form in which it did not exist before.


Ernest George Hansell: I just wonder, if we should not let this item stand, particularly when we realize that lotteries come into this section and I notice that the committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries is meeting now. In any event, what I have in mind is that a good many of the members of the house who were members of the criminal code committee a year ago and are familiar with the code are also members of the present committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries. I am just wondering as a general practice whether we are not stealing a march on those men who are in another place and would like to be here.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that this section does not cover lotteries, so perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree. I know that our representative on the present committee on lotteries spent a tremendous amount of time and was a conscientious member of this criminal code committee a

Criminal Code
year ago. I know he would like to be here while the Criminal Code is being discussed. Perhaps at future sittings we might bring up the Criminal Code with that in mind, to avoid conflicting with the other committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to raise a point in connection with subclause 2(b), which I understand from a remark that has been made is a new provision. I am wondering what interpretation can be placed upon the words "charitable organization"? To illustrate my point, I would ask the minister whether under this clause a trade union organization, as part of its social activities, might arrange an evening when games of this sort would be played, possibly for some social or charitable purpose, and be covered by this saving clause? I realize that in the ordinary sense of the word a trade union is not a charitable organization, but could they be covered by this saving clause? If not, would the minister consider inserting some such words as "or other non-commercial organization" or something of that kind?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I might comment upon the remarks of the last two speakers because they are really related to one another. On two or three previous occasions I have explained that the setting up of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider capital punishment, corporal punishment and lotteries was upon the understanding that the house would pass these sections dealing with gambling, lotteries and so forth, subject to any amendments that might occur to us as we considered them in the form in which they are.
This was to be done so that when the new code comes into effect we will have this subject matter covered by legislation. If we repeal the old code and in the meantime do not provide these new sections dealing with lotteries, corporal punishment and capital punishment, then we are going to have a gap in our law pending the report of the joint committee. The understanding was that we would pass these sections now. Then when the committee's report came in the government would move amendments, or if the government did not feel it was appropriate to do so, members of the opposition would move them. In that event, the government would expedite consideration of any amending legislation which might be brought forward to implement the report of the committee. For that reason I am asking hon. members to pass this legislation as we go along.
Now, that does not mean we cannot examine it on its own merits in the course of passing it.
[Mr. Hansell.l
In connection with the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as to what constitutes a charitable or religious organization, if I understood his question he wanted to know whether, even although the organizations were not charitable or religious but were doing this thing for religious or charitable purposes, would that constitute a defence? Offhand I would not think it would, but that would be my own very casual opinion. The hon. member asked a hypothetical question, and with some hesitation I give that hypothetical answer.
This question has come up for interpretation by the courts; the case is Rex v. McGee. It arose in my own province of Manitoba and is reported in 50, Man. R. at page 152. There is a reference to the second exception under paragraph (b) (ii), as re-enacted in 1938. This was the former wording:
. . . while occasionally being used by charitable or religious organizations for playing games therein for which a direct fee is charged to the players if the proceeds are to be used for the benefit of any charitable or religious object.
Now I quote from the judgment:
This provision is intended to protect such people as trustees of club houses, or parish halls, who permit the occasional use of their premises for charitable or religious objects without gain or profit to themselves.
Whether that would apply to a trade union would depend upon the view the court took of the facts of the particular case. I should think a trade union might have some difficulty in proving that it was a charitable or religious organization within the meaning of the section.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did make one other suggestion upon which the minister has not commented, as to whether in this particular clause it might not be advisable to insert some words which would cover such a situation. If an organization to which I belong, such as a trade union, decides to do something of that sort even though they might not be organized mainly for that particular purpose, why should they not have the protection of this saving clause?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In that connection might I suggest that while my hon. friend can examine those clauses as they go through now, we should take some cognizance in this committee of the whole of the fact that a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate has been set up which I should think will certainly consider this very point to which he is now referring. I really think we shall be in a better informed and more intelligent position to consider this point after the joint committee shall have gone into it in somewhat more detail than

we can in this committee of the whole. I would therefore urge that amendments of the nature suggested by the hon. member might be left over until we get the report from the committee.


Mr. Dupuis:: Until a few years ago some churches organized what they called bingoes.
1	understand that even those bingo games for charitable purposes were outlawed. It was said that the code did not permit the playing of such games even for charitable purposes. Do I understand that subclause
2	(b) now makes bingoes lawful? Perhaps I do not make myself plain; I am not talking in my own language. I want it made clear whether bingoes can now be played legally if they are played for charitable purposes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer to my hon. friend is that in this particular subclause there is no change from the existing law. It may be that when we get the report of the joint committee we shall consider some change, but that is for the future. This present bill introduces no change in the law as it is in the existing code.


Mr. Patterson:: I should like to have some assurance that this clause will definitely be brought up at a future date under lotteries; otherwise it ought to be given consideration right now, or we should let it stand. Personally I feel that if a thing is wrong it is hardly right for a church or a religious organization to do it. I believe that the principle involved is altogether wrong; therefore I cannot see' why a religious organization should have any preference over any other group. Unless this matter is definitely going to be brought up at a future date under lotteries I should like to say something further on it at the present time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On that point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to reiterate once more that this subject matter is definitely being considered by the Senate and the House of Commons committee. I have undertaken, with the approval of my colleagues in the government, that when its report comes in the government will bring in legislation to implement that report; or that if to do so does not commend itself to our judgment, we shall expedite the consideration by the house of amending legislation brought in by any member of the opposition, including my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister forgotten the proviso that there has to be some recommendation in the report?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; "to implement the report" was the language I used, which means that we will be carrying out what the report indicates.
Criminal Code


Ernest George Hansell: I should like the minister's opinion with respect to paragraph (f) of this clause which reads:
"game" means a game of chance or mixed chance and skill.
Where does the common slot machine come in, in this connection? I am not an expert on the constitutional angle of these things, but I do believe that several of the provinces have taken up this matter of slot machines. I see the minister has his finger up, which means he must have something that he wants to say.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend look at clause 170, which we have not reached, but which deals with slot machines?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 169 agreed to.
On clause 170-Conclusive presumption from slot machine.
Stanley Howard Knowles: We have now reached the clause that has to do with slot machines.
I do not wish to take the floor from the hon. member for Macleod, but I would like to say this, after having read this clause. To use legal phraseology, I think I can say I have not knowingly gone into a common gaming house, but having read this clause I begin to wonder whether millions of people do not go into common gaming houses every day of their lives. Almost every time you go into a corner store you go into a place where there is a slot machine. Look at the wording of this:
For the purpose of proceedings under this part, a place that is found to be equipped with a slot machine shall be conclusively presumed to be a common gaming house.
Then we are told that a slot machine means any automatic machine or slot machine:
(a)	that is used or intended to be used for any purpose other than vending merchandise or services; or
(b)	that is used or intended to be used for the purpose of vending merchandise or services if
(i)	the result of one of any number of operations of the machine is a matter of chance or uncertainty to the operator.
Every time you use a pay telephone you do that. There is a matter of uncertainty. Sometimes you will get your nickel back and sometimes you will get your number.


William Earl Rowe: And sometimes you get neither.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members are laughing, and I do not blame them. But what about these little slot machines that children put pennies in. Sometimes they get a bit of bubble gum and sometimes they get trinkets of some sort.

Criminal Code


Mr.   Piowe@: They are buying something.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone says that is not a matter of chance. That is the reason the kiddies keep putting in their pennies or nickels; they hope to get something better than they got the last time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend look at 170 (2) (a) and (b)? If he does that he will see that they cover the point that he has just made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, but my point is that what is set out in (a) is altered by what is set out in (b):
that is used or intended to be used for the purpose of vending merchandise or services . . .
Some of these machines are there for the purpose of vending merchandise or services, but there is also an element of chance as to what item of merchandise you get.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the difference not this? In a vending machine you put the coin in the slot and you get back merchandise presumably at least of the value of the coin.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Your weight.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, or your weight, if you are interested in being weighed. You get value; but in a slot machine you put your money in and you may not get it back at all, or you may get back much more money than you put in. Therefore it is a gambling machine. I may say, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing new about this section. If my hon. friend is worried about having been in a gambling hell because he was in a drug store with a slot machine, he already has been doing that, perhaps unconsciously, for many years.


Frederick George Hahn: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. Are the machines in which you put ten cents and get nine cents worth of stamps slot machines or not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, certainly not.


Ernest George Hansell: The position as I see it is this. I do not know a great deal about the slot machines, never having played them, but I do know that those who operate the machines can get away with having the customer put in a nickel or a dime and get back one chiclet. That by-passes the law, because it can be considered to be a merchandising machine. Of course they do not put in the nickel or dime to get a chiclet, they put in the nickel or dime or whatever it is in the hope that they are going to hit the jackpot and get a dollar's worth of nickels or pennies or whatever it is that comes out. That is the thing I think is dangerous. I had an experience with one of my boys when he was just

knee-high to a grasshopper. The hon. member for Red Deer says, "Like his daddy". He did not grow to be much bigger than I am.
That boy went into one of these places without knowing anything about these machines, and a youngster told him to put in a penny. He put in a penny, he hit the jackpot and he came running out of that place with his hands together holding a fistful of pennies. He must have had 60 or 70 pennies. He wanted me to see what he had done. I took him aside and I said, "Son, I am going to tell you something. You may be able to put all those pennies in there and come away without a penny in your pocket, having lost your original penny; but if you never again play one of these slot machines you will be the one man in a million who will be able to say that in his lifetime he has been able to beat the slot machines."
I am sure the minister will agree that the slot machine is made to skin the public. It could not be otherwise. No slot machine has ever been made from which in the long run the public could win. That is what I was going to say when I rose several minutes ago. I cannot quite understand why the provinces have started an investigation of slot machines if they are covered by the Criminal Code. Why would they have to do that? I realize that the provinces administer the criminal law which comes under the department of the attorney general, but if there is any question as to the right or wrong of slot machines it seems to me it should be the minister who should carry on the investigation instead of an attorney general.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The last point raised by the hon. member for Macleod is extremely important. We have the power and the responsibility in this parliament of enacting the criminal law. Under subsection 14 of section 92 of the British North America Act the responsibility for the administration of justice, which includes the enforcement of law, is exclusively that of the provincial authorities.
The investigation to which my hon. friend refers has to do with administration. If my hon. friend will examine the evidence he will see that the allegations upon which the investigations are usually based is that in this, that or the other part of a given province, or in the province as a whole, the enforcement of the law in respect to slot machines has been inadequate.
But I would not admit for a moment that the law we are now considering is inadequate, because in substance it is a re-enactment of an existing section which has been in the code for a great many years. If it had been inadequate I should think that long since

we would have had representations from the provinces to that effect. If my hon. friend is worried about the point with which he opened his remarks, that a defence could perhaps be made by the person accused of operating a slot machine that the purpose of the machine was to vend merchandise, although still importing an element of gambling, I think his mind will be cleared up if he reads subsection 2 of clause 170 which reads:
In this section "slot machine" means any automatic machine or slot machine
(a)	that is used or intended to be used for any purpose other than vending merchandise or services; or
(b)	that is used or intended to be used for the purpose of vending merchandise or services if
(i)	the result of one of any number of operations of the machine is a matter of chance or uncertainty to the operator,
(ii)	as a result of a given number of successive operations by the operator the machine produces different results, or-
Such as were produced for my hon. friend's son when he hit the jackpot. He got in at the proper sequence and that great gain was poured into his hands.
(iii)	on any operation of the machine it discharges or emits a slug or token.
Sometimes the accused argues that if it does not put out money, that lets him out. I think there has been a successful attempt in this legislation to cover all of these possible defences to which my hon. friend referred.


Ernest George Hansell: I have one other question for the purpose of enlightening myself only. Are slot machines declared to be legal in any one province while they are still considered illegal in other provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I said a few moments ago, the responsibility for and the power of enacting criminal law, saying that which is a crime, is upon this parliament and upon no other legislative body in Canada. If we say by the Criminal Code that a slot machine is illegal and that its employment by a proprietor is a crime, as I understand the Canadian constitution it is not within the power of any province to make it legal.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I was asking the question, how can a slot machine that just tells your weight be a machine of chance?


Mr. Brown (Brantford):: Would the minister indicate whether there has been a change in the existing law. Clause 170 defines a slot machine, but in the old section there was no definition. It referred simply to certain automatic machines which were assumed to be contrivances for playing games of chance. In this clause it seems to be defined.
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has my hon. friend read section 986 (4) of the Criminal Code?


James Elisha Brown: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If he will go down to about the centre he will see that it says:
-any automatic machine intended to be used for vending merchandise or for any other purpose, the result of one or any number of operations of which is as regards the operator a matter of chance or uncertainty, or which as a consequence of any given number of successive operations yields different results to the operator-
I think if my hon. friend will examine that he will find that the substance is substantially the same as that of the present clause. I think it is put in a more intelligible form and in somewhat shorter compass.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me there are two matters of unfinished business before us. I am quite sure the minister will agree that my curiosity is pardonable if I ask him whether he will enlighten us on two matters. First, was the hon. member for Macleod or his son in a common gaming house under the circumstances which he defined and, second, what happened to the shower of pennies which was emitted from the slot machine? I do not think we should proceed until we have an answer to those two questions.


Mr. Jones:: I understand that a lot of these slot machines are imported from the United States. Why does the Department of National Revenue allow the importation of illegal machines and collect duty on them?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that question should be put on the order paper.


Owen Lewis Jones: I think the question should be dealt with now. If it is illegal to operate these machines, why does the government allow them to be manufactured in Canada. I understand that most of them do come in from the United States. Why are no steps taken to stop their manufacture or importation before they become a temptation to children?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that question is not going to be answered I think the first of the two questions asked by the hon. member for Kamloops should be taken seriously. It is in effect the question I tried to put some time ago as to whether the wording of clause 170 is not a little too broad. If I may deal with this matter for half a moment, I take it from the description given by the hon. member for Macleod that the machine from which his son got a handful of pennies was by the definition set out in this clause a slot

Criminal Code
machine, and it must have been found in a place. According to the initial part of clause 170-
... a place that is found to be equipped with a slot machine shall be conclusively presumed to be a common gaming house.
I am not attempting to hang any stigma on the particular corner store to which my hon. friend and his son went. I am more concerned with whether the wording of this clause is sensible. If that was a slot machine in the place which my friend and his son visited, then that place must be a common gaming house under the interpretation of the law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to avoid the question. That was not my intention. The method by which this clause operates, as I apprehend it, is that instead of charging a person with a number of different offences such as operating a slot machine, these various things are defined as being included in the offence of keeping a common gaming house. If my hon. friend will look at clause 176, to which we have not yet come, he will find that every one who keeps a common gaming house is guilty of an indictable offence, and so on. When these illegal slot machines are found the charge which is laid against the owner of the establishment in which it is being operated is one of keeping a common gaming house, and in that way the charge laid will cover one of a number of offences which are included in the definition of "keeping common gaming house", rather than the particular offence of operating a slot machine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly do not want it to be thought that I would condone a practice of this kind, but it does seem to me we should be practical about this matter. What the minister said a moment ago in direct answer to my question in effect describes half the corner stores in Canada as common gaming houses. I do not presume on that basis that the police in all the provinces of Canada are going to swoop down on all these corner stores. But is not that what the wording of this clause means? Otherwise the language conveys something which it does not mean. Should not there be either stricter enforcement of slot machines to the extent suggested by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, or some kind of wording which will make it clear that a comer store or drag store, which has many other purposes, is not described by the Criminal Code of Canada as a common

gaming house by virtue of the fact there is a gum slot machine to which there is attached some element of chance.


Some hon. Members:: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some hon. members ask,
"Why not?". If that is going to be the meaning of this description, then let us call upon the police in all the provinces to swoop down upon all these places. Otherwise let us use words that mean what we have in mind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is a godly and righteous man, but he is probably not too well acquainted with the possibilities of profit in these slot machines. A year or so before I came to Ottawa I visited a town in a western state in the United States where their country club was entirely financed by slot machines which were kept there and were "played" by the members. If there are a sufficient number of players who are prepared to put their money into slot machines the profits are not inconsiderable. I suppose my hon. friend was perhaps making a moral argument, but I do not know what moral difference there would be between a man who is getting a rake-off on a poker game from which he makes a lot of money, or in operating a slot machine to do the same thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister misapprehends the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The point made by the hon. member was to the effect that under the present definition a large number of corner stores, though not I believe as many as has been suggested, have slot machines within the scope of that definition and are therefore common gaming houses. The point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is that we should either narrow our definition or change it in some way so that these corner stores, which do not exist for the sole purpose of operating slot machines, would not be included within the definition of a common gaming house. The alternative is that if we decide they should be brought within the definition of a common gaming house because of these slot machines, then let us enforce the law as it now stands.
I might add that I believe my hon. friend goes much too far in saying that half the corner stores in this country keep slot machines. I believe they have vending machines for the purpose of vending merchandise or affording services of some kind, but I do not believe there are very many corner stores such as one would include in the general description of being decent

places run by law-abiding citizens which keep slot machines of the type referred to by another hon. member in this debate. The one referred to was to my mind a slot machine as defined in this clause and the store, probably unwittingly, was a common gaming house. That type of store is very much in the minority, though I would not mind seeing that particular owner prosecuted. However, I do not think we have very many examples of that type of corner store.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I entirely agree with what
the hon. member for Kamloops has said. There are a great number of vending machines in corner stores and there may be a number of slot machines, in the proper sense, in these corner stores. The situation depends in large measure upon the policy of law enforcement being pursued by the provincial or municipal authorities in the area under which these slot machines are operated. My hon. friend suggests we should enforce the law, but I am sure he would be the first to agree that we unfortunately do not have the task of enforcing this law. That is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, where this law, which has been on the statute books for some time, is enforced with reasonable strictness by the provincial authorities we agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that you would not find many slot machines in corner stores, although there may be a great many vending machines.


William Earl Rowe: Surely no one is discussing the type of machine which is there for the purpose of selling gum or Coca-Cola. The T.C.A. offices have such machines, and surely the T.C.A. offices could not be described as common gaming houses. I believe the act clearly sets out the matter; and with all due deference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it seems to me no one would suggest for a moment that the growing tendency to vend merchandise through so-called slot machines would come within the definition of slot machines used for the purpose of gambling. There is a clear-cut definition. As the minister has stated, there are many places in the United States and in Canada where all sorts of things are sold by this type of slot machine.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: You can get a hot meal in New York through one of these machines.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, and you can get Coca-Cola, gum, ladies' hosiery, cigarettes, and all sorts of things. In many cases this machine is used to take the place of a clerk. I believe there is a clear-cut distinction. I think we have wasted a lot of time.
Criminal Code


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there are two types of slot machines about which I wish to question the minister even yet. One type I referred to a moment ago, but apparently it was missed. There are these slot machines into which children put coppers-I do not know whether they go as high as a nickel or not-and out of which they get something every time. Sometimes it is a chiclet, sometimes it is a ball of bubble gum, and sometimes it is a trinket. The value varies. An hon. member near me says sometimes there is a jackpot, when there is the handful of coppers to which the hon. member referred. But there is a difference in value each time. I have seen children play these things not because of the particular article obtained but because they enjoy the chance connected with it. They are hoping to get something better next time. Is that kind of machine a slot machine?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was that kind of machine I had in mind when I suggested that they are to be found in a large number of corner stores in this country. I want to call the minister's attention to another kind of slot machine. I forget what the price of soft drinks is now but a while ago, at any rate, it was seven cents. I have seen these machines that were not equipped to take coppers, so there was a sign which said to put in five cents. But every sixth or seventh nickel, whichever it is-I have not figured out the arithmetic of it for the moment- that is put in draws a blank. A moment ago the minister mentioned being in the right sequence. On some occasions you put a nickel in and you get a bottle of Coca-Cola. Once in a while you put in a nickel and you are not in the right sequence so you get nothing. Is that a slot machine?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is very ingenious at asking these hypothetical questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not a hypothetical question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not blame him for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a real machine.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would suggest that one of the criteria is this. With any genuine slot machine you will find that, as the result of a number of operations, the machine does not make a profit upon the sale of merchandise but makes a profit by taking money from its patrons by gambling. In the case cited by my hon. friend, the machine which is placed there is for the convenience of the

Criminal Code
patrons who may not have a nickel and two coppers, so they put in nickels. At the end of a week's operation that machine will not have produced for its proprietor one penny of gambling profit. It will have provided Coca-Cola for all its patrons equal in value to the amount of money that was put into it. Therefore I would not think it would be regarded as a slot machine within this provision; nor do I think it should be so regarded, becauses that arrangement is solely for the convenience of the public.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 171 to 176 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 177-Betting, pool selling, bookmaking, etc.
Frederick George Hahn: I was just wondering how many convictions under section 177 (d) of the old act may have been registered in this country. During the baseball series or the hockey series I do not think there is any little town in the country that does not have a pool of some kind on it. I was just wondering if there were any convictions under the act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With all the good will in the world I am afraid I could not answer that question because, as I have indicated two or three times already this afternoon, the enforcement of these provisions is in the hands of the provinces. I doubt very much whether they keep any record of these convictions that is available to us. I would, however, draw this distinction. If two or three people make a pool amongst themselves, I think they are in a much different position from that of the bookmaker who accepts bets in contravention of the law.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 178 agreed to.
On clause 179-Lotteries.
Mr. Shaw:: Probably the minister can enlighten me on this point. I notice one exception that is made under subsection 8 is this. It refers to raffles for prizes of small value. Earlier we learned that it was not an offence if it were done occasionally. What is the thinking behind this? Can the minister tell me that? What justification can there be for saying that it is either morally or legally right to have prizes of small value, yet to have prizes of medium value is wrong; or that it is all right if you do a thing occasionally, but if you go beyond that it is an offence? I should like to know what the thinking is on the part of those who support this type of thing. That has always been a conundrum to me.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My friend the hon. member for Red Deer, with his usual discernment and

some gentle irony, has put his finger upon the main reason why the subject of lotteries is now being investigated by a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. I would suggest that he await the report of that committee for an answer to his question.


Frederick Davis Shaw: May I just point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I will not have to wait that long. I am a member of that committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 180 to 190 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 191-Criminal negligence.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is a new section, Mr. Chairman. I have here a note from a person who is learned in the law, far more learned than I, to the effect that this section does not really accomplish anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody very learned in the law must have drafted it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point of the criticism which I shall try to reproduce is that at the present time, under the present code, it is true that there is a distinction between criminal negligence and ordinary negligence such as that which will found an action at common law. This is apparently an attempt to carry that distinction into statutory language.
I know the section is new. The meat of the note which I have received is that when you define or attempt to define criminal negligence, it is by that very fact suggested that you are trying to define in statutory form a type of negligence which differs in some respects from negligence at common law but that this statutory definition fails to do so, and that it is going to confront courts and juries with considerable difficulty in interpreting this section to leave it in this form.
I wonder whether the minister could make any comment. I realize it is really a theoretical matter, but inasmuch as my informant says that, in his considered opinion, it will confront the courts with great difficulty, I think perhaps we should have a word about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Clause 191 represents an attempt, and I think a successful one, by the commission to derive a statutory provision from the case law, which holds that before there can be criminal responsibility for a breach of duty it must amount to such conduct as shows a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others. Perhaps my hon. friend's correspondent means, when he says that this does not make any change in the law, that it merely restates that law which

has already been established by the cases. If that be a correct interpretation of my hon. friend's correspondent's attitude I think clause 191 at least has the merit of being put in a lucid and condensed form that the ordinary person can read and understand. He then will not have to go to the case books to read the judgments and abstract from them the principles that are stated here.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 192-Causing death by criminal negligence.
Frederick Davis Shaw: My question may not apply specifically to this clause; I am merely seeking information. Under what clause of the code is a charge usually laid when parents leave a tiny child alone in the home and a fire breaks out, or something happens that results in the death of the child? Those things seem to be cropping up with grim frequency lately, and I am wondering what charge is usually laid in such cases.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend asks what charge is usually laid. I have not had occasion to check the total number of charges that have been laid in these cases of which he speaks to see whether the charge usually laid is under this clause. But I can say that a charge that could be laid and in many cases is laid on a set of facts of that sort, depending upon their gravity, would be under this section which, as my hon. friend can see, can carry a penalty of imprisonment for life.


Mr. Knight:: I should like to ask the minister whether under this clause there is a way of dealing with people who refuse certain medical treatment for their children which in the opinion of medical men is necessary to save the lives of those children. I have noticed many cases lately where people of certain so-called religious faiths have refused to have a child treated in the case of diphtheria, for instance, by serum or something else which under ordinary circumstances would save the life of the child. They refuse the treatment and the child is allowed to die. I am merely a layman and do not understand these matters, but I am wondering if the code contains any provision to deal with such a situation or if it is dealt with under clause 192.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend will realize that these charges of neglecting to provide proper medical attention will vary a good deal in their seriousness from one case to another. Some will be very serious indeed, perhaps resulting in the death of the child, and others not so serious either in the offence or in its consequences. Where gross criminal negligence had been shown I would think that a charge could be laid under section 192, but
Criminal Code
there is also a clause in the code which makes it a crime to fail to provide the necessities of life for those for whom one as a parent, for example, is responsible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if I might have your permission, Mr. Chairman, and that of the committee to consider clauses 191 and 192 together. You will observe that clause 192 states:
Every one who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
That is a new section. Criminal negligence is defined in clause 191 which reads as follows:
(1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a)	in doing anything, or
(b)	in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
As section 191 reads now, it seems to me it could be that a person who in doing something shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons is guilty of criminal negligence, and is then liable by clause 192 to imprisonment for life. Certainly a person who takes a gun and shoots another person, even although he does it deliberately, could be said to be doing something and in doing that something showing a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. It is certainly a wanton disregard for the life of the other person.
Therefore it might be alleged that such a man is guilty of criminal negligence in that he has taken a life, and is therefore guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, whereas in fact he is guilty of murder. I am quite sure it is obvious that the intention was that this particular offence should not come under clause 192, but I suggest it does by virtue of the fact that the words "that it is his duty to do" in 191(b) are not inserted in such a position that they also qualify "in doing anything" in 191(a).
It is not a man's duty to shoot somebody else. Therefore I suggest the clause might be put this way:
191. (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
(a)	in doing anything that it is his duty to do, or
(b)	in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Then you will avoid the possibility that a deliberate crime of murder might be alleged to come under clause 192, and also the possibilities of confusion. If you would insert the words "that it is his duty to do" after the word "anything" in paragraph 1 (a) of 191 I should think you would better reflect the intention of the drafters.

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not entirely sure that I got my hon. friend's point, but if I indicate in my comments that I do not apprehend it correctly I hope he will clear up the point for me. I cannot agree with him for this reason. Clause 191 (1) states that everyone is criminally negligent who in doing anything shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. The gravamen of that offence is not whether he is doing something that it is his duty to do. If it is not his duty to do it, then that is all the more reason why he should not show wanton negligence in doing it. But the gravamen of the offence is that in doing anything, whether it is his duty to do it or whether it is not his duty to do it, he shows wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.


William Earl Rowe: That could include an automobile case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes. If he is doing something that it is not his duty to do, if he is doing something that he should not be doing, and he does it with wanton and reckless disregard, then the fact that it is not his duty to do it makes his offence all the more culpable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He can be found guilty of killing a man by criminal negligence under clause 192 and be liable to imprisonment for life. But that is not the case. He murdered him. He did something that it was not his duty to do, and he did it with such wanton disregard for the life of another that he murdered him. Yet he is also covered by clause 192. Take the case of the driver of a motor car. To follow the minister's answer, the person who is driving a car does not have to do so. Therefore the minister says that in doing so he should be more careful and if he does so with wanton carelessness he should be punished. Well, he will be under the words of (b), even if it is entirely independent of (a), because if in driving that car he does so in a wanton or reckless manner he is omitting to take care, which it is his duty to do. It is the duty of everybody to take reasonable care; that is a duty imposed by law at the present time. In omitting to take reasonable care he is omitting to do something it is his duty to do.
I suggest that everybody is, in fact, covered in that regard. In driving a car without regard for the safety of a person he is omitting to do something it is his duty to do. I think those words should be qualified in (a) by "in doing anything", for the reasons I have put forward. If that is not done, you are going to get some measure of conflict

between homicide caused by criminal negligence and homicide meaning murder, because at the present time murder would also be covered by section 191 read in conjunction with section 192. A person would be doing something, and showing wanton disregard for the lives of other persons, if he shot a man deliberately. There could not be any more wanton disregard for the life of another person.
As a result, according to this definition, he has committed nothing more than criminal negligence. Actually, he has. He is guilty of murder, and could be hanged. I do not want to have any confusion between the two. Therefore I suggest that would be taken care of entirely if (a) read, "in doing anything it is his duty to do", and (b) read, "in omitting to do anything it is his duty to do". If a man is careless in driving a car or in operating anything else, whether or not it is his duty to do it, he is omitting to do something he should do. It is his duty to take reasonable care, and that is a duty imposed upon him by law. You are not, therefore, weakening (b) but you are strengthening (a).


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I cannot agree with my learned friend, either as to his conclusion or the reasoning by which he reaches it. It seems to me that clause 191 describes two forms of criminal negligence. The first one reads this way:
Every one is criminally negligent who
(a)	in doing anything,
(b)	. . . shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Now, that seems to me to be as clear as anything could be. If he does anything, and in the doing of it shows wanton disregard, then that is criminal negligence. For example, if he is out shooting with a friend and shoots in such a way that he shows wanton and reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others and thereby shoots his friend's head off, he is obviously doing something, and in doing it he may be showing a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others. In such case his conduct clearly falls within that section.
When my hon. friend suggests there is danger of confusion with a charge of murder, if he will look down the page a bit he will see that clause 194, subclause 5, states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being by criminal negligence. In a given case the crown prosecutor has the choice of bringing in an indictment either for culpable homicide or for criminal negligence. I think my hon. friend would agree that in some cases, if my memory serves me rightly, on a charge of

culpable homicide the jury will bring in a verdict of criminal negligence and the sentence is imposed accordingly. Each of those cases is disposed of on the facts before the crown prosecutor in deciding what charge he should lay, and on the facts before the jury in deciding of what crime the accused is guilty.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 193 agreed to.
On clause 194-Homicide.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Again I should like to raise with the minister this matter of innocent [DOT]children suffering from being under the control of ignorant or fanatical parents. According to clause 194, subclause 5, a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being by criminal negligence. I do not know the minister's interpretation of this clause in regard to homicide, whether that is the crime committed by these people of whom I have spoken, but there have been several instances of little children being left by people in rickety old wooden houses in which there was danger of fire. The parents go off for an evening's entertainment. They come back to find the children as well as the house in ashes. That is one thing.
There are even more serious cases, and I am thinking of diphtheria. In these days medical science can do wonders to save lives. There are also instances of children needing blood transfusions, and the parents simply refuse to permit it. Surely we have got past the stage when we believe that because a child has the misfortune to be born to certain types of parents, the parents then have that child as a possession and can do anything they like. So far as I am concerned the child is a new being by virtue of birth, and has certain rights. Surely society has some obligation in that matter. I am wondering if anything is done or if it is proposed to do anything in these particular cases.
The minister will tell me, of course, that the law is here and anyone can prosecute. It is a matter for the provinces, and this is the law by which they can prosecute. We have had some rather drastic cases in the past and, so far as I am concerned, if anything is homicide, that is it. Would the minister care to comment on what I have said?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The only comment I would offer, Mr. Chairman-I am sorry I cannot recall the names of the cases now-is that there have been cases where the parents have been prosecuted by reason of their
Criminal Code
failure, sometimes for the most conscientious of reasons, to provide medical attention. There have been convictions registered against those parents. I am thinking of a couple of cases in my own province, and perhaps my hon. friend can recall cases in his. It is not as if we had a gap in our law under this heading. It is just a case of the prosecuting authorities applying the existing law to the facts in those cases as they arise, as has been done on several occasions in the past.


Mr. Zaplifny:: I wonder if the minister would throw some light on subclause 6 of clause 194, which makes an exception in the case of a person procuring, by false evidence, the conviction and death of a human being by sentence of the law. There must be some reason for making that exception. I can foresee that a person might procure evidence in good faith, and which they believe is true, but which might turn out to be false. Whether that is the reason, or whether there are other reasons, I should like to know why that exception is made because on its face it appears to be an equally vile offence when compared with the preceding one.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know in what way I can answer my hon. friend better than by quoting from Stephen, "History of the Criminal Law", where he refers to the trial for perjury of Titus Oates and says in volume III at page 9:
Oates directly and distinctly caused the death of several innocent persons by perjury, but the fact that the judges and juries who tried the cases acted upon their own responsibility and because they chose to believe Oates's testimony, so disconnected his perjury from the death which he caused that even in 1685-
They had a very strict view of the criminal law in 1685.
-it was not thought possible to convict him of murder.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is partly what I had in mind, but the minister will notice that this does not refer particularly to a person giving false evidence; it refers to procuring by false evidence. That could go beyond the witness himself, beyond the person who is giving the false evidence. It could also include the officials. For example, the prosecutor may procure false evidence knowing that it is false. It would appear that in a case of that kind he is doing something which is culpable, and on the face of it I see no reason for the exception. What I am trying to get at is this. This exception is made by virtue of the fact that it refers to evidence which the prosecutor believes to be true but which turns out later to be false. Would we

Criminal Code
have this blanket exception under certain circumstances? Whether he knew the evidence was false or not, he is set free of a culpable charge.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I think one of the main reasons why the subclause is retained in the law is that if there were not some saving clause of this kind one can understand that no one would regard with a great deal of enthusiasm appearing as a witness in a capital case. They would fear that if the accused were found guilty and it later turned out that the evidence which the witness gave in good faith was wrong, the witness might then be open to be charged with the murder of the accused by reason of the fact that his evidence was wrong. As a result there might not be too many people come forward as volunteers to be witnesses in capital cases.
In addition to that, there is this principle that I have already enunciated; that is, that while our courts are made up of human and therefore fallible judges, and human and therefore fallible juries, they have an unavoidable responsibility of appraising the evidence which is given by all of the witnesses and forming their opinions concerning it. Therefore it is very difficult later on to say that there is a direct nexus or connection between the false evidence given by a particular witness and the incorrect verdict.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I appreciate that, particularly the last part of the explanation. It makes good sense. But I was wondering whether or not it would be wise to make a distinction there in the connective "by procuring by false evidence". I am wondering whether it should not include the words "in good faith". It does make a difference.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is procuring a conviction by false evidence. There is a comma there. If there were any doubt, there is a comma after procuring.


Mr. Nowlan:: I was wondering about the definition of "homicide". In subclause 5 (a) it says "by means of an unlawful act." Then we go back to clause 191 which gives the definition of criminal negligence. It says:
Every one Is criminally negligent who
(a)	in doing anything, or
(b)	in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Without having a chance to check the authorities-and frankly the committee has made more progress in the last 20 minutes than I thought we were going to
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
make, for which it should be commended- my impression is that at one time it was "owing a duty". You have that in 191 (b):
In omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
Then you go back to (a) and you find:
in doing anything-
-whether one owes a duty or not. Then you come down to clause 194 and you find that a man is guilty of culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being by means of certain acts.
I think we are going the wrong way about this matter, Mr. Chairman. I am not asking the Minister of Justice, as some have been doing, to give his opinion on something which obviously will have to be interpreted by the courts later on, but you are opening up a whole new field in this matter when you refer to an unlawful act. Take the motor vehicles acts of the various provinces. If you drive over 20 miles an hour, or perhaps it is 10 miles an hour, you are committing an unlawful act. Now, are you going to be guilty of homicide because you happen to be guilty of not stopping at a stop sign in my town of Wolfville? You are guilty of an unlawful act. Possibly, and apparently probably under this code, you are going to be guilty of culpable homicide for so doing.
Of course the Minister of Justice will appreciate that heretofore we have had the common law and the statute law. Now, as I understand it, the whole law is included in this new code. I think we are going on very dangerous ground. Under the common law you had to owe a duty to somebody.
I go into the woods on a hunting trip and engage in some reckless target practice, we will say, in the morning after we have had a successful trip. I do not know that my friend, the hon. member for Kamloops, is anywhere within a thousand miles. I try to hit the target, and as a result he is struck and killed. I do not owe him any duty. I do not know he is there. I knew the Minister of Justice was hunting, and therefore I would owe him a duty, but I do not owe the member for Kamloops any duty; yet he is struck and killed. I was not doing anything that showed wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
I know we have passed clause 191 and that we are now dealing with clause 194. I say we should not have this definition-I will not say we should not have; it is not for me to say-but the committee should give very careful thought to this proposition, because undoubtedly we are enlarging the scope of the criminal law to an extent which I do not think

many of us have appreciated, and which I think the minister himself will have to admit is going to open the question to various interpretations in the courts.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 1 am afraid I cannot agree with what my hon. friend has said. If he will look at clause 194, which he has before him, he will see that it replaces portions of sections 250, 252 (1), 252 (4), 252 (3) and 252 (2). The substance of this has been carried into the new clause 194. If the hon. member will look at section 252 of the existing code he will find this in subsection 2:
Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person, either by an unlawful act-
-which is exactly the language being used in subsection 5 (a) of clause 194 of Bill No. 7. -or by an omission, without lawful excuse, to perform or observe any legal duty-
-which is the substance of criminal negligence in clause 191 of this bill. Then if the hon. member will turn to clause 194 (5) he will see this:
A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a)	by means of an unlawful act,
(b)	by criminal negligence.
What has been done is this. The provisions in 252 (2) of the existing Criminal Code have been carried forward into clause 194 of Bill 7, using the words "by means of an unlawful act" as a straight repetition of language from the existing section, and then referring to the phrase which appears in section 252 of the existing Criminal Code:
-or by an omission, without lawful excuse, to perform or observe any legal duty-
-by referring to that as criminal negligence, as it is made to be by clause 191 of Bill 7. Does my hon. friend follow that?
In just a moment I shall deal with this question of an unlawful act. My hon. friend is worried that a man should be brought up on a charge of homicide based upon an unlawful act. The language to which he is referring, as it appears in the existing code, has been before the courts on a number of occasions and has been interpreted by the judges. I am now referring to Tremeear, fifth edition, page 284, which states:
It has been held that the unlawful act which results in death must, to render homicide culpable, be not merely malum prohibitum,-
That is a wrong which is prohibited by law.
-but malum in se: R. v. Oxley (1914), 23 C.C.C. 262; R. v. Lawson (1938) 70 C.C.C. 384. In both these cases deceased was accidentally shot by accused while hunting in violation of provincial game laws: compare R. v. Forseille (1920) 35 C.C.C. 171.
But in R. V. Nickle (1920) 34 C.C.C. 15,-Stuart, J. with whom Harvey, C. J., concurred, said:
Criminal Code
"In my opinion there can be no question, where we find a statute passed obviously to protect the members of the public from danger, from the danger of bodily injury, and where that statute for that purpose forbids the doing of a certain act, that the act if done contrary to the statute is such an unlawful act as is contemplated by sec. 252 . . . The circumstance that the statute is provincial can, if it is intra vires, make no difference."
This decision has not escaped criticism, but has not been definitely overruled; see R. v. Constable (1936)	66 C.C.C. 206; R. v. Wilmot (1940)	74
C.C.C. 1;
A view which might harmonize these decisions was expressed by Ferguson, J.A., in R. v. D'Angelo, 1927, 48 C.C.C. 127, where, after referring to the authorities, he said:
"-the weight of authority and the proper view of the law is that where without intent to do injury to the person or property of another death results from the doing of an act which is not malum in se but is merely malum prohibitum, the wrongful act is not the kind of an act that the criminal law requires as a foundation for a charge of manslaughter unless the statute or prohibition violated is one designed and intended to prevent injury to the person, or the prohibited act is accompanied by negligence."
My hon. friend can see therefore that this is not new law as he is suggesting; it is law which has been interpreted in a number of decisions and in the form of case law which has been clearly settled.


George Clyde Nowlan: I quite agree with the minister in so far as this definition of homicide and the particular section with which we are dealing at the moment is concerned. Of course what he has stated is correct and in accordance with the law as he and I both understand it. The point which I raised, and which takes us back of necessity to clause 191, is that the present clause 194 says:
A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(b) by criminal negligence.
I am saying that the definition of criminal negligence in clause 191 has changed the law as I understand it. I do not think there is any conflict between the minister and myself as to the words, but there is a conflict in the conclusions at which we arrive. If I am right in saying that by omitting the duty part of clause 191 you are enlarging the basis of criminal negligence, then you certainly are widening the matter as set forth in clause 194 (5) (b). I say again that, as I have understood criminal negligence in the past, it consisted of doing something to someone to whom you owed a duty, or to whom you should have known you owed a duty. Clause 191 reads:
Every one is criminally negligent who
(a)	in doing anything, or
(b)	in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.

Criminal Code
I am suggesting that as I understand the law, you have a duty under (b) and you have not a duty under (a). I could refer the minister to section 284 of the code, with which I know he is familiar, or to the reckless driving and other sections which deal with this matter and which judges have to read at great length to juries when they are charging them as to murder and so on. Section 284 reads:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by any unlawful act, or by doing negligently or omitting to do any act which it is his duty to do, causes grievous bodily injury to any other person.
Under clause 191 as we have it now that has been struck out. I would not think it so serious if it were not for the fact, as the minister pointed out the other day, that we are doing away with the common law. We are codifying the whole matter within the pages of this statute. I am not going to take time to argue what is obviously a legal question and in connection with which frankly I am not prepared to deliver a Jovian judgment.
Despite what the minister has said, I do feel that this is enlarging to a substantial degree the scope of the criminal law as heretofore dealt with in our courts. We are removing the common law entirely from this, and are creating a situation which certainly is going to be determined not in this building but in one not too far away from here, in the very near future.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 195 to 205 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 206-Punishment for murder.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words with respect to clause 206, which provides for capital punishment. I realize this clause deals with a matter which has been referred to a special committee. I think, too, it can be said that we are now quite familiar with the position taken by the Minister of Justice in regard to matters which have been referred to that committee. Nevertheless, even though I fully understand the minister's view that a gap cannot be left in the law, the fact of the matter is that we are now being called upon to enact this clause so far as the Criminal Code of Canada is concerned.
If the suggestion I am going to make in a moment cannot be acceded to, then those of us who are opposed to the continuation of capital punishment will have no alternative but to vote against this clause. The suggestion I offer to the minister is that clause 206 be permitted to stand. My reason is

that I do not believe any one of us knows how long that committee will take in its deliberations, nor have we any idea when it will make its final report on capital punishment and the other subjects assigned to it. Neither does anyone here know how long this committee of the whole is going to take in dealing with the Criminal Code. It is possible that the special committee might make its report before we have finished with all the clauses of the code here in the committee of the whole.
Bearing that in mind, I wonder if the minister would be willing to let clause 206 stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, might I just emphasize what we will become involved in by allowing this clause to stand. I have not the slightest objection to allowing clause 206 to stand in the same manner in which we have allowed other clauses to stand, and If this is all my hon. friend refers to then I shall raise no objection. However, if he means that by allowing it to stand we should not pass it when we pass Bill No. 7 and repeal the existing code, and that we thereby leave out of the new code for an interval of time any prohibition of the crime of murder-but I do not think he means that, does he?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister would not suggest that is what I meant. In fact when I made my request I admitted that a gap could not be left in the code. Something has to be put in the code dealing with the crime of murder. My point was that conceivably the special committee might make its report before we have finished with all the clauses in committee of the whole, and conceivably it might recommend against capital punishment. If that were the result of the committee's deliberation we could, if my suggestion were accepted, then consider the report of that committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the meantime it would save my hon. friend and his colleagues from giving even a small measure of support to something to which they might be opposed in principle. If that is the purpose I would be quite in sympathy with the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a correct statement of the purpose of my request.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause 206 stands.


George Clyde Nowlan: Might I ask one question, Mr. Chairman. We have passed through a number of very important sections in an extremely rapid manner. The minister knows that the courts very often say that parliament has

done so and so, and just for the record I would like to say that if the courts look at what parliament has done in dealing with these clauses they must wonder.
I would like to refer to clause 203, which I have cause to remember, and the clause thereof dealing with provocation. Can the minister tell us whether that clause makes any change in the law as that law is interpreted by the courts today, or is it merely a matter of changing the drafting of the subclause? I would like to have an explanation of that on the record.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a change in form only. This concerns the existing section 261, and if my hon. friend will look at that and compare it with the proposed clause he will see there has been no change in substance.
On clause 207-Punishment for manslaughter.


Mr. Lusby:: I wonder whether I may ask the minister whether section 207 is really necessary in view of the provisions of clause 192? It seems to me this is merely a duplication. Surely manslaughter comes within the provisions of clause 192.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think it is necessary. While my hon. friend is no doubt referring
Criminal Code
to the fact that punishment in each case is imprisonment for life, the clause is still necessary because while the maximum punishment may happen to be the same, the set of facts you have in one case might enable you to prove criminal negligence and no more than that, and in another case you might be able to establish a charge of manslaughter. It is therefore necessary to preserve the two clauses.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 207
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take third reading of the amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act; second reading of the Bank of Canada Act; second reading of the War Service Grants Act amendment, and then the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
-154
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 25, 1954