1954-02-25

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) I stated that 1,000 c.f.s. diversion at Chicago would have some effect on the seaway project. I said that it would have a serious effect on power but little adverse effect on navigation. I think at this time I should make this clarification, that the hon. member's question was directed to me in so far as the seaway project itself was concerned and had nothing to do with the effect on water levels in the great lakes or in downstream interests.


Mr. Green:: I included the power project.


Lionel Chevrier: In case I may have created a misapprehension or left the house under a misunderstanding, I think I should state now that the additional diversion of 1,000 c.f.s. will have an adverse effect upon navigation in the great lakes, and so far as the St. Lawrence river is concerned, while it is true that it would have little adverse effect during a high water cycle, I am informed it would have a detrimental effect on downstream interests during a period of low water.



SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the proposed diversion of water from the great lakes, as emphasized by the Minister of Transport-I regret that I have not notified the Secretary of State for External Affairs of my question-I should like to know whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is giving or would give consideration to recommending to the government that a special representation from the government of Canada be made to the government of the United States, having regard to the possible 83276-154*
serious effect on our power development and transportation developments on the great St. Lawrence project?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, representations have already been made on this subject. I should be glad to table tomorrow the note from the Canadian government to the United States government.



STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO 1952-53 WHEAT POOL

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the house in regard to the 1952-53 wheat pool. Briefly, the record of the 1952-53 pool is as follows:
Receipts from producers from August 1, 1952 to July 31,	1953 amounted to
533,016,978-9 bushels. The pool also received 103,208,409-5 bushels from the 1951-52 pool by transfer and 2,110,381-9 bushels were received from others than producers. The total volume of wheat received by the 1952-53 pool was therefore 638,335,770-3 bushels. The pool commenced with an initial payment of $1.40 per bushel basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. On March 2, 1953 the initial price was increased to $1.60 per bushel and an adjustment payment of 20 cents per bushel was made on all grades of wheat except Durums, delivered to the pool between August 1, 1952 and February 28, 1953. On September 24, 1953 an interim payment of 12 cents per bushel was authorized and paid on all grades of wheat delivered to the 1952-53 pool by producers.
Of these total receipts of 638,335,770-3 bushels, remaining stocks on January 30, 1954 were 148,679,561-7 bushels against which the board had priced open sales contracts of 21,404,291-1 bushels. The net stock position on January 30, 1954 was 127,275,270 -6 bushels.
The Canadian wheat board has recommended that the 1952-53 pool be closed as at January 30, 1954 and remaining stocks as well as priced open contracts be transferred to the 1953-54 pool as at January 30, 1954. The board further recommended that priced open contracts should be transferred
[Stage Direction]
Wheat
on the basis of contract prices and that unsold stocks of wheat should be transferred basis at market prices less an allowance for carrying charges subsequent to the transfer and for market risks.
The government has concurred in the wheat board's recommendation in respect to closing the 1952-53 pools and the basis of the transfer to the 1953-54 pool.
The final surplus in the 1952-53 pool is $58,282,438.38 after deducting the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy and final payment expenses and adding estimated interest earnings subsequent to January 30, 1954. This is the net surplus payable to producers and amounts to an average of 10-934 cents per bushel on their deliveries to the 1952-53 pool.
I might add that including the proceeds of the interim payment last fall, which amounted to $63,962,036.83, the total surplus in the 1952-53 pool was $122,244,475.21 over and above the adjusted initial price of $1.60 per bushel basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. This compares with the final surplus in the 1951-52 pool of $114,585,112.69.
The final 1952-53 payment to producers on the principal grades of wheat will be as follows:	No. 1 northern, 9-653 cents per
bushel; No. 2 northern, 9-963 cents per bushel; No. 3 northern, 10-341 cents per bushel; No. 4 northern 13-454 cents per bushel; No. 5 wheat 9-292 cents per bushel; No. 6 wheat 14-397 cents per bushel; feed wheat, 14 -679 cents per bushel.
The foregoing payments also apply on toughs and damps of each grade.
Prior to the deduction of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy, the net price realized by producers for No. 1 northern wheat basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver will be $1-81871 per bushel. The corresponding realized price for the 1951-52 pool was $1-83569 per bushel.
The house will be interested in the results obtained in respect to milling grades of Durum wheat. During 1952-53 board receipts of Durum wheat were 8,288,289-8 bushels. Hon. members will recall that effective March 2, 1953, the initial price of Durum grades of wheat was increased to $1.65 per bushel basis No. 1 amber Durum and the adjustment payment on all grades of Durum was 25 cents per bushel. The final payment on the principal grades of Durum wheat are as follows: No. 1 amber Durum, 45-747 cents per bushel; No. 2 amber Durum, 47-472 cents per bushel; No. 3 amber Durum, 53 [DOT] 646 cents per bushel; No. 4 amber Durum, 52-115 cents per bushel.

The above payment will also apply to toughs and damps of each grade. Prior to the deduction of P.F.A.A. levy, the net price realized by producers for No. 1 amber Durum basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur was or will be $2-2330 per bushel as compared with $1-83569 per bushel in 1951-52. The high final payments on milling grades of Durum wheat are due to a very active demand for this variety of wheat and a limited supply not only in Canada but in other exporting countries.
The wheat board is in a position to commence the distribution of the final payment on the 1952-53 wheat pool on or about March 15.
Mr. Fulton:: Explain.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Perhaps you need an education.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question, though before doing so I would intimate that the prices he has announced are quite satisfactory. My supplementary question is this. Can the minister inform the house whether it will be government policy this year, as in recent years, to make an interim payment on the current wheat crop? As the minister is no doubt aware, this is about the date in previous years when an interim payment was made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, government policy will be announced in due course. I may say, however, for the information of the hon. member, that an interim payment will not be made at the present time for the very good reason that we have not as yet sold any wheat from the last crop.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES THIRD AND FOURTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE  CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Piciou) presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fourth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many houses have been built in Halifax area under the defence workers housing loans regulations?
2.	What is the amount of the loans on these houses?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Houses built or in the process of being built number 80.
2.	Individual loans range from $6,000 minimum to $10,000 maximum and in total amount to $615,890.


WOLFVILLE, N.S., PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	During the calendar years 1952 and 1953, what was the total amount of money expended for repairs, renovations and additions to the dominion public building at Wolfville, Nova Scotia?
2.	During the same period, what was the total amount of money expended on the grounds of the said building for (a) grading; (b) paving?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Calendar year 1952, $48,943.35; calendar year 1953, $117,336.85.
2.	(a) and (b) calendar year 1952, $3,077.82; calendar year 1953, $2,353.98.
Note: It is not possible to give the breakdown for grading and paving, as both are included in one general contract.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Pouliol:: 1.	From whom did the Canadian National buy its charcoal during each of the last five years, and at what price?
2.	What was the address of the suppliers of such charcoal?
3.	What quantity was bought from each of them?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) Mr. Alexandre Paquet.
(b) It is not the policy of the company to divulge the nature and details of contracts or orders between the railway and other parties for the supply of materials required for company use.
2.	St. Raymond, Que.
3.	See answer to No. 1(b).
tender C-18-1T-24-14


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	To whom did the Department of Defence Production award the contract covering item No. 48 of tender C-18-1T-24-14?
2.	What price was quoted by the successful tenderer?
3.	What was the range of prices quoted by all tenderers?
4.	How many tenders were received?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Sterling Stamp and Stencil Company, London, Ont.
2.	$5.88 per set, sales tax included, terms net, delivered.
3.	$5.88 per set to $17.82 per set.
4.	Eleven.
Questions



BILINGUAL CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Girard:: 1.	What proportion of civil servants are bilingual?
2.	What proportion of civil servants of English origin are bilingual?
3.	What proportion of civil servants of French origin are bilingual?
4.	What is the proportion of government publications and stationery printed in both languages?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1, 2 and 3. No information is available. Except where bilingualism is a qualification for a position, no attempt is made to determine whether candidates for the public service are bilingual though they are usually asked about the extent of their knowledge of the two official languages. Many public servants, of course, have considerable knowledge of both official languages who would hesitate to describe themselves as bilingual.
4.	So far as publications are concerned, the proportions are approximately 70 per cent in English and 30 per cent in French. No attempt is made to measure the proportions for stationery as any standard of measurement would be practically meaningless.



TAX COLLECTIONS, 1953

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: How much was collected by the government in 1953 from (a) excise tax; (b) sales tax?


Mr. McCann:: (a)	Total excise taxes collected in 1953, including sales tax, were $1,048,183,491.01.
(b)	Of the above total, sales tax amounted to $757,570,502.24.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mrs. Fairclough:: 1.	Did the Minister of Labour or his officials, following the press reports of court proceedings in Montreal, take steps to inform themselves as to the background of Harold C. Banks before his appointment as the Canadian representative to the conference of I.L.O. at Geneva was approved?
2.	If so, did the Minister of Labour consider the said Harold C. Banks an appropriate representative of Canadian organized labour at such a conference?
3.	When Mr. Banks' appointment and intended departure for Geneva was fully reported in the press, did the Minister of Justice or his officials inform the Minister of Labour regarding Mr. Banks' court record? If so, on what date?
4.	At the time Mr. Banks came to Canada did he enter as an immigrant intending to reside in Canada, or as an organizer coming to this country temporarily for the purpose of organization?
5.	If he came as an immigrant, did his declaration disclose his court record in the United States?
6.	If so, why was he admitted?
7.	If not, on what date was it discovered that the declaration was incorrect and what action was taken in pursuance of such discovery?
2426	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
8.	If Mr. Banks did not enter as an immigrant, under what arrangements has he remained in Canada during the past five years?
9.	Was the Department of Citizenship and Immigration at any time made aware of the court record of Mr. Banks in the United States?
10.	If so, what action did the Department of Citizenship and Immigration take in regard to this matter?



COMMUNISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is based on an article in today's Montreal Gazette, reporting a statement made by an official of the citizenship branch, to which I have called the minister's attention. My question is this. Does the government hold the view there expressed that there exists in Canada a group of communist publications whose aim is the furtherance in Canada of the objects of international communism, which are subsidized from abroad, guided from Toronto, and aimed chiefly at new Canadians?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated that he intended to ask a question but until I heard him speak just now I did not know what the question was going to be. I have seen the article referred to in the Montreal Gazette. It is a report, which is not in quotation marks, of a lecture delivered last evening to a group known as the Montreal co-ordinating council for new immigrants. In so far as the report is concerned I see in it nothing that is contrary to the knowledge that exists in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The citizenship branch particularly has in it liaison officers whose duty it is to visit groups of new Canadians, to see that they understand the perils of communism as it is preached in Canada, and to take active steps to prevent new immigrants from coming under the influence of these people. Parliament votes the money for that purpose, and I think that duty is being carried out reasonably well.
So far as concerns the opinion expressed that there is in Toronto a headquarters from which communist propaganda is disseminated, I think it is common knowledge that the headquarters of the Labour-Progressive party was at one time, if it is not now, in the city of Toronto. I think it is also common knowledge that there are 12 or 14 foreign language newspapers which follow the communist line. The speaker, Mr. Boyd, was attempting to show how they followed a common line in


almost everything, including an effort to undermine all the institutions in Canada that we try to uphold.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or possibly the Minister of Justice, or both. ^ I should like to ask whether there exists _ in Canada any legislation under which effective action can be taken to deal with this alleged communist-directed group who are aiming newspaper propaganda at new citizens. If so, I should like to ask what plan the government has for action accordingly?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that question not in the nature of asking the minister to give a legal opinion?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is legislation in existence, the hon. member can certainly make his own research on the matter. If the minister knows of one statute that he can quote to the hon. member, so that he can satisfy him, that is all right; but I would imagine that the hon. member could perhaps make his own research on the point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a question similar to that one has been asked on a number of previous occasions; but if there is objection to the form of the question, perhaps I could put it this way. What action does the government propose to take to deal with the serious situation disclosed by an official of the citizenship branch of the minister's own department?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I made it clear that the citizenship branch engages in activities designed to reach new Canadians especially- but all Canadians, as a matter of fact-in order to warn them of the evils of communist doctrines. As to the legal position with regard to any action to be taken against persons, I think my hon. friend will know perfectly well that that matter rests with the attorneys general of the provinces to prefer prosecutions under any laws there may be on the subject and for offences under them.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house the reasons

why the Canadian National Railways cancelled a coal order that was to be supplied by the Drummond colliery located at West-ville, Nova Scotia?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was courteous enough to send me notice of his question. I had been expecting this question now for some days and I had asked the Canadian National Railways for an explanation of the position. This is what the railways tell me.
The Intercolonial Coal Company ceased operations on October 29, 1953, after the mine was closed down. It was purchased by a Mr. Henry Thompson of New Glasgow and reopened as the Drummond Coal Company. The coal was never good but since the mine has reopened it has been even worse. There were delays in train service in December, January and early February due to the use of Drummond coal which was supplied to our locomotives at Joffre. On account of the complaints received from the operating department our fuel department has recently been sampling and analysing a number of cars of Drummond coal received at Joffre. The average ash content was 22-7 per cent which was about 3J per cent higher than that of the coal we previously received from the Intercolonial Coal Company. Additional impurities have been found in the coal in the form of a hard heavy stone which the railways understand is known locally in Westville as "iron stone". The samples of this material indicate that it is hard and large enough to cause serious trouble to stokers of our locomotives. Apart from a small tonnage, the C.N.R. are receiving no coal from any other source that approaches 19 per cent ash, and for the reasons given above the C.N.R. have refused to continue taking Drummond coal. The maximum ash content accepted on United States coal is 10 per cent and on Canadian coal it is 14 per cent.
That is the purport of the information given to me by the Canadian National Railways.



SUGGESTED GIFT OF SURPLUS TO NEEDY COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of many letters I have received from persons in my own riding and in other ridings, I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Production. Has the
Inquiries of the Ministry government received any resolutions or petitions from various organizations across Canada asking that some of our surplus wheat be given to those countries which are unable to supply their needy people with sufficient food? Has consideration been given to this matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of this question. I would have to look through the files in order to make sure whether or not we have had any such letters. I believe we have had some from time to time. The question of giving away the property of the western producers is a serious matter. There might be objections. However, I shall be glad to prepare an answer and to give it at a later time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General in view of press reports of recent days. Will the Postmaster General say whether or not his department has decided to abandon its previously announced intention of using casual help for the Saturday delivery of mail?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: can only refer my hon. friend to the reply I made the day before yesterday to a question on the matter, wherein I promised to make a statement. I am hoping to make a statement tomorrow.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he prepared to answer a question that I asked on the orders of the day on February 15? My question then was as follows:
In view of the fact that the United States government has decided to investigate the feasibility of the development of the Passamaquoddy power project, is it the intention of the government to join in that investigation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to answer this question now. It is one about which I have also received inquiries from the hon. member for Charlotte. The answer is that the Canadian government has
2428	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry not been informed that the United States government has decided to investigate or to ask for an investigation of the feasibility of the development of the Passamaquoddy power project. The position is almost the same as it was when I answered a similar question by the hon. member for Royal on January 19 of this year. A resolution to request the international joint commission to undertake such a survey has been approved by the United States Senate but it has not yet been considered by the House of Representatives in Washington.
If the resolution is passed, and if as a result the United States government wishes the international joint commission to undertake the survey, the Canadian government would be prepared of course to give consideration to any proposal for a joint reference for that purpose. As I mentioned on January 19, the proposed survey is not a new idea. It was indicated in a report by the international joint commission, dated October 20, 1950, that a full-scale survey of this type would be necessary if the economic feasibility of the project is to be fully determined.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister's attention been drawn to reports that a very serious outbreak of equine encephalomyelitis is expected in Saskatchewan this spring? If so, can the minister state whether or not the department is taking any steps to assure a sufficient amount of vaccine to combat the situation or to encourage farmers to vaccinate all horses?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member gave me notice of his question. In reply to the first part I may say that I have not seen the article referred to by the hon. member for Moose Mountain. With regard to the second part of the question, I am advised that this is not a reportable disease under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and therefore is a matter which will be dealt with by the provincial authorities. I am further informed that the vaccine is manufactured at the University of Saskatchewan and is available in commercial quantities. It is customary, however, for officers of the health of animals division of this
[Mr. Pearson.)

department to closely observe all developments of this nature in order to be kept informed regarding the situation, and that is true with regard to this particular case.



INQUIRY AS TO JOINT MEETING TO CONSIDER INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: I have a question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, but as he is not in his seat it can stand as notice. I sent him a copy. Can the minister inform the house of the approximate date when representatives of his department will be meeting with the coal operators of Nova Scotia and the mine workers jointly for the purpose of determining the future of the coal industry? I may say that if we can have that meeting we may get some answers to the statement made by the Minister of Transport.



DUMPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Joseph McCann: The hon. member for Calgary South on Monday, February 22, and again on Tuesday, February 23, asked what products had been affected by the recent amendment to section 35 of the Customs Act. It will be recalled that on December 8, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Greenwood, I indicated that under this measure any industry which found itself suffering from unfair competition in the same form as the textile industry would be in a position to receive the same relief. To date action has been taken in respect of cotton dress goods and refrigerators.


Mr. Knowles:: Does the answer the minister has given mean that there have been representations to his department from Canadian manufacturers interested' in refrigerators?


James Joseph McCann: It means exactly what I said. To date action has been taken in respect of cotton dress goods and refrigerators.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the legislation was brought in was it anticipated that it would cover refrigerators?


An hon. Member:: For one who knows the rules-



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he is now in a position to answer my question of February 23 regarding Mr. Banks.
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: The answer to the present question is yes and the answer to the former question is yes.


William McLean Hamilton: I should like to ask the
minister whether his department has located its file on Mr. Banks, which an official stated a couple of months ago had been mislaid.


Walter Edward Harris: For the second time I point out in answer to my hon. friend's question that I think you have ruled many times, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the question period is to obtain information. I have no knowledge whatever about his present question. It has not been drawn to my attention that any official of my department said that the file had been mislaid. If he will be good enough to tell me about it, I shall look into the matter.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of Bill No. 295, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 297, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned on the first reading of this bill, many of the proposed amendments to the Bank of Canada Act deal with rather minor matters and to a considerable extent involve a tidying up of the act. Since it is the intention that this bill be sent to the banking and commerce committee as soon as it has received second reading, it does not seem to me necessary or desirable that I should go into these matters of detail in the house at this stage. However, with respect to the more important amendments which are being proposed, members 83276-155
Bank of Canada Act
might find it of some help if I gave a brief review of the considerations underlying the changes involved.
Perhaps I might start by reviewing the present and proposed provisions regarding the chartered banks' cash reserves. At the present time the chartered banks are required to maintain at all times a cash reserve equal to at least 5 per cent of their Canadian dollar deposit liabilities. This requirement was established in 1934 following a period in which the cash reserves of individual banks had on occasion fallen to rather low levels.
I might say that now, with a central bank in operation, it is inconceivable that a situation would arise where there would be a shortage of cash reserves such as existed in the early 1930's.
Minimum cash reserve requirements are important not only because they ensure that banks will maintain an adequate liquid position but also because of their relationship to the cash reserve policy of the central bank. The most important function of the Bank of Canada is to influence the volume of money and credit, and the normal way in which this influence is brought to bear is through changes in the cash reserves of the banks. An increase in cash reserves tends to encourage banks to expand their assets; a decrease tends to discourage expansion. However, the effectiveness of the cash reserve policy depends to a considerable extent on the firmness of the relationship between the banks' cash reserves and deposit liabilities. If the banks allow the relationship to vary much, there may be no response, or only a very slow response, to a change in cash reserves. The minimum cash reserve requirement is important in this connection since it establishes a level at which banks must respond to decreases in their cash reserves.
Experience has shown that the 5 per cent minimum is too far below the ratio which each bank normally regards as its target-in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent-to prevent the banks in certain circumstances from allowing, even though reluctantly, their average cash ratio to fall well below the target level. In an inflationary period, when demands for bank loans are at a peak, and when it is appropriate for the central bank to attempt to restrain the expansion of money and credit, banks are sometimes willing to allow their average cash ratios to fall below the normal target level and the size of the central bank's task becomes very much greater. In such a situation the present methods of central bank action available to the Bank of Canada may not always be sufficient to cope with the problem of restraining credit expansion in an effective

Bank of Canada Act
and orderly way. This is also true of situations where other special factors, such as the inflow of foreign funds, may create a temporary but substantial excess of cash reserves.
To overcome these difficulties it is proposed that the minimum cash reserve requirement, based on the daily average for each calendar month, be 8 per cent of deposit liabilities and that the Bank of Canada be given power to vary this minimum requirement between 8 and 12 per cent, provided that the chartered banks are given a minimum period of one month's notice before each increase becomes effective and that any one increase is not more than 1 per cent. When this legislation comes into force, the initial minimum requirement will of course be 8 per cent. Having in mind that the 8 per cent minimum will be calculated on a daily average basis, I do not feel that the practical result will involve a more onerous requirement than the present arrangement.
The addition of the power to vary reserve requirements to the techniques now available to the Bank of Canada in implementing monetary policy will bring them into line with those of central banks in other countries. However, it is not the intention or expectation that this power is one which will be frequently used. Much more likely it will be limited to special and temporary situations where the present methods of restraining monetary expansion need to be supplemented. Incidentally, it is believed that an announcement by the central bank of an increase in reserve requirements would have helpful psychological effects. It would be a specific indication to the chartered banks' customers that restraint in the use of credit was necessary, and that the banks' capacity to increase loans was being restricted.
Until now, the requirement that banks observe a minimum cash reserve requirement has appeared in both the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act. It is now proposed that only the provisions regarding the power to vary the requirement should be included in the Bank of Canada Act. All other provisions relating to cash reserve requirements, including the detailed provisions with respect to the basis on which the requirement is to be observed and the statistical information and declarations which are to be maintained, will be made part of the Bank Act and will be available for discussion when the amending legislation is introduced.
In addition to the amendment regarding cash reserve requirements, there are three

other important proposed revisions which I might mention briefly. In view of the proposed provision in the National Housing Act allowing banks to make insured mortgage loans, it is proposed that the Bank of Canada should have the power to make short-term loans to banks on the pledge or hypothecation of mortgages held by them.
At the present time there are certain limitations on the amount of securities, issued or guaranteed by the government of Canada or any province, which the Bank of Canada is allowed to hold. Holdings of such securities which do not mature within two years are limited to 50 per cent of the bank's outstanding note issue and deposit liabilities, and holdings of securities which do not mature within ten years are limited to an amount equal to five times the paid-up capital and rest fund of the bank. It is felt that these arbitrary limitations are no longer necessary or desirable and it is proposed to remove them. At the same time it is proposed that greater detail of the bank's securities holdings be given in the weekly and monthly returns to the Minister of Finance which are published in the Canada Gazette.
The rest fund of the bank is now just over $10 million, having been provided out of profits in accordance with the original act. Owing to the substantial growth of the total assets of the bank, it is thought that additional capital funds should be provided by increasing the rest fund to $25 million. This would be accomplished by appropriating one-fifth of the annual profits to the rest fund each year until the desired level is reached.
As I indicated at the outset of my statement, Mr. Speaker, I propose, at the conclusion of the debate on second reading, to move that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee, and the governor of the Bank of Canada will be available to explain the technical aspects of the amendments which are being made to the act.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: As the
minister has indicated, this measure will go to the banking and commerce committee, so it is neither desirable nor possible at the moment to talk about the details. It seems to me that the measure is of great importance in extending the powers of the Bank of Canada, and it seems to me also it is worthwhile to dwell just for a few moments on the vast powers which the Bank of Canada has, and has had over the last 20 years. We have come to take them so much for granted that we do not often think about them. I propose to spend a very short time in directing attention to them.

As the minister has indicated, apart from details of personnel of directors and their remuneration, the three things that this measure really does are, first, to introduce a new power with regard to mortgages and real estate; secondly, to extend to some extent the general investment powers of the bank, though that is not very far-reaching; and thirdly, to deal with the question of chartered banks' reserves and their relationship to the Bank of Canada.
I said a moment ago I though it was worthwhile to draw attention to the really vast powers over our day to day lives that have been vested in the Bank of Canada. I think these powers could best be indicated by reading the preamble to the act, but even before that I should read a short extract from the Macmillan report outlining what that commission considered to be the duties of a central bank.
I hope you are not getting uneasy, Mr. Speaker, because it does seem to me-I assure you I shall be brief-that when we are extending substantially the powers of this institution, as we are, it is relevant to spend a very few moments in reminding ourselves, as we very seldom do, of the very great powers that institution has. I submit that with deference, Mr. Speaker, and also with a good deal of earnestness. The Macmillan report says briefly at page 63:
. . . the central bank . . . should endeavour to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation and should so far as possible control and defend the external value of the national monetary unit. In the second place, from the international point of view, the central bank by wise and timely co-operation with similar institutions in other countries, should seek, so far as may lie within the scope of monetary action, to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of economic activity.
I now wish to read the preamble to the Bank of Canada Act, because it really echoes some of the words of the Macmillan report. The preamble is short and says:
Whereas it is desirable to establish a central bank in Canada to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, to control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit and to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment, so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action, and generally to promote the economic and financial welfare . . . etc.
I just wish, Mr. Speaker, to say a further word about the extreme range of those powers-to regulate credit and currency, to control and protect the external value of the monetary unit. It is no exaggeration to say that the action of the Bank of Canada affects every one of us in our lives because, to go no farther, here you have a power placed 83276-155i
Bank of Canada Act
in the hands of a few men who are in close conjunction with the government. These few men have the power of controlling the spendable money in circulation in Canada. I need not point out what that means to all of us. It means that the central bank, by its actions, can stimulate or slow down the economic activity of the country. It can have a great influence on prices, and I need not explain why. The argument is perfectly obvious.
Then the central bank has great power over the chartered banks. We have discussed that in the house before. It is no exaggeration to say that the chartered banks really need nothing but a request from the central bank in order to comply with that request.
At any rate, I think that is a fair summary of what has happened in the last 20 years, and particularly the last 15 years, during which time the central bank has played a very important part in our lives. I am referring of course to the 15 years since the outbreak of war.
That would lead one to ask this question: is there any restriction of any kind on the powers of the central bank, or is it left to the judgment of a group of men to exercise this important function?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but since he has indicated to me that he is dealing with the powers under which the Bank of Canada operates, I have listened carefully to him and, unless he wishes to go back to the principle of the amending bill, I think I must warn him that we are not discussing the Bank of Canada Act at the moment. We are, rather, discussing a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act, which is a quite different proposition.
The hon. member may say, of course, "My line of argument, as you will see, Mr. Speaker, will bring me back to the amending bill." But my problem is that the hon. member is entitled in this instance to speak as long as he wishes in the debate on second reading; and if he is going to speak for, let us say, 35 minutes, about the general powers of the Bank of Canada, and then tie that up with the amending bill for perhaps five minutes, it would defeat the purpose asserted in the rules.
I know the hon. member will co-operate. I must say I have looked closely at the marginal notes in the bill, and I do not see how the powers of the Bank of Canada generally, put as he says in the hands of a group of men, can be considered to be relevant to the principle of the amending bill. With
2432	HOUSE OF
Bank of Canada Act
one exception, I do not think these clauses in the bill affect the powers of the Bank of Canada Act at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I defer to Your Honour's ruling, of course; perhaps unintentionally I may have wandered. However, I think Your Honour will agree that the point I am now going to make is entirely relevant, because it has to do with the question of whether there should be any restriction of power in any way. And I suggest to Your Honour that the real principle of the measure before us is that it does extend very substantially the powers of the Bank of Canada.
I am now about to refer-this is really my last point, and I can reassure Your Honour as to the question of the time during which I shall speak-to a restriction of the bank's power which, I suggest, is relevant because in the measure the government seeks actually to make the powers still wider.
The point I wish to raise now, one which I am sure Your Honour will find is well within the limits of the rules, is that I now ask the question whether there is at the present time any restriction-and I can answer that there is not, and that the Bank of Canada at the present time really has no restrictions over its powers of creating currency. But I would point out that when the bank was set up there was such a restriction, which has now been done away with. It is the doing away with that restriction to which I wish to refer, and in that connection to quote some of the experts who have expressed opinions in the matter.
I repeat that when we are extending powers, as we are in this measure, surely it is relevant to consider whether the powers are unlimited, whether they were always unlimited, and the reason for the removal of the limitations. We must consider whether there is an argument to be made for the restoration of some limitation.
In this connection I should like to read section 23, formerly section 26, of the Bank of Canada Act which says:
(1)	The bank shall always maintain a reserve, as hereinafter provided, as security against its outstanding notes and deposit liabilities.
(2)	The reserve required by this section to be maintained shall consist of gold coin and bullion in the unrestricted ownership of the bank equal to an amount not less than 25 per cent of the notes and deposit liabilities aforesaid.
That restriction, I am informed, was removed in 1940, during the war, and all the gold that was in the custody of the bank was then transferred to the management of the foreign exchange control board for the foreign exchange fund. And from that time


until 1952 an order in council was passed, year by year, rendering the maintenance of the reserve unnecessary.
Then in 1952 the following section was passed in the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act:
Notwithstanding section 26-
And that is now section 23.
-of the Bank of Canada Act, the Bank of Canada is not, unless the governor in council otherwise prescribes, required to maintain a minimum or fixed reserve ratio of gold or foreign exchange to its liabilities.
In other words, Your Honour, we now have a situation wherein the brake which did exist has been entirely removed.
I should like in that connection to refer to an extract from the Macmillan report, which was the basis of the setting up of the bank. I refer particularly to a statement made by Sir Thomas White who, at one time, occupied the position now occupied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Sir Thomas White has very strong words to say about the maintenance of a 25 per cent gold reserve. It will be noted that Sir Thomas White and Mr. Leman of Montreal, who was at that time the general manager of one of the banks, filed dissenting memoranda. Sir Thomas White said:
I join with my colleague, Mr. Leman, in his strong criticism of granting to the board of the proposed bank the power to carry their cash reserves either in gold or foreign exchange. He has pointed out the grave risk involved in relying to too great an extent upon the stability of such exchange and to the necessity for maintaining a 25 per cent gold reserve in Canada.
I mention that merely to show that that view was held by competent people at that time. And as I have mentioned Sir Thomas White I should like to add that some of the views he held which some people were inclined to regard as old-fashioned eight or nine years ago, have now proved to be not so old-fashioned, at a time when Dominion of Canada bonds are selling on a 3-75 basis.
In the committee on the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act of two years ago we had a very interesting sitting attended by the late Dr. Clark, then deputy minister. I should like to read briefly from one or two of the answers he gave, because I think they are relevant. Dr. Clark answered a question I had asked him-and which purposely I had put in a rather extreme form-in this way:
Perhaps I should ask you now whether you accept fully the view that after all we have a managed currency and there is no check of any kind on it except the judgment of a group of men of whose judgment we think highly and if that is a fair statement of your attitude does that mean that you feel that we should entirely dismiss from our minds the idea of reserve, that we have outgrown them?

To that he answered, "no, no." Mr. Dumas also asked Dr. Clark:
Would you say that it would be in the interest of the country, if in our reserve we had more gold than we have, if we had gold instead of U.S. dollars.
To that Dr. Clark answered:
I do not think it makes very much difference. There are reasons for which you want gold and there are reasons for which you want U.S. dollars. We keep a certain amount in both . . . the amount we are holding in gold has been increasing recently.
I want now to apologize here for quoting briefly from my own remarks when speaking two years ago in the committee of the whole in the debate on the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act. I was pleased to find this because I am glad to know that I am not talking differently today from the way I talked two years ago. That is always a satisfaction to anyone in our way of life. I should like to quote from page 3786 of Hansard of June 26, 1952, where I am reported as follows:
In the discussion in the banking and commerce committee yesterday this point of a fixed reserve was raised, and I should like to put this discussion briefly on the record.
Let me say here, lest I forget, that I am not suggesting that Dr. Clark had committed himself to the 25 per cent gold reserve. I am suggesting merely that he did not sweep out the idea of a reserve as something which sensible men could not talk about.
There is of course the view which has been expressed in this house this afternoon that money should be entirely a managed thing, that there should be no attempt to impose a check of any kind.
I want to interject here to say that it will be remembered that in 1947 there were strong differences of opinion among us as to the parity at which the Canadian dollar had been fixed and there was a great loss at that time of gold and American exchange. I think anyone, whether he agrees or not with the desirability of having a gold reserve, will agree that if there had been a provision for a gold reserve we would at that time have had to stop, look and listen earlier, and to some of us that would have been an advantage.
That was discussed in the committee yesterday, and I think it would be fair to say the view of the experts was that while at the present time they felt that it was wise to leave in abeyance clause 26-
Now clause 23.
-of the Bank of Canada Act-in other words they did not think it was wise to reimpose the requirement of 25 per cent gold backing of the currency- nevertheless they did not go the length of saying that a reserve check of some kind was an outmoded superstition.
And then later on I said:
I am not going to pursue this at length, but I do want to have it on the record that I think the question of a reserve of some kind, a check on the
Bank of Canada Act
purely managed currency, should not be regarded as an outworn superstition. I think it should be seriously considered. I am not going to ask the committee to spend time considering it this afternoon. I am anxious just to put it on the record.
Incidentally, when we come to the committee I hope that that will be considered seriously. We are in danger I think of having almost too much satisfaction in our supreme wisdom and forgetting that there are events beyond our control. We have in fact been going through 15 years of boom and that does not always give one all the answers.
I want to thank you, sir, for your kindness in allowing me to put forward these views and I on my part intend to co-operate with you by carrying out what I said about not speaking at length. I do hope that when we get to committee this matter will be taken seriously. I think we should remember that, as I said at the outset, we have under this act put in the power of a few men almost unbelievable control over the lives of the rest of us.
As I have said, for 15 years we have been in a boom and we are inclined to think that that was due to our supreme wisdom. It has been due very largely to events over which we have no control. Therefore I hope that when we come to the committee we shall be ready with open minds to consider the situation and I hope that the chairman of the committee will be as indulgent as you have been and permit a discussion again of metallic reserves.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as has already been said by the minister and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), will go to the banking and commerce committee. I am sure that we all hope that in the banking and commerce committee there will be a very thorough review of the Bank of Canada Act and that the proposals contained in this bill will be thoroughly considered and discussed.
I may say that in a general way we are in support of this bill. There are details which our members on the committee will inquire into, question and perhaps make some further proposals. I think time has vindicated the establishment of the Bank of Canada.
Perhaps it may not be out of place if I paid a tribute to the people who pioneered the idea very largely in this house, and indeed across the country. An examination of Hansard in the period from 1921 to 1935 will, I think, indicate very clearly who they were. Mainly they were the members of a very able group of farmers and labour men who occupied the southeast corner of this chamber. It was a strange turn of events

Bank of Canada Act
in 1935 that saw most of them eliminated from this house. I think the educational work which they did was used and that the monetary proposals they made were brought to an illogical conclusion, mainly in the province of Alberta in 1934 and 1935.
This bank was established first by the government of the late Viscount Bennett, partly as a publicly-owned and partly as a privately-owned institution. In 1936 it was thought proper that it should be brought under public control and made entirely a publicly-owned institution. As this bill very clearly indicates, the bank was established to serve a number of purposes. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Greenwood, its primary function then was and still is "to control or regulate the volume of credit and money in circulation".
Prior to that time the legislation pertaining to the issue of notes, paper currency, money and so on, was unsatisfactory. Then again central banks were being created throughout the commonwealth. We therefore created this institution. We are now called upon to consider and amend the act under which it was created. In the years before there was very little control over bank policies by the parliament of Canada or by any institution reporting to the parliament of Canada.
The chartered banks had the privilege of extending credit and issuing their own bank notes. The only control was within the institutions themselves, within the chartered banks. Mainly they thought in terms of the safety of their depositors' money. I readily recognize that, although there was the added incentive of protecting their own institutions and of profit to their shareholders.
The factors which brought about this act, factors which are still with us and therefore would come under a discussion of the amendments, are dangers inherent in any banking system. The general public became anxious about the safety of their deposits. This was brought home to them at the time of the failure of the Home Bank and the difficulties into which the Merchants Bank got in the 1920's. Then of course there was the financially dangerous situation which developed in the early thirties when the government of that day found it necessary, in order to prevent panic, to allow the banks to publish balance sheets showing their securities at the figures of a few years earlier, when the assets were greatly inflated.
I say this because when this bill comes before the banking and commerce committee and amendments are considered I think these

facts should be borne in mind. Another factor, of course, which promoted the original bill was the fact that under a competitive commercial banking system there should be a central bank to control currency and credit. That was evident in the twenties and thirties when credit was extended in boom times, and called in when depression came. I think a cursory reading of the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, in 1933, will confirm that this was so.
The purpose of this bill, I take it, is to do what we have actually been doing over the last 20 years or more, namely to define more clearly the powers and function of this institution in the light of experience. No one seeks to change that complete monopoly over the issue of all forms of currency, but under the Bank Act of 1934 it was contemplated that the banks would continue to issue some currency. However, in 1944 it was decided that that privilege would cease immediately, and in 1950 any outstanding notes issued by the chartered banks were taken over by the Bank of Canada and the banks paid the Bank of Canada the value of those remaining in circulation at that time.
As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) said, these amendments do not interfere in any respect with the monopoly given to the Bank of Canada in these matters, nor does it in any way interfere with their responsibilities in carrying out their functions in accordance with the act. Consequently, the issue of credit and particularly currency today is, of course, not only the responsibility of the Bank of Canada but, indeed, the responsibility of this parliament, whose instrument the Bank of Canada is.
The minister is now suggesting that the legal reserves which must be carried with the Bank of Canada by the chartered banks shall be increased from 5 to 8 per cent, and under certain circumstances up to 12 per cent. I believe that was the figure the minister gave. That is an increased safety factor.
As a matter of fact, I believe the banks themselves in the last few years have not maintained a reserve of 5 per cent, but have maintained reserves considerably in excess of that figure extending at times to the higher figure which the minister mentioned in the course of his remarks. Hence, from now on, the banks will have rather less discretion than they had before as to the ratio of cash reserves to their liabilities to their depositors. I believe this will be satisfactory to the people of Canada who will feel that this is a more adequate protection or will be when these amendments are written into the Bank of Canada Act.

Of course, this ratio which the minister proposes is an important factor in the regulation or control of the credit the banks may issue to the public. Our central bank through its operations can expand or contract the country's credit simply by increasing or decreasing the reserves of the chartered banks, and to my mind, though this may not be the most important, it is a most important function of the Bank of Canada.
I believe that was demonstrated in the early years of the depression in another country, and I remember when this act was under discussion trying to bring to the attention of the house the operations carried on in Sweden, where they used the open market and where, when they needed to put money into circulation, they bought government securities. When they wanted to take money out of circulation they sold government securities with the result that in the early 1930's, when we had financial and grave economic difficulties, Sweden was in a fairly happy position. They were able to bring about a certain amount of stability in their economic relations and in their financial system through open market operations. Now the Bank of Canada can reduce the cash reserves of the banks by selling some of its large holdings of government securities. Conversely it can buy securities and thus increase the amount of credit available for loans.
I believe that, because of the provision in the bill for an increase of legal cash reserves, we are protected to an extent that we were not protected in the early years of the 1930's or in any other period of boom which came before the depression of the 1930's. When the central bank has paid for securities by means of a cheque drawn on the chartered bank concerned, and when this cheque is presented for payment at the chartered bank, it results in the reduction of its reserve deposits with the Bank of Canada and therefore limits the amount of credit it may grant. Conversely, if they wish to adopt the other course they can expand credit to an extent.
The late Dr. Clark, whom the hon. member for Greenwood quoted a few moments ago, gave another very interesting slant to the Bank of Canada Act which I would like to draw to the attention of the house, because these amendments emphasize Dr. Clark's opinions. Speaking before the banking and commerce committee of 1944 when the last decennial review of the chartered banks' charters and the Bank of Canada Act were under discussion, Dr. Clark said:
The Bank of Canada is the channel through which the monetary policy of the government is put into effect.
Bank of Canada Act
In other words, Dr. Clark believed that in reviewing the charters and the Bank of Canada Act we were not only reviewing the policies of the banks and of the central bank but were also reviewing the financial policy of the government, because it is the financial policy of the government which is carried out by the central bank.
It seems then that this institution is not by itself responsible for the policies which it puts into effect, for it puts into effect the policies approved by the government. Consequently, the government must take responsibility for the success or failure of policies which are put into effect through the central bank.
May I also add that I hope the committee will make a pretty thorough review of what these policies have been in recent years. I believe that that can be done, because the bill contains wide powers and considerable latitude. For example, the bank may buy and sell bullion from the United States. It may also buy and sell:
. . . short term securities issued by the United Kingdom . . . having a maturity not exceeding six months from the date of acquisition by the bank;
There is an indication of government policy, a policy which lays it down that certain securities of the United States may be bought without limitation as to the period, but that the United Kingdom securities may be bought provided that they have a maturity not exceeding six months from the date of acquisition by the bank. I think that that is a matter into which the committee should inquire very carefully, namely, as to why this provision is in the bill. It has puzzled me and I have no doubt that the committee will try to elucidate it.
I think that we should also inquire into the effect of the government's policies regarding currency and credit upon the economy and the people of Canada over the last number of years. In looking over the reports of the Bank of Canada I have been struck with the fact that the money supply in Canada has largely outrun or gone beyond the gross national production. Why was that the policy of the government since the war? Was it that another policy might have interfered with the value of government securities in Canada such as bonds and so on? I do not know. However, I think that matter should be looked into very carefully.
I think also that when the committee considers these amendments, they might consider how the efficiency of the control of currency and credit can be improved. Of course, at the moment, you have the central

Bank of Canada Act
bank and you have the chartered banks and at times there is to some extent a conflict of interest between them. The chartered banks are profit-making institutions naturally and their interests do not always lie along the same road as that of the policy which the Bank of Canada is carrying out. It seems to me that when you have an increase in the money supply at a time when the production of goods is not keeping pace with that increase, you are bound to have inflation. I would ask the committee to go into the situation with a view to seeing what effect the policies of the bank and the banking institutions have had in the last seven or eight years on inflation in Canada.
I do not want to go beyond the scope of this bill. I had perhaps intended to do so but when Mr. Speaker suggested to my friend the hon. member for Greenwood that he should not do so and my hon. friend agreed, I felt that I would try to do the same thing. However, I should like to point this out. In 1945 the gross national production in dollars of constant value-and I am using as a dollar of constant value the dollar in its purchasing power between 1935 and 1939- was $9,315 million; in 1950 it was $10,330 million, again using what I have termed "dollars of constant value". In 1945, our total money supply was $5,905 million. In 1950 it had risen to $8,712 million. That is a rise of approximately $1,000 million in gross national production compared with a rise of approximately $2,800 million in the money supply. By "money supply" I mean the public's deposits with the banks, ignoring Canada savings bonds, short-term government securities or other savings of the public that are found in other financial institutions.
As I say, such figures raise in my mind at least an immediate question. Is the central bank of Canada, with its present powers under this act, and with the amendments that we are proposing to make in this bill, able to control the supply of money to the extent necessary to combat inflation or-what is equally important-to prevent deflation? We may be entering upon a time when deflation may be as significant to us as inflation has been over the last few years.
Of course we believe that other powers are required than those which are contained in the act or in the proposed amendments to the act. As is generally known, we favour the public ownership and control of the commercial banks because we believe that eventually that course will be necessary. We also point out the desirability of controlling the flow of investments, a matter which I will not discuss this afternoon. We think
[Mr. Coldwell.1
that a national investment board to direct investments into socially desirable channels is a step which should be taken. We set up an industrial development bank. I do not know just how successful it has been and I am not going to discuss that matter now. But we believe that there exists a gap which should be filled. May I say to my friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that it is not a new idea to him because it was in the Liberal election platform during more than one election campaign some years ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Along with reform of the Senate.


Major James William Coldwell: I have forgotten whether it was in 1919 or in 1925 or 1926; it was some years ago. I do not think it was ever removed, as a matter of fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was just put on the shelf.


Major James William Coldwell: What I am getting at is this. I do not think that the government has used all the powers given in the Bank of Canada Act. Perhaps in seeking the new powers it has in mind doing something more. However, it has not used the powers it has to control credit to the extent which under the act- I mean under the main act-would have helped to prevent the post-war inflation that we have suffered. Indeed, it was not until 1951 that the governor of the Bank of Canada met the managements of the chartered banks, and came to an agreement with them that certain changes would be made, and that action was taken after the inflationary damage had very largely been done.
If I may, I should like to quote from a document in support of what I have just said, namely an article entitled "Recent Developments in Canadian Monetary Policy" published in the American Economic Review last May, at page 55. The author is Mabel F. Timlin of the University of Saskatchewan. The quotation is as follows:
In only one year shown in the annual reports of the bank (namely 1947) did the record show a decline in chartered bank reserves and the governor has explained (annual report of the Bank of Canada, 1947, pages 23 to 24) that the correlative decline in security holdings of the central bank was a consequence of government redemptions at a time when the bank was otherwise an active purchaser of short and medium-term bonds. The total series of reports (i.e. annual reports covering the bank's entire history) shows a reserve expansion of nearly $670 million and the astonishing thing is that 31 per cent, or $208 million of this expansion, took place since 1945; that is, after the extraordinary expansions of the war. Perhaps still more surprising is the fact that two-thirds of the post-war expansion took place in the years 1950 and 1951 when the bank was supposed to be following a "definitely restrictive approach to the whole question of credit restriction".
That quotation, of course, ties in with what I have just said about the amendments to

the bill. Since this article was written- and it was written in May, 1953-the annual report of the Bank of Canada indicates a decrease in chartered bank reserves of $11-4 million in 1953. Thus only in two years since the war, namely in 1947 and 1953, have chartered bank reserves decreased; in other words their ability to issue credit and to make loans declined only in those two years.
In all the other years since the war the reserves of the chartered banks showed an increase and hence, in our opinion, inflation was promoted. Consequently the suggestions made in the bill with regard to bank reserves are very important. An examination of the production and monetary situation since the end of the war leads me to say that I think the government itself can be blamed for failure to promote a better balance between fiscal and monetary policies and production to combat inflation. This taken in conjunction with the removal of wartime controls explains the manner in which the costs of living have increased and gives valid reasons why both farmers and workers have been asking for better returns for their produce and their labour.
The main point I wish to make is that either because of insufficient control of the chartered banks, which we believe can only be effectively undertaken by public ownership of these institutions, or by failure of the government to use the central bank as effectively as it might have done, inflation got out of hand. I say that the committee should inquire into this matter, and I think the government and not the bank must assume responsibility for it.
I should like to summarize what I have in mind by a quotation from the monthly report of the Bank of Nova Scotia for the month of March, 1952. It reads as follows:
Judging by the experience of the past quarter century, there is no doubt that changes in the money supply are much more important than changes in the rate at which money is used. It is. therefore, clear that effective control of the money supply is of great importance in maintaining orderly economic conditions, and in combating inflation. From the standpoint of inflation, what matters is not so much the actual increase in the supply of currency and bank deposits but whether the supply of money is increasing more rapidly than the quantity of national production.
It seems to us that has been the case in the years between 1945 and 1953. Therefore we say, because the powers in the act which are now to be extended have not been used to the extent that they should have been, that Canadians have suffered from preventable inflation since the end of the war. I will not develop the thought I have in mind because, in view of what the Speaker said, it might be considered to be outside the scope
Bank of Canada Act
of the bill at the present time. But I would hope that some consideration will be given to the setting up of a national investment board. I believe there is a gap there. With the large funds accumulated by various financial institutions in the country, I believe that the time has come when we should endeavour, through an institution answerable to parliament, to direct the flow of such funds into fields that are socially desirable, into the development of our resources, into housing, into great projects like the South Saskatchewan river dam, the St. Lawrence seaway and so on which we need for the expansion of Canadian resources.
Therefore I hope that when the committee meets it will review the operations of the Bank of Canada very thoroughly and go into many other phases of the problem upon which I have not touched because I do not want to go outside the principle of the bill. I sincerely trust that a very thorough inquiry will be made and that we may get a report from the committee recommending further improvements in this very useful and, indeed, most essential of our Canadian financial institutions.


Mr. Vicior Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks let me say that we consider the major proposals contained in the bill a definite step in the right direction. I refer to the amendments dealing with cash reserve requirements, and I am going to confine my remarks mainly to that matter. But on the other hand we feel that they are too restricted in degree to permit the government to institute what we consider to be a sound financial policy. By that I mean a policy that will encourage optimum development of our resources and permit the equitable distribution of the goods and services resulting from that development. I think most members would agree that during any long period of peace that has not been the case.
I want to say a few words with regard to the division of responsibility between the chartered banks, the Bank of Canada and the government with relation to the question of cash reserves. First of all, may I say that we in the Social Credit group are not critical of the chartered banks. I know that impression has got abroad, but we consider the chartered banks to be a highly efficient organization. On the other hand, we believe that they could give even greater service under a sound financial policy that would help to level out the booms and depressions from which we have suffered in the past. The chartered banks, in considering the question of whether or not they should expand their loans, have, I think, to consider three main points. First of all, they must

Bank of Canada Act
consider the creditworthiness of the borrower. I would say that is the main consideration. Then they must consider the effect that that expansion will have upon their cash reserves. The third point is the relationship between the amount of loans they make and the securities that they may hold-in other words, their position of liquidity.
I would say that it is not the responsibility of the chartered banks to decide whether or not the action of making additional loans will be an inflationary one. The question as to whether an over-all expansion of credit would be unduly inflationary is a matter for the Bank of Canada to decide in conjunction and in consultation with the government of the day. Then the Bank of Canada controls the expansion and contraction of credit by either expanding or contracting the cash reserves of the chartered banks. We are of the opinion that the amendments proposed in the bill will provide greater efficiency in controlling the cash reserves of the chartered banks. However, the actual responsibility for financial policy must rest with the government and not with the Bank of Canada.
I would certainly take issue with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) on that point. I know that many people in this country will blame the Bank of Canada for financial policy instead of the government. I think that has perhaps arisen from the statement made some years ago by the then deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Osborne. It will be recalled that some years ago Mr. Osborne stated that no self-respecting central bank would accept from the government a policy with which it did not agree. That matter was brought up in the House of Commons and the minister of finance of that day, Mr. Charles Dunning, pointed out that the statement did not really mean what it appeared to say. He said that all it meant was that if the policy of the government was one with which the Bank of Canada did not agree then the governor of the bank and his officials would resign, but the policy of the government would prevail.
While it is true that the government's financial policy has provided the money required to maintain a maximum war effort and has also operated quite satisfactorily in periods activated by the fear of war or in periods after war when the costs of war are still being met in the form of rehabilitation, reconversion and many other things, such is not the case during any prolonged period of peace.

Now, the Bank of Canada was set up in 1934 as a privately-owned institution. Then, when the Liberals came into power it was turned into a publicly-owned bank. I believe we were all pleased, at least in this party, when that change was made. The interesting point to note is that, in spite of the fact that the central bank was set up in 1934 and continued in operation from then on, we continued in a depression up until 1939. From 1936 to 1939 we repeatedly urged that the government borrow from the Bank of Canada in order to finance the various national projects, housing projects and others, not merely for the purpose of providing employment but for the purpose of providing the services that the people desired and that we were capable of providing.
It is interesting to note the objection that was taken at that time to that proposal. It was argued that borrowing from the Bank of Canada would be more inflationary than borrowing from the chartered banks, the argument being that when money was paid out by the Bank of Canada it would increase the cash reserves of the chartered banks which would enable them to expand their loans on the ratio of 10 to 1 for the increased cash reserves. We suggested that argument could be overcome by the adoption of what was known as the 100 per cent cash reserve system. Under it we would have amended the Bank Act to compel the chartered banks to maintain a 100 per cent cash reserve behind their demand deposit liabilities. In order to secure the necessary cash they would have been able either to sell securities to the Bank of Canada or to borrow against them.
The argument against that, as presented by the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada, was that it would be too hard upon the chartered banks because they would lose the revenue from the securities that were turned over. As was pointed out by Babson back in 1936, that would not be necessary. All that would be necessary would be for the Bank of Canada to make a loan at a nominal rate of interest against the securities turned over by the chartered banks, and in that way the 100 per cent cash reserve would be maintained without any loss of revenue on the part of the chartered bank by the securing of that cash against their securities.
We pointed out at that time that that was one means. We were never dogmatic on the subject. We pointed out there were many other ways the chartered banks could be prevented from expanding their loans as a result of utilizing the services of the Bank of

Canada. The simplest proposal that we made was merely that, when money was issued through the Bank of Canada, the chartered banks would be required to increase their cash reserves in order to take care of the amount of money that had been issued, thereby denying them the right to expand their loans on the basis of the increased cash reserve. It is for that reason we welcome this measure because it provides for action of that kind, so that in the future we can make the cash reserve requirement variable as the situation warrants.
It will be recalled that upon the outbreak of war in 1939 the government borrowed from the chartered banks about $200 million within three months, I think it was, and expanded the savings of the people. Then, we borrowed the savings of the people by floating bond issues. Then, we borrowed again from the chartered banks in order to expand the amount of money in circulation and still further expand the savings of the people. Then, we borrowed the savings of the people. We carried out that process during the war. The net result of those transactions was a very heavy increase in the debt of the country. I note that, according to the Canada Year Book for 1948-49 and 1952-53, the gross debt in 1939 was $3,700 million and increased to $18,900 million in 1946; then dropped to $17,250 million in 1952.
Perhaps it would be fairer to take the net debt, so I will give the net debt for the same years. In 1939 it was $3,152 million; in 1946, $13,421 million; and in 1952 dropped down to $11,185 million. The interest charges on the net debt were $114,800,000 in 1939; $338 million in 1946 and down to $314 million in 1952. Unfortunately, today interest rates are going up so the interest charge on that net debt will also be going up correspondingly. While it is true that the government did finance the war in a way that provided whatever money was needed to maintain the maximum war effort, it cannot be argued for one minute that we maintained a pay as you go policy. It will be recalled that at the start of this war it was the intention of the government to maintain a pay as you go policy to the greatest degree possible.
On several occasions during the war we urged that, to the extent that heavy taxation and heavy borrowing from the savings of the people failed to meet government expenditures and it became necessary to have expansion of credit, that expansion of credit should take place through the Bank of Canada instead of the chartered banks. Then again we argued that in order to prevent that having an inflationary effect as a result of action
Bank of Canada Act
by the chartered banks, we should increase the cash reserve requirements of the chartered banks to the amount necessary to make it impossible for them to use this increased cash as a basis for the expansion of loans.
After the war the Canadian economy remained in what you might call high gear, mainly as a result of reconversion of plant and equipment and the large loans that were made to foreign nations as well as the fact that people were spending the savings that had been developed during the war as a result of the compulsory savings feature of government policy. But by 1950 the situation had become tight again. Then, the Korean war blew the government economic policy off the rocks once again, and the situation became fairly liquid. Today we appear to be right back in the situation in which we were in 1950. I notice that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated that the situation today is similar to the situation that existed in 1950. No doubt many people are now asking whether or not there is another war around the corner that will once again help to revive economic activity within this country. No doubt when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) returns from his tour around the world he will be in a position to reassure the members of the house on this point.
It does seem to me that one thing is certain. If it looks as though we are now entering a prolonged period of peace the government will be forced to take action to maintain the development of the resources of this country, to provide employment, to provide markets, and to provide for loans at a low rate of interest for housing the people in the low income brackets. It is quite evident that financial corporations are not going to be able to make that money available. The next question then is, if that is going to be done, how will a program of that type be financed? In 1943 I participated in a broadcast with the governor of the Bank of Canada entitled "The Shape of Things to Come". The subject was post-war finance. During that broadcast I asked Mr. Graham Towers a question-and I quote it now because I think it has a very direct relationship to the situation we are in at the present time. This was my question:
After the war the need will be to encourage private spending. Heavy taxes and public borrowing will be contrary to the public welfare. Will the government finance all desirable public projects by credit expansion when necessary?
To this Mr. Towers replied:
In circumstances such as Mr. Quelch describes, I would say that there would be grounds for the government not meeting the entire cost of its program by taxing and drawing on public savings. The desire would be to encourage private spending and make government investment more of a residual item. If part of the necessary money had to come

Bank of Canada Act
from credit expansion-and the projects were sound and in the public interest-then I would say go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that is just about the type of situation we appear to be running into at the present time. Some people look at the reports of the chartered banks, read that there is $5 billion of savings deposits, and jump to the conclusion that there is a large amount of money available for investment. But as was mentioned the other day by the president of the bankers association, that is not money available for investment. It is money that has already been lent, and is represented by loans. And therefore at the present time, if the chartered banks desire to expand loans, steps would have to be taken to increase cash reserves to allow them to make an expansion of credit on the basis of the increased cash reserves.
I say we have that situation today, because we hear a lot about unemployment increasing and we hear a good deal about the accumulation of inventories and surpluses. We read that today in some cases industries are having to reduce their production by 50 per cent. Then, in addition, we read that there is a very heavy program of instalment buying. I read that this amounts to 30 per cent of all sales-and I do not know whether that is a correct figure. However, we do know that there is a very heavy program of buying on the instalment plan, which shows that people who desire to acquire those things available for sale have not the money with which to buy them and, hence, are buying on time.
I think most hon. members will agree that perhaps the most immediate problem which needs to be met is that of providing houses for people in the low income groups. This cannot be provided by money from the various financial institutions, such as life insurance and mortgage companies. It seems to us that the logical body to provide finances for the financing of projects of that kind-housing, irrigation and any other projects-would be the government, through the Bank of Canada. And if there is to be credit expansion, then we certainly believe that that credit expansion should take place through the government's borrowing from the Bank of Canada.
Now, the proposed amendment gives the Bank of Canada the power to alter the minimum cash ratio to be maintained by the chartered banks within the limit of 8 per cent and 12 per cent of deposit liabilities. That is, the minimum cash reserve requirement will be raised from 5 per cent to 8 per 
cent; and then the amount to be held as cash reserve by the chartered banks will be made variable at the discretion of the Bank of Canada. There will be no change made in cash reserve requirements in excess of one per cent in any one month.
Having in mind that at the present time, in round figures, the deposit liability of the chartered banks is in the neighbourhood of $9 billion, and their cash reserves are in the neighbourhood of $900 million, then we find this situation. The general practice of the chartered banks is to maintain a 10 per cent cash reserve, so even if we raise the cash reserve requirements of the chartered banks to the full 12 per cent, it would only allow the government to borrow approximately $180 million from the Bank of Canada, without expanding the cash reserves of the chartered banks above the 12 per cent level. If they did, then the chartered banks would be able to expand their loans to 10 times the amount of the excess cash over that reserve.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the 12 per cent figure should be raised to at least 16 per cent, as a start. Then, as time goes on, and if it becomes necessary to increase the cash reserve requirements beyond that figure, it could be done, in order to allow greater leeway in borrowing by the government from the Bank of Canada.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that there is no justification for limiting to one year the period of repayment of loans by the Bank of Canada to the government. We feel that the limit should be removed entirely. However, I realize that perhaps the government has no intention whatsoever of borrowing from the Bank of Canada. It will no doubt say that the amendments being made in connection with cash reserves are not for that purpose. But on the other hand we are faced with a situation where money must be available at a low rate of interest for various projects such as those I have mentioned- housing, irrigation and many other projects which may be considered worth while-in order to provide employment for the large number of unemployed we have in this country and thereby raise their standard of living.
After all, this is the government's responsibility. We have suggested a means by which it might be done, with only slight modification of the amendments proposed in the bill. Our suggestion would provide means of directing money to depressed areas at a low rate of interest through the government making loans to municipalities. It is all very well to have power to expand the cash reserves of the chartered banks in order to provide a high

level of activity, on the general level; but it is high time we had the means by which we could actually direct money into a depressed area. It appears that we do not have the power to do that; we do not have the machinery.
The minister has pointed out that this bill is to be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Therefore I shall leave anything further I have to say to a time when the bill is before that committee. So far as some of the other amendments are concerned, I do not consider them of very great importance. There is the matter of arranging for the Bank of Canada to take mortgages into their portfolio on short-term loans. But I think it is quite evident that, in so far as the chartered banks are concerned, they are not likely to make much use of that provision; because they hold somewhere near $2,500 million in dominion bonds. Therefore, why should they try to get short-term loans on mortgages when they can obtain satisfactory returns on some of the securities they already hold? And certainly, judging from the remarks we have already heard from the president of the bankers association, they do not consider that provision is going to amount to very much.
In closing, let me say that we are not at any time attempting to be dogmatic in suggesting what should be done. We are merely pointing out that we have a situation in which there are large numbers of unemployed, a situation where there is urgent need for national housing to satisfy the requirements of people in low income groups. The evidence has shown that those people in the low income groups can obtain housing only if the money is loaned at a low rate of interest. We feel the government would be the logical body to do this. After all, this is a question of governmental responsibility; and we will back the government in any measures they may take in order to solve that problem, whether or not such measures are in line with the proposals we advocate.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only two brief observations about the bill. The first is in connection with the bank's right to buy gold in coin or in bullion form, as of course it has the right to buy silver in coin or bullion form or, of course, nickel and copper coins.
I want to mention this because should an open bullion market be established in Canada, nothing would preclude the Bank of Canada from entering that market and buying either bullion or coin on the open market, just as at the present time it buys securities of the Dominion of Canada and I presume of
Bank of Canada Act
other nations. I do not know whether it buys United States securities, but I would imagine that it would at times buy shortterm American securities. So if a bullion market were established it would not mean that bullion gold would be hoarded, because of this provision of the Bank of Canada Act.
I want to make one further observation on the question of the definition of foreign exchange. Acceptable foreign exchange to the bank can be boiled down to currency convertible on demand at a fixed price into exportable gold. That is the sole qualification of a convertible currency. Let us assume that even if Russian rubles were freely convertible into gold at a fixed rate they would be acceptable as foreign exchange under the meaning of this act.
I think that shows more clearly than perhaps anything I could say the importance of the restoration by Canada of gold as a medium of exchange, and the facilitation of all measures by which currencies can be brought within this definition of acceptable foreign exchange as soon as possible, that is, convertible at a fixed rate into exportable gold.
I think that shows that gold is the one common denominator which is acceptable as a medium of convertibility. I would, as I shall on another occasion, urge that all possible steps be taken to bring gold out of the national hoards where it is now and use it as a measure to facilitate convertibility of all currencies. Canada in this regard is in a unique position to take the lead.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested in this measure and in the remarks of the minister. While in full support of the amendment, I wonder why the provision with regard to the reserves of the chartered banks is put within rather tight limits, and why it is not left to the discretion of the governor and the board of the Bank of Canada. I presume the reason for this measure has been the need for greater control over the purchasing power in the country.
I think this is the time and the suitable place to call the attention of the house to the rather remarkable history of the Bank of Canada during the years since the end of the war. As we all know, we experienced a period of rapid upward spiralling of prices and a spiralling of cost of living which caused considerable embarrassment to various governmental authorities. During that period, for a curious reason which I shall refer to later, the Bank of Canada, far from acting to curb that inflationary spiral, apparently acted in precisely a contrary manner, as is revealed by its own Bank of Canada statistical survey.

Bank of Canada Act
We find that in 1945 the gross national product of Canada amounted to $9,315 million and the total money supply to $5,905 million. In 1950, five years later and after we had gone through some of the worst inflationary periods of our history, we find curiously enough that the gross national product was $10,330 million and the total money supply $8,712 million. In the case of the gross national product there was an increase of 11 per cent, while in the case of the money supply there was an increase of over 50 per cent. I presume that must have been the result of open market operations on the part of the Bank of Canada.
The question arises as to why they followed that course during a time when inflation was giving governmental authorities many headaches. The only conclusion I can come to is that it was necessary to maintain the market value of dominion government bonds. Possibly that was a perfectly logical reason for that action on the part of the Bank of Canada, because the government had virtually promised the people during the war years that their investment in government bonds would be readily redeemable at par any time. Moreover, as the government was facing the necessity periodically of refinancing, it was necessary to maintain public confidence in government bonds.
Here was the problem the government faced, working through the Bank of Canada. It was impossible to do the two things at the same time, maintain the market value of dominion government bonds and decrease the cash reserves of the chartered banks and by that means decrease the total money supply of the country. The government chose to maintain the level of government bonds.
I suggest that that points to two things, one of which was mentioned by the leader of this group when he was speaking; that is, the necessity of the government of Canada ultimately controlling the entire banking system of the country. It points also to something else, and I have a particularly personal interest in this. It points to the fact that this all stems from the government's financing policies during the years of the war.
As I say, I have a personal interest in this matter because I recall that on one occasion I was attacked in this chamber by a member of the House of Commons-I was a member of another legislative body at the time-who urged the authorities to have me arrested because I had suggested that the government's method of financing the war was bound to lead to serious inflation and trouble after the war, that the method of financing

by over 50 per cent loans was merely piling up trouble for the future. We are meeting that trouble today.
I presume that the government is hoping to cope with this trouble by means of various fiscal and monetary measures about which we have been told on occasion. I would point out that we are now entering a policy of economic contraction-I doubt whether my right hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) would object to that modest expression-and it will not be possible for the government, purely by fiscal means, purely by monetary means, purely by the operations of the Bank of Canada, to combat that contracting tendency in the economy. In order to initiate expansion there will have to be something similar in nature to the projects which were undertaken by the government of Canada during the war, and from which stemmed the credit expansions which at that time had to be pooled or dammed, shall we say, and which at the present time are causing the inflationary troubles which have been in existence for the past few years.
I would commend to the government their own economic and financial history in facing the problems we have to face, including the problem of housing the Canadian people; and I would suggest to them that they will require to use the same sort of powers and mechanisms which they used in order to launch Canada upon its program of production during the war years.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: May I remind hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My principal purpose in rising now is to thank those who have taken part in this debate for the contributions which they have made. I think it has been a very useful and helpful debate. As I indicated at the outset, the bill is to be referred to the banking and commerce committee. I shall be present at that committee, as will my deputy minister and the governor of the Bank of Canada, and the rather technical questions which are involved in this measure in connection with the operations of the Bank of Canada can be discussed there. Questions which have been raised here by hon. members can be more fully elaborated in committee.
I agree with my hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) that the Bank of Canada does exercise very considerable powers. It was intended that it should. Its

main responsibility has been to control the volume of credit and currency in Canada. I agree too though, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) pointed out, that these responsibilities cannot be entirely divorced from government responsibility; and the fiscal policy of the government can, of course, have a very significant effect on the operations of the central bank.
Fortunately in this country there have never been, as far as I know, any differences of opinion between the management of the central bank and the minister of finance of the day. That has not always been true in other countries, and in my opinion the effects of these controversies are sometimes very unfortunate. However, I am sure hon. members will not expect me to discuss in detail or even refer specifically to the particular points which they have raised, all of which I believe we can deal with in the banking and commerce committee.
I would just like to make one reference, though, to the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) to the effect that during the war the government asserted that victory bonds issued at that time would always be-I use his own words because I have a note of them here-"readily redeemable at par at any time".


Major James William Coldwell: That was the inference drawn from Mr. Ilsley's remarks at that time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was an entirely unjustified inference. I have had occasion to deal with it before, and the statement Mr. Ilsley made was to the effect that a ready market would be available for government bonds at all times and that they would be redeemable at par on their due date. That has always been true, and that was the meaning of the statement made by the Minister of Finance. It may be, however, that some salesmen in their enthusiasm paraphrased his statement; but anyone who knows anything about these matters would realize that if the government undertook to guarantee that its very longterm securities would be redeemable at any time at par they would be in effect converting long-term securities into demand obligations; and as I have said many times, and I repeat, you cannot have absolute security, absolute liquidity, and a reasonably high interest rate all in the same instrument.
As I said, I simply wanted to clear up what I thought was an unjustifiable inference which may have been drawn from a statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I hope that in the banking and
War Service Grants Act commerce committee we shall have a very useful and profitable discussion on this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Hon. James Sinclair (for the Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the War Service Grants Act.


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


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) made a full statement in connection with this bill at the resolution stage, and I do not think I can add very much to what the minister said on that occasion.
The War Service Grants Act, as hon. members know, was passed in 1944, and this is a bill to amend that act in certain respects. Under the proposed legislation the time within which a veteran may apply for his re-establishment credit is extended by five years. As of December 31, 1953, there remained unused $35,045,209.23 on behalf of 174,729 world war II veterans. The amount of $3,283,786.50 has been set up on behalf of Korean veterans. As of December 31, 1953, 12,624 applications had been received from Korean veterans, with payments totalling $1,267,875.29.
Another amendment fixes January 1, 1957, as the final date for a veteran to take advantage of the benefits of the Veterans Land Act as the result of an adjustment made pursuant to section 13 of the War Service Grants Act. This bill also broadens the scope of the section dealing with the use of the re-establishment credit of a deceased veteran.
Another amendment will also permit a veteran who has unused re-establishment credit to obtain a contract of insurance under the Veterans Insurance Act, despite the expiration of the time limit under the Veterans Insurance Act.
It is also provided in this bill that December 31, 1954, shall be the last day upon which a member of the forces may apply for the war service gratuity, unless the person has
2444	HOUSE OF
War Service Grants Act had overseas service and the minister is satisfied there are circumstances which justify the delay. World war II gratuities amount to a total of $469,788,790. As of June 30,	1953, approximately $500,000
remained to be paid to about 8,500 veterans. The cut-off date for the payment of gratuities after world war I was April 21, 1924, so the time limit after world war II for the payment of these gratuities has been considerably longer. The $500,000 now on hand represents, for the most part, gratuities payable to veterans who had short service and service in Canada only.
After the War Service Grants Act was passed in 1944, the payment of gratuities became a normal part of the discharge routine. Personnel discharged before 1944 had to apply for their gratuities and, as I say, some 8,500 veterans have not yet applied. Since 1951 letters have been sent to all veterans who had not applied for their war service gratuity, and approximately 3,400 applications have been received and the gratuities paid.
It is proposed to examine the files of the 8,500 veterans, and every attempt will be made to advise each veteran of his entitlement. District offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs will be used to try to find the veterans, as also will the facilities of the press. The Canadian Legion, along with other veterans' organizations, will be asked to co-operate.
As the minister has already informed the house it is the intention, if it meets with the approval of the house, to refer this bill to the special committee on veterans affairs.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the parliamentary assistant for his explanation, which is very much the same as that given by the minister when the resolution was before the house. We all remember the War Service Grants Act very well. It was one of the most comprehensive acts dealt with by the veterans affairs committee in 1944.
The principle in this present bill, as the parliamentary assistant has stated, is to extend the time during which veterans may apply for their re-establishment credit. It seems strange that there are still some 170,000 veterans who have not yet applied for this credit. The amount involved, I understand, is about $35 million. I agree entirely with the bill. I feel that the extension for another five years is necessary, having regard to the large amount involved and also the strange fact that so many veterans have not applied.


As was pointed out, the bill does not extend the time by five years in all instances. There was a rather anomalous situation, I think, with reference to one section of the bill which I shall not discuss at this time. We shall have ample opportunity to do so when the bill is before the committee.
While the time is extended for the veteran to make application for other purposes-I note that particularly under this section of the Veterans Land Act and also section 13 of the War Service Grants Act-provision was made for a veteran to take advantage of his re-establishment credit either in whole or in part for the construction of a home using the National Housing Act. While an extension until 1960 is granted under other circumstances, it is only extended from 1955 to 1957 as far as this housing section is concerned.
It is not necessary for me to point out to the house that housing is probably one of the most important problems which the veteran has to face. The Legion, in their brief to the cabinet a short time ago, particularly stressed the necessity for veterans housing. When this bill is sent to the committee I hope this section dealing with veterans housing will be given very careful consideration, and that the time will be extended.
The thought occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps in the Veterans Land Act some provision is being made for this omission which I have mentioned. In the press a short time ago I noticed a report that the Veterans Land Act is to be amended to provide for veterans constructing their homes in towns and cities on smaller lots than are required under the act at the present time. It occurred to me that if the Veterans Land Act is to be amended, it is quite possible that this omission is being dealt with. As I say, I hope the matter is being dealt with, because an extension of two years to assist the veteran in the construction of a house is certainly not a long enough time. When the matter comes before the committee I know it is something with regard to which an extremely strong protest will be presented.
I do not think there is much else I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the fact that there is still an amount of $500,000 owing in gratuities, I agree with the bill; I think that for those who had overseas service the time for application should be extended five years. It is not so necessary for the veteran who had service only in Canada. I also agree that the re-establishment credit should be made payable to orphan children under certain circumstances as provided in the bill, and also to dependent mothers who are not wholly dependent. With all of these features of the bill I am in perfect accord, Mr. Speaker. As

I say, this bill is going before the veterans affairs committee. At that time we shall have every opportunity to discuss and study it further.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). There is not much necessity for a debate on this matter at this time. It is hard to understand the fact that so many veterans are leaving their credits and gratuities outstanding. It is something I cannot figure out. Of course, the cut-off date will come some time; and as in the case of several other bonuses that we established, it is when that cut-off date is reached that you have a good deal of trouble. Everybody will realize then that they have applications to make. It might not be a bad idea for hon. members, when they are making their parliamentary broadcast records to send back home, to comment on this matter and urge anyone who has an outstanding account in that regard to get his application in.
There are two points with regard to gratuity credits that I have argued over the years. The first is the fact that gratuity credits are not payable outside of the country. That fact has worked a considerable hardship on veterans, both men and women, who found that it was easier for them to rehabilitate themselves in the United States, particularly, than in Canada, and who moved there. Of course their gratuity credits are not payable outside of Canada. It even appears to be quite difficult to convert the credits into insurance. If you wanted to buy insurance with them, it was difficult to do that. That is a matter that requires looking into.
There is another angle to gratuity credits which works hardship, and that is the fact that if the soldier dies after coming back to this country and his credits are still in the hands of the department, they are not payable to his next of kin. I have wrestled with several cases like that and have never succeeded in getting them straightened out. Of course the act says that the dependent must be wholly dependent upon the deceased soldier for support at the time of his death. The interpretation of the words "wholly dependent" seems to be rather difficult to sort out. However, when the bill is before the veterans affairs committee we shall have the chance to argue out this detail. I hope the committee will be set up as soon as possible so we can get at these things.
While I am at it I should like to say this, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to use all the influence at his disposal to have the War Veterans Allowance
War Service Grants Act Act referred to the committee so that we may give it a working over at this time and finalize it as far as it is possible to do that.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister replies and closes the debate, I wish to say a few words. I do not know that I have a great deal to say on the bill. I understand that it is going to the committee on veterans affairs, a committee which has not yet been set up. Since it is going to the committee I should like to say this, and I want to remain within the rules in saying it. I am not quite satisfied that when the minister spoke the other day he indicated what the committee's terms of reference were going to be. I urge that the terms of reference should give that committee the widest possible scope.
I believe this is the time for those who are interested in war veterans allowances to be heard. I believe that the briefs which have been submitted to the government and to members of the house in the last while by various local Legion groups as well as Legion headquarters should be given the greatest possible consideration, and this whole thing should be revised. We are beginning to get letters from all over the country from elderly war veterans, burnt-out men, war veterans widows and others who are in sad need.
Therefore in these few remarks I do urge the minister and his parliamentary assistant to see to it that the committee to be set up has the widest terms of reference, for if there is one class of people in the country who have ample justification for real consideration it is these men who offered their lives in the past for the country, and their families, who are now forced to eke out a living. I make that suggestion to the minister, and I trust that he will indeed take note of it.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that if the parliamentary assistant speaks now he will close the debate.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am not sure that I understood exactly what the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) meant, but I should like to assure him that as far as the availability of the re-establishment credit to veterans for use in purchasing homes under the National Housing Act is concerned, this bill does not change the time limit. It is still 1960. The only change in this regard is that the word "home" is inserted in the new bill in place of the word "house". The word "house" was erroneously put in the revised statutes when

Criminal Code
they were printed. The amending section merely substitutes the word "home", thus restoring the original intent.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not have reference to that.


Colin Emerson Bennett: If the hon. member just meant qualification under the Veterans Land Act, he is quite right. Under section 13 of the War Service Grants Act the date is January 1, 1957, but that has nothing to do with the National Housing Act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I think you will find there is a reference there.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


James Joseph McCann: That the said bill be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs to be appointed by the house at a later date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 208-Punishment for infanticide.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 208 has to do with the punishment for infanticide. I would invite the minister's comment on a question similar to one I have asked in relation to certain other sections. I hope, however, that he will not make the same answer that I have received on previous occasions. I find it difficult to see the virtue of uniformity so far as penalties are concerned. I realize that the minister has indicated that there are two or three classes within which these penalties fall, but even so that is based on the idea of as much uniformity in length of sentence as possible.
I think it is correct to say that the maximum penalty upon conviction for infanticide has been increased from three years to five years. I wonder-although I am willing to listen to argument from the minister-if that is not a rather severe sentence in view of the definition of infanticide that we have already been given. That definition is set out in clause 204, and perhaps I might be permitted to read it. I am not reverting to clause 204, but merely quoting the definition as it has a bearing on this clause. It reads as follows:
A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly born child, if at the time of the act or
[Mr. Bennett 1
omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.
As I understand the definition, there is imported into it exceptional or unusual circumstances. It seems to me that causing the death of a child, in the sense of it being outright murder, is covered in other sections. Causing the death of an unborn child is covered in clause 209. But I come back to my question, namely, in view of the fact that infanticide is defined as something that happens under exceptional and understandable circumstances, is it not rather severe to increase the penalty from three to five years?


Mr. Garson:: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. friend but I am afraid I will have to again answer him in the same terms. Might I point out that under the new bill it is proposed to have five types of penalties, those two years and under, those five years and under and so on. Since the present penalty under the existing code is three years, that penalty would fall within the five year group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was consideration given to reducing it to two years?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Consideration was given, but on the basis of the cases which had arisen it was thought desirable to leave that much leeway with the court. The commissioners either had to reduce it from three to two years or bring it in under five, and they chose the latter of the two courses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point, does the
minister know the considerations that were taken into account when that decision was made? I presume that the decision to adopt five years rather than two years was made by the commissioners rather than by the Senate committee or our own committee of last session. It would appear to me that the decision was made simply on a mathematical basis. It looks to me as though, the penalty having been three years and there now being no three year penalty, it either had to be two or five, so they adopted the period that covered the existing sentence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh no, I think it would be quite wrong to suggest that it was done solely on such a mathematical basis as that. I assure my hon. friend that the decision as to whether the penalty of three years should be cut down to two would be based upon criteria which were not mathematical. As I said a moment ago, they would consider a variety of circumstances which had arisen in cases under this section. The question which they would,
I think, pose for themselves and answer

would be whether, in covering a variety of circumstances, it was desirable to have a penalty of five years or two years. They decided on the five years. Now, that decision was reviewed by the other place on two different occasions and by the special committee of the House of Commons at the last session of parliament, and no change has been made. There is nothing to prevent us from making a change here if it is thought desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 209-Killing unborn child.
Mr. Stick:: Clause 209, subclause 2, states:
This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child that has not become a human being, causes the death of the child.
I take it that provision applies more to the medical profession?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Leonard T. Stick: The medical profession is not specifically mentioned there, so anyone else who may have to take action in such circumstances may be leaving himself open to a charge. An ordinary person, under those circumstances, may have to act as a doctor and may be acting in good faith. In what position is he placed then?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is placed, I suggest, in the position which is indicated by the language of the section itself. In the case in which he is charged, if he can establish that he did this act in good faith because he thought it was necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child, then he could establish that defence and could be acquitted. I know that in the great majority of cases this will apply to the medical profession. But there are cases that arise in some hamlet remote from medical attendance, in which a midwife might be involved, or perhaps not even a midwife. If the lady who was ill had no other skilled service available, it might be some individual who had no medical training at all.
Where anyone acted in good faith when he was faced with that emergency, I think there will be general agreement that it would be desirable that he should not be left wide open, by the terms of the statute, to being found guilty, as he might be if there were not a saving clause in the section.


Leonard T. Stick: The reason I asked is that in some parts of Newfoundland and Labrador the medical services are rather scattered, and ordinary men have had to act in such cases. They would be safeguarded by this clause?
Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, my hon. friend is quite correct in that. As a matter of fact, in replying to his question I could not help but think that was perhaps the point he had in mind. It is a point very well taken.


Ernest George Hansell: I am a little confused by the wording of the section, Mr. Chairman. I fancy that this section is the section in the Criminal Code that deals with abortion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, the one that deals with abortion is section 237.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps I should reserve anything I have to say until that section is called.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know whether the minister can answer a medical question, but at what time in the prenatal existence does the child become a human being? I cannot quite understand that, and perhaps I should not bother my mind about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend has the bill in front of him, would he look at clause 195? It reads:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not
(a)	it has breathed,
(b)	it has an independent circulation, or
(c)	the navel string is severed.


Clarence Gillis: If clause 209 does not mean abortion, what does it mean?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: An illegal operation which, I suppose, my friend might argue is a form of abortion.


Clarence Gillis: It is the same thing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, this is the killing of the fetus, that has not become a human being. If my hon. friend will look at clause 237 I think he will see the answer to his question.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 210 to 220 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 221-Criminal negligence in operation of motor vehicle.
Mr. Nowlan:: I wonder if the minister would comment on the effect of this section, which is entirely new, on that very important matter of motor manslaughter. What is the difference between the law as it will be after this clause is passed and the law as we now have it under the existing Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: While in the printed bill on the right hand side of the page it is indicated that clause 221 (1) is new, actually it replaces in part section 285 (6) of the present code.

Criminal Code
The present clause 221 (1) is I think, in its clear terms, pretty well self-explanatory. In drawing it in the form in which my hon. friend now finds it, it was felt that in so far as the operation of motor vehicles was concerned, an offence should be created only when there was wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others, leaving it for the provinces to deal with the less serious forms of careless driving under their motor vehicle control acts. Accordingly this provision is found in the form in which it is.
Mr. Mowlam As the law is now, Mr. Chairman, as I recall it, we have three classifications, shall we say, of criminal negligence with respect to motor vehicle accidents. In the first place we have the dangerous driving section. Then we have reckless driving, and ultimately we have manslaughter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, we have criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle under this clause 221 (1). Then if the criminal negligence which could be charged under this clause causes death or bodily injury, such cases could fall under clauses 192 and 193 which we considered yesterday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And also under clause 207.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I was saying, under the existing law I have heard judges instruct juries, when dealing with manslaughter, somewhat along these lines: "There are four classes of negligence. First of all there is civil negligence with which, gentlemen, we are not concerned. Then you come to the question of dangerous driving"-and I heard one judge, rightly or wrongly, and not too long ago, say that is the first step on the ladder. "Then we go up one step farther on the ladder and we come to reckless driving. That is the second step. And then," as this judge pointed out, "if we stand on the top of the ladder we have come to the charge of manslaughter."
I am not sure that charge to the jury was one which would stand the test before a judge who is not too far removed from this building. Nevertheless that was the way the judge charged at that time, and he had some cases to support him. I understand that this has been changed to some extent by this allinclusive definition of criminal negligence, and I am curious to learn what changes, if any, that judge would have to make in his charge if the code we have in front of us is passed, as compared with the charge he did make.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As regards the judge's charge apart from some clarification and simplification I doubt if there is any substantial change effected. As I have said, you begin by

laying a set of facts before a crown prosecutor. It is the crown prosecutor's task to consider those facts and make up his mind as to what sort of charge the facts would prove and therefore as to what charge he thinks might properly be laid.
If those facts will prove only a charge under the present clause 221, then he lays a charge under that clause. But if death has supervened, then he may lay a charge of manslaughter, or of criminal negligence occasioning death, as set out in clause 192. Or, if it was a case of occasioning bodily harm, he would lay a charge under clause 193. Then the courts would proceed to consider such a charge in the same way they would consider charges under the existing code.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We really have three clauses under which charges arising from deaths caused by motor vehicles can be laid, have we not? We have clauses 192, 207 and 221.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member is referring to the existing code, is he?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the new code, or the code as it will be when this bill is passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Clause 119 has to do with obstructing justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I was referring to clause 192. After this bill becomes law, in connection with a person driving a motor vehicle I understand there are three clauses under which he can be charged; these are clauses 192, 207 or 221.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


George Clyde Nowlan: I was not in the committee last year which dealt with the Criminal Code, but what I have in mind may be covered in a clause we have not yet reached. However, as the minister knows, if today a man is charged with manslaughter there are several alternatives. The jury may find him not guilty of manslaughter and may find him guilty of (a) reckless driving or (b) dangerous driving.
I take it that clause 192, which has slipped in so quietly, indicates that the minister and the commissioners have been trying to avoid what we might describe as the repugnance of juries to convict on a manslaughter charge. So now we are going to have this new offence under clause 192 involving death by criminal negligence. And, as the minister said a moment ago, this might be the charge in connection with a death caused by an automobile.
Now, what is the situation? If a charge is laid under clause 192, death by criminal negligence, is there a proposition which says that a jury may find him not guilty of that charge but guilty of an offence under another clause.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, there is.


George Clyde Nowlan: Then why is there an increase in the sentence under clause 221? Under the present section 285 (4) anyone guilty of reckless driving, or of wanton and wilful misconduct, is liable on conviction to a fine of a small amount, or a certain length of time in jail. Now, under clause 221 in the bill, there is provision for a penalty of five years, which is certainly substantial and well above the one now prevailing in the Criminal Code.
I should think that we are going to be faced with four possible convictions. There is the possibility of a conviction under clause 192, death by criminal negligence. Then a person not guilty of that could be charged under clause 221, with being criminally negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle. Then we still have reckless driving and dangerous driving; or are they both abrogated by this clause?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I think on a set of facts under which a crown prosecutor would be warranted in laying a charge of criminal negligence, it would be pretty difficult, in the result, to end up with a charge of reckless driving.


George Clyde Nowlan: It can be done today, as the minister knows, even with a charge of manslaughter.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no equivalent for reckless driving in the proposed new code, is there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; because it was felt, as I said a moment ago, that it was desirable to leave those lesser offences to the provincial statutes, and that we would deal with those offences having to do with the operations of motor vehicles which were criminal in their nature.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then that leaves unanswered the question asked by my honourable and learned friend, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, regarding the increase in penalty. Both sections 284 and 285 provide maximum penalties of two years. Now these are to a large extent being replaced, in connection with the driving of motor vehicles, by clause 221 in the bill, under which the maximum penalty is five years. Would the minister indicate why it was felt proper to increase the maximum penalty to that extent?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, the answer to my hon. friend's question is that, in relation to this present charge, it was the view of the commission that it was appropriate to bring the penalty into that second grade of offences
Criminal Code
which make provision for imprisonment up to five years. This is a quite serious charge. If my hon. friends will take a look at the definition of criminal negligence in clause 191 they will see that in order to prove a charge of that nature it has to be shown that in doing anything or omitting to do anything that it was his duty to do, the accused exhibited wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, I think it would be hard to argue that that type of criminal negligence when proven should carry a lesser penalty than five years as a maximum. Or, to put it this way, it would be hard to imagine that it was impossible for a set of circumstances to arise somewhere in Canada in which criminal negligence had been shown that was of a sufficiently grave nature to merit a penalty of five years.
As my hon. friend knows, in each of these cases the penalty is in the discretion of the court. If the court should see fit it could send an accused to jail for two days. For my part, I am in agreement with the commission. When we have motor car criminal negligence defined the way it is in this new Bill 7 it is a very different offence from that under section 285 (6) under the present code, and should carry a penalty of five years. Anything less than that would be too small. As a matter of fact, I think perhaps an argument could be made that it might even go higher.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know. Let me direct the attention of the minister to the wording of section 285, which is largely replaced by clause 221 and subsequent clauses. Section 285 starts off as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, having the charge of any carriage or motor vehicle, automobile, or other vehicle, by wanton or furious driving, or racing or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, does or causes to be done any bodily harm to any person.
I suggest that the words "by wanton or furious driving, or racing or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect" are quite as strong as the words "shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons". To any layman they would mean very much the same thing. Wanton or furious driving, or racing or other wilful misconduct while in charge of an automobile, is certainly very wide. Would it not be included in the words "shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons"? In driving wantonly or recklessly you come pretty well under the

Criminal Code
old section which had a maximum penalty of two years, whereas now it is going to be five years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With great respect I suggest to my hon. friend that wanton or furious driving is not the equivalent of doing anything that shows wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of other persons. If I drive furiously and recklessly down an empty road in the country and there is no person there, I can bring myself under the definition which my hon. friend was quoting, but I am very much more criminally negligent if I drive down that road when there is a crowd of people walking on it, or many persons walking on it, whose lives or safety may be endangered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister misapprehends the point. In section 285 there must be a person there for a charge to be laid. Therefore if the minister is driving wantonly or furiously and there is nobody there, he could not hit him and therefore could not be charged. I suggest that wanton or furious driving and racing down a road on which people are present, as must be the case for a charge to be laid under section 285, is the same as driving with a disregard for the lives and safety of other people.
I am not going to press the point, as I think perhaps it is taken care of by the maximum, though I do not think the courts would be more inclined to approach near the maximum than otherwise. I would point out that it is possible for an offence, which it seems to me under the old code could not attract a penalty of more than two years, to now attract a penalty of five years.


George Clyde Nowlan: I should like to clear up this one point raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, and then I am through. I want to reinforce what my hon. friend said with respect to this matter of punishment. I say with all respect to the minister that I feel the commissioners who were responsible for drafting these sentences were not too conversant with the practice in the criminal courts. Frankly I cannot see any reason for having three platforms on which to stand, the two year platform, the five year platform and something else. This happens to come within the five year category.
What is happening under this motor manslaughter charge, if I may use that term, as now found within the code is that heretofore juries have been reluctant to convict and as a result have been prone to bring in verdicts of not guilty of manslaughter but

guilty of reckless driving or dangerous driving. If a man is convicted of motor manslaughter, depending on the circumstances of the negligence, he may get from three years to five years. If he is convicted of reckless driving the chances are that he will get two years in the penitentiary. If he is convicted of dangerous driving he may get from four to six months in jail. I think that is the general practice followed by the courts, at least those in which I have had a little experience.
We have done away with motor manslaughter, to all intents and purposes. We still have manslaughter. We have the new clause 192 which gets rid of that. We now say:
Every one who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Instead of having charges of manslaughter we are going to have charges of death by criminal negligence. We have abolished reckless and dangerous driving, and we come down to clause 221 under which anyone convicted could receive a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.
I am suggesting that this is not a realistic approach to the matter of punishment. The minister says that if there is criminal negligence anyone convicted should be given five years. I think you will find that nine juries out of ten will never convict. Undoubtedly there are many cases where the criminal negligence warrants a sentence of five years or more, but I say that in 90 out of 100 cases there will be difficulty in getting a conviction for criminal negligence. A jury may find a verdict, but usually there are extenuating circumstances of time and conditions, and I think it would be very seldom that a sentence of five years would be imposed even for manslaughter.
Now we have reached the stage where we have a lesser charge which is carrying a maximum sentence of five years. I contend that one of two things will happen. We will be imposing too heavy a sentence for the offence. It is all right to say that this is a maximum sentence and the judge could give two days, but no judge is going to give a two-day sentence under circumstances such as these if a man is charged and found guilty. I think very often a judge will feel compelled to impose a more severe sentence than the circumstances warrant.
On the other hand I can envisage a jury, with perhaps the judge intimating to them that there are only two charges on which the accused can be convicted and for which the sentences are life in the one case and

five years in the other, considering that five years is too much. I am sure the minister knows from his correspondence that thousands of people have been acquitted of manslaughter because the jury felt that if they convicted the judge would sentence the accused to life. It was an awe-inspiring, frightful term, and they did not want to convict. Very often they would bring in a verdict according to the last rung on the ladder, a verdict of dangerous driving.
Now you have only one rung on the ladder under the clause we are dealing with now. In my humble opinion, if convictions are made the sentences will be more severe than they should be. I am not speaking now of certain types of cases where the sentence could not be too severe. I feel that in many cases there will be opportunities for the defence to argue in that way. One might intimate to the jury that this is a most unfair thing the government has done, and thus get an acquittal. It is not as easy as the minister suggests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the minister knows, I have on a number of previous occasions protested the increases in penalties set out in this revised code. I have also objected to the blanket idea that penalties have to be placed in certain categories. I appreciate the argument that has just been made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and I appreciate also the position of the minister, namely that criminal negligence when it is related to the operation of an automobile is a very serious matter and that something very serious has to be done about it.
However, I am not sure that stiffer penalties should be considered as the only answer, as the only serious reply to this very menacing situation. I do not suppose there is anything we shall be dealing with today, so far as the Criminal Code is concerned, that is more serious than this question of death on our highways. I refer not only to the tremendous number of deaths that take place, but to the tremendous number of bodies that are maimed and lives that are ruined because of accidents. These deaths and accidents arise in part from carelessness, recklessness and criminal negligence, covered by the words used in this clause, and they rise in a very large degree from alcoholic intoxication, and other matters which will be discussed under later clauses.
I wonder if this whole subject is not something that should be given much greater study than it has been given thus far. I am mindful of the fact that some questions have been referred to a special committee and
Criminal Code
that one question is to be referred to a royal commission. I do not wish to make invidious comparisons, but I believe the question of death on our highways is a more important matter than the question of whether we should revise our attitude towards lotteries.
I would still like to see matters which are involved in this clause, and in the next several clauses, given a much more thorough study than has yet been the case. I have in mind the possibility of this whole subject being studied by the special committee which has already been set up, or by some other special committee. Despite my reluctance to agree to too many of these federal-provincial conferences, I can see that this might be a field in which that device could be employed.
The minister has suggested that there are certain traffic offences which come within provincial law. That being the case I offer this as a suggestion. I am not at this point able to move a motion that something be done, but I am throwing out this suggestion because I feel that even if we have no alternative at the moment but to go through these clauses and pass them as they are, with slight amendments and improvements which might be made, even after that is done it is high time a serious attempt should be made in this country to grapple with this problem of death on our highways.
Perhaps the immediate reaction people feel is that stiffer penalties would be a good idea. Certainly the Minister of Justice expressed that immediate reaction when he rose a moment ago. But the proposal that penalties be stiffened does not always represent the kind of serious thought that really goes to the heart of the problem. Perhaps I am challenging myself to do something which I am not in a position to do. What is the answer? I do not claim to know, but I do know that an answer simply must be found. It is not reasonable that we as intelligent human beings in this latter part of the twentieth century should go on permitting the number of deaths which take place on our highways the year round, not to mention the very heavy toll over week ends or when traffic is heavy.
I feel very strongly about the clauses which are to come in a moment or so, particularly those that deal with intoxication and alcoholism. It seems to me something should be done about that major cause of highway accidents and again I appreciate the minister's instinctive response, shared by others, when he recommends stiffer penalties. But is that the final answer? The fact is that we simply must find ways and means of preventing accidents on the highways. Does it restore a

Criminal Code
life that has been taken, or does it give back the health that has been ruined, simply because someone has to spend two years or five years or even life in jail as the result of an accident which has taken place?
We can get off into all the theories and ideas we have about crime and its prevention, but perhaps the reason I am taking a few moments to say what I might have said in a few sentences is that I feel it is extremely important that whatever we do to these clauses of the code, this must not be the end of Canada's attempt to deal with the problem of death on our highways. One of the dangers of putting through legislation in this house is that there is a tendency to say, "Well, that matter has been dealt with. A law has been passed and put on the statute books. We can go on and deal with something else." But we cannot take that attitude toward this very serious problem, and I believe the people of Canada have a right to expect of us something more than just a few changes in this part of the Criminal Code.
I believe my proposal for a committee, a royal commission or a federal-provincial conference on the whole question should be taken very seriously. The minister suggested a while ago that this clause involved something more, but little more, than a codification of the existing law. I contend that this problem is so serious that it calls for a great deal more.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is no one in this chamber, certainly not I at any rate, who would differ in any way with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in regarding this matter of, as he puts it, death upon the highway as one of the most serious problems with which not only Canada but most civilized countries in which there is heavy automobile traffic are faced.
I am in agreement with him when he states that we cannot solve this or any of our other social problems solely by means of the criminal law. I believe it is the view of people who have made a study of this matter that personal courtesy or the lack of it shown by many motorists, who seem to be very courteous people until they get behind the wheel of a car, has a great deal to do with our high accident rate. I am sure the consumption of liquor by certain car drivers also has a great deal to do with it.
I would be the last one to suggest that a dominion-provincial conference or a conference of those who have some special training in this field, with a view to curing this problem, would not be a very desirable step to take. But in our approach to this problem in

connection with the clauses we are now considering, it is rather important that we retain as accurate an impression as possible of what we are doing here. We are not dealing with courtesy. We are certainly not dealing directly with the relationship of the liquor traffic to highway traffic. We are simply dealing with a question which is only one facet of the problem of death on the highway, namely what are the proper clauses which can be put in the Criminal Code which will help to ameliorate if not cure this problem?
That is our task; and when my hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings or my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre suggests that we should send these clauses on to a royal commission, a parliamentary committee or something of that sort-


George Clyde Nowlan: I did not suggest that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I know my hon. friend did not .-or casts any aspersions upon them directly or by implication, I think, with deference he is being a little bit unrealistic in refusing to recognize the competence of the commission which dealt with this matter, a competence based on their actual experience in dealing with the subject matters of these sections as men who, from their own actions at the bar and their own long experience on the bench, knew what they were talking about in this matter just as well as any committee that we are ever likely to set up here.
Let us consider some of them. One is the chief justice of Saskatchewan who, for several decades now, has been on the bench hearing amongst others cases of this sort. Another is the senior county court judge of the county of York, His Honour Robert Forsyth, who had long experience in this field. Another is Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette. Another who participated in this drafting work was Joseph Sedgwick, one of the most distinguished criminal defence lawyers in Ontario. Another is Arthur Slaght, who is certainly in the same category. Then in the later stages we had the lawyer members of the special committee of the House of Commons last year, some of whom had had legal experience in this field. Then there was Mr. A. A. Moffat, who for many long years was crown prosecutor in the city of Winnipeg.


George Clyde Nowlan: Just what I said; the prosecutor complex.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He was also for many years after that crown counsel in the department of the attorney general, and for several years after that he was deputy attorney general of Manitoba.
My hon. friend says that he has a crown prosecutor complex, but no person can charge

that he is ignorant of this subject or that he does not know what the problem is. I would venture to say that this last gentleman of whom I am speaking has probably had more cases of this kind, either as a defence or prosecuting lawyer, than perhaps any lawyer here in the House of Commons, and he knew exactly what he was dealing with in this bill. If he has a crown prosecutor complex, what about Senator Farris of Vancouver, who was one of the chief members of the subcommittee of the other place, who was a distinguished criminal lawyer and who has had a whole lifetime of experience?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As attorney general.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What about Senator Arthur Roebuck, who for many years was attorney general of Ontario?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, to what extent are we allowed to discuss senators in this chamber? I would be interested in knowing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think we can discuss the membership of these committees which have considered this bill without in any way dealing with what transpired in the other place.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I should like to make this suggestion to the minister, not on the point of order raised by the hon. member who just raised it but on the general scheme of debate. If, every time we raise a question as to a section of the code, we are going to come back and discuss the merits of the commission on the Criminal Code, I am afraid we are not going to get very far. I think perhaps the minister might come to the remarks which have been made on the section itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I accept your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I was not addressing myself to the section before us but was addressing my remarks to the suggestion that we should now turn this matter over to a competent body to consider. I was merely making the point that it has been considered by an extremely competent body and last year was reviewed by, I think it is fair to say, the membership of the House of Commons committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister permit an interruption, or a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which is it going to be now?


George Clyde Nowlan: An inter-question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister himself not say a few moments ago that all of this relates only to what we do in the Criminal Code about this matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite so.
Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, is it not fair to say that as yet nothing has been done about the broader question of taking steps to prevent death on our highways? My suggestion was not that the commission or anybody else had been incompetent so far as this aspect of the matter was concerned but rather that, after this is all done, there is still more to do.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought what he had in mind was that we should send these sections off to be considered by some body of that sort. If my hon. friend means that after passing these sections it might be desirable for our government to call a conference with the provinces upon this matter, or that the law enforcement officers in the provinces might get together on the matter-because they are the prosecuting authorities-I am in complete agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I am asking for, a study of the broader subject.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am in complete agreement. I agree with my hon. friend, as I said when I opened my remarks, that it is an extremely important problem which is deserving of the best attention that we can give to it. However, my point is this. I do not think we are going to help solve the problem particularly by not proceeding to pass these clauses now, for they represent, in my judgment, a very excellent disposition of that facet of the problem which comes within the purview of the criminal law.


Mr. Drew:: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I simply wish to express my keen interest in the confidence the minister has indicated he has in royal commissions. Recently in this chamber there have been certain comments which suggested that the government had no faith in them. I find it extremely comforting to realize that this instrument of inquiry commands the measure of confidence now expressed by the Minister of Justice. The fact is that in naming the people who were appointed to this commission, and in emphasizing his own belief that they were competent to make a finding, he has supported the contention we have made, and will make on other occasions, that this is an extremely useful instrument to inquire into and report upon facts that cannot be brought together loosely here in this chamber and digested by the members in the course of a debate.
As to this section and the problem before us, there may be different points of view. There are different points of view that are related perhaps to the experience members have had in this field. My own belief is that we are dealing with one of the most serious

Criminal Code
problems facing this country, and that it is going to be an increasingly serious problem as each year goes by, as we see the power of automobiles increasing beyond anything we would have imagined possible a few years ago. When we realize that cars of 200 horsepower, 220 horsepower and 240 horsepower are going to be second-hand cars in the hands of youngsters on the highways in only a few years from now, we realize something of the threat that is presented. When we also realize the increasing size of the trucks, occupying so much space on whatever highways are available, I do not think we should be in any way reluctant to do anything that will lessen the slaughter on the highways. It is a slaughter that has become manslaughter in many cases through the carelessness of those who are driving the vehicles.
As I wish to say a few more words on this subject, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On clause 221-Criminal negligence in operation of motor vehicle.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. At six
o'clock we were discussing clause 221.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue the remarks I was making with respect to the subject now under discussion. Perhaps I speak with some feeling about it, having returned this afternoon from visiting a recent victim of one of these many tragic accidents. I only mention that because in hospitals all over the country today, from one side of Canada to the other, there are people on the verge of death or people on the way to recovery whose whole future is uncertain because of circumstances entirely beyond their control, and where there can be no possible remuneration as the result of any court proceedings that would compensate in any way for the uncertain position of the whole family in the years ahead and for the long years of suffering that may result from accidents of this kind.
Without emotionalism, I think we should realize that we are dealing with something that has now reached the proportions of a major national tragedy. As we see the total figures of deaths and serious accidents piling up, reaching figures that almost have the appearance of heavy battle casualties, the time has come for us to devote all the thought we can to ways in which the proper use of

our highways can be brought within reasonable bounds and some measure of safety restored to this vitally important part of our ordinary daily movement from place to place.
The Minister of Justice said quite correctly that you cannot deal with this problem alone by any words you introduce into the Criminal Code, or by the penalties you impose. I certainly agree with that statement. I think this is an appropriate time to mention one aspect of the problem that it is proper to mention in the House of Commons inasmuch as the policing of our highways is divided among police under the authority of the federal government, police under the authority of the provincial governments and police under the authority of municipal councils. Therefore any remarks I may make in that respect are general remarks applying to policing of our highways, and are made without any suggestion that I presume to advise either the provincial or municipal authorities as to what they should do. Nevertheless I think remarks that would apply to police under the authority of the federal government would apply to the others with equal force, because the problem is the same; and as we all know, much policing is now done in the provinces and municipalities by police coming under federal authority.
It seems to me that the time to stop fatal accidents is when recklessness first becomes apparent. The time to avoid a fatal accident is when it is evident that someone is driving recklessly, in a manner that may cause a fatal accident. It happened that I was on highways in different parts of this country during the heavy snowstorms last week, and as I travelled along I saw several accidents. They were caused by a number of contributing circumstances. Undoubtedly the major contributing factor was the heavy snowstorm itself with its resulting slippery conditions, but I saw something that must impress itself on everyone who has occasion to drive under such conditions. I saw heavy truck after heavy truck occupying so much of the road that under difficult driving conditions and with low visibility the driver of an automobile whose view was obscured by these trucks had great difficulty in seeing what was coming some distance beyond.
I know it is easy to say that the driver behind a truck should simply stay there. Nevertheless the fact remains that the law permits certain speeds which are regarded as reasonably safe, with certain modifications in the light of general conditions. I noticed on a number of occasions that these very large trucks would not move to the right if a car was coming from behind in the same way they were bound to move over when a car or

another truck was approaching them. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am offering no general condemnation of those who operate or drive these trucks. It is legal to do so. It is a part of our transportation system, and I am satisfied that in most cases truck drivers are doing the best they can under very difficult conditions.
Nevertheless this is a problem we must all face. Whether it be the careless truck driver or the careless driver of an automobile, I think more can be done to stop carelessness before it reaches the stage of tragedy than has been done. Certainly there were different occasions last week during the heavy snowstorms, if it had been pointed out to these drivers that what they were doing was extremely dangerous it might have been very useful at some time in the future. I feel sure we will all agree that this is a part of the general problem. There can be no sweeping statement made as to the limitation of the use of our highways or a suggestion that any special rules should apply to one or another type of motor vehicle operation.
I repeat that most truck drivers are performing their daily task to the best of their ability. However, we have placed on highways never built to be great freight carriers, vehicles that are little short of freight trains; and it does seem to me that in the policing of our highways the greatest care should be exercised to assure that these trucks will observe the law because their very size and the extent to which they block the ordinary view contribute greatly to many accidents.
I am not going to speak at the moment about one of the very serious contributing factors, the use of alcohol by those driving trucks, because that will be dealt with under another section. I am speaking simply about careless driving, reckless driving or driving with no regard for the possible consequences that may flow from what is done. Under our Criminal Code a person who uses a lethal weapon with complete disregard for the outcome, and in such a way that what he does causes death, may be guilty of murder. What is happening on the highways today in many cases is little short of murder.
That applies to the drivers of automobiles just as much as to the drivers of other vehicles. This appalling toll of death and destruction that is unfolded to us day by day through the press and over the radio, with all the consequent tragedy that will go on for many long years, is something that should engage the most careful thoughts of every one of us.
Criminal Code
I recognize that any punishment that is too severe may well defeat its own purpose, because courts are disinclined to inflict a punishment that may seem unreasonable. On the other hand I have a very strong feeling that if there is real negligence and real disregard for the consequences, when the jury recognizes the tragedy that has resulted they will not be disinclined to impose a heavy penalty. This penalty is not merely for the purpose of punishing a person who has erred, but is for the purpose of discouraging recklessness in others and making safer the highways, where so much of the movement of our people now takes place. I do not think there is one of us today who is not worried when those near and dear to him are on long trips on the highways. We may have complete confidence in their ability or our own, yet we know this may prove to be no safeguard under the conditions which arise.
I hope that in approaching this problem we will recognize that we are dealing with no mere minor departure from reasonable caution. We are dealing with something that can bring the gravest tragedy to families which had every reason to expect a long and happy life together. If a young man is going to drive the engine of a railway train, guide a street car or any other fast, heavy vehicle of that kind, it is customary to make sure he is skilled before he gets behind the controls. We are strangely lax in the measure of supervision that is imposed before people can get behind the wheel of an automobile that can move at 100 miles an hour or more, and can carry death and destruction to people who had no reason to be in any doubt that they were going to arrive safely at their destination.
I simply repeat what I said before, that while we cannot prevent accidents the place to stop recklessness is before it has caused death or tragedy. Wherever it comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government I would hope that instructions are very definite that such reckless driving as has not yet caused tragedy will be dealt with in a way that is likely to prevent some subsequent tragedy.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like to say a brief word on this, Mr. Chairman. I think we should deal with the cause of highway accidents. It has been my experience to find a good many young men, who had broken the law, in the police station. What was the cause? Well, they had been taking something that the government licenses, and I have a good deal of sympathy with them. I can see a group of six at Christmas going out and having a time. They had an accident

Criminal Code
and ran into the police patrol car before they got home. Of course they were in the police station the next morning. I thought it was a kind of a joke, but we should call a spade a spade.
We not only license the cause of many highway tragedies but we allow it to be advertised in many of our leading magazines, and I think that is asking for trouble. I should like to speak for an hour about this, but I think I have shown where I stand on the cause of highway accidents. If we, as members of parliament, do not get on the water wagon how can we expect other young fellows to do so?


Mr. Maclnnis:: The particular matter dealt with by the hon. member for Fort William is covered in the sections immediately following this one. I feel we all must agree with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and by the member for Winnipeg North Centre before the dinner recess. The question is how much can be done through the Criminal Code, and how much has to be done outside of it?
In the matter of the operation of trucks, I think possibly there is not sufficient supervision of truck drivers. A moment ago the Leader of the Opposition mentioned railways, street cars and that sort of thing. They are well regulated. The railways are regulated by the board of transport commissioners, and the speeds at which he can travel are laid down for every driver when he gets into his engine. Buses and trucks are under the control of the provincial authorities, and when an accident occurs I think there should be some investigation of the schedules these drivers have to maintain. If the schedules are such that they have to drive at speeds that are dangerous, then someone should have the authority to see that the schedule is set so the drivers can proceed at safer speeds.
As I said, I do not know just how much we can do here. All we can do is impose penalties. As the Leader of the Opposition said, if we make them too severe then they will not be enforced. Probably one of the difficulties in getting convictions in cases of this kind is that almost everyone drives a vehicle of some kind. When a case comes before the jury, each juryman thinks he had better not be too severe in this case because it might be his turn to have an accident very shortly. It is, therefore, difficult to get a conviction. It seems to me that the punishment in this section is severe enough, indeed very severe. I do not know what else can be done under the code.


Mr. Mitchell (London):: The whole field of criminal negligence is one that is new. It is
[Mr. Mclvor.l
expanding as we in Canada and on this continent expand our way of life. This section constitutes one additional change in this law of criminal negligence. I suggest that in considering the penalties which we prescribe for negligence there are several views we must examine.
The first of these is that the car has become an inherently dangerous object. The minute it leaves the showroom it becomes a dangerous thing in the hands of many people; in fact it is more dangerous than a gun. In the fall we all read of the number of persons who are killed as a result of the improper use of guns, but in fact that number is so infinitesimally small compared to the damage and destruction wrought by cars that it is rather surprising we even notice it.
The second problem in dealing with motor cars is this. I am sure each of us has said at some time or other, when we have referred to a person charged with an offence involving the use of a motor car, "Oh, poor Tom; he is not really a criminal". We are confronted with that state of mind, and this reflects itself not only in the public at large but in the minds of our juries.
Now we are faced with a change in this clause setting a higher penalty in terms of imprisonment. I submit we are bound to run up against juries who will say, "Oh, well, now, this fellow is a perfectly normal citizen who has just made a mistake". They forget all about the damage and havoc he has wrought either through sheer negligence or perhaps for some other reason such as the consumption of alcohol. We also forget the number of cases in which we find that persons have been convicted not only once but perhaps two or three times.
Having said that, we must consider what should be done with those people. I have three suggestions which with your permission, Mr. Chairman, involve consideration of clause 225. The first has been most aptly expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, and has to do with licensing. Upon that I shall say no more. The second has to do with the possibility of setting up separate places of confinement for offenders against the appropriate and ordinary uses of the automobile. In that way we can say, and justifiably so, that they are not convicted as criminals, as such, but are convicted for making our highways places of slaughter.
Third, and most important, we should consider most seriously placing a minimum, and not a maximum, on the licence suspension of offenders. I notice in clause 225 that the court may prescribe in certain cases a prohibition from driving for a period not

exceeding three years, or if it is an offence which could carry with it life imprisonment, for any period in the discretion of the judge.
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that a minimum suspension of at least 10 years, and probably more, should be placed upon a driver convicted under a section involving life imprisonment; and that in respect of any other section a period of at least five years should be prescribed during which there would be prohibition from driving. In that way not only would we rid our highways of the repeaters, but I feel also that we would go a long way toward making people realize that our highways are places where more care is required than in any other facet of modern living.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I endorse fully the remarks just made by the hon. member for London. I should like to take the matter one step farther. In this matter of penalties, while I quite agree that there ought to be a minimum period during which licences should be suspended, I feel that in respect of this clause and clauses 222 and 223 there ought, in addition, to be a minimum penalty of imprisonment as well. Some time ago in this country there was an outbreak of car thefts, and it was found necessary to impose a minimum penalty of one year for that offence. This seems to have had a reasonably salutary effect, although this has been somewhat modified by the provisions of the other section popularly known as the joy-riding section.
I should like to suggest that on any conviction under this clause, in addition to a minimum suspension of licence there should also be a minimum period of imprisonment of possibly three months. We have heard this afternoon and this evening about the greatly increasing numbers of people killed on our highways, due to the mishandling of motor vehicles. It has been pointed out that these fatalities have occurred when people should have known that their actions could have serious results. The fact must be brought home to them more clearly.
I quite agree with what has been said to the effect that juries, magistrates or judges, as the case may be, do not wish to impose heavy sentences, because they say, in effect, "There but for the grace of God go I". The way to get around that is to have a minimum penalty. I suggest some consideration might be given to this point.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman,
many of the members who have taken part in this discussion have been of the legal profession. However, I have been listening to the discussion, and it has occurred to me that
Criminal Code
we are considering a problem that comes within the jurisdiction of provincial legislation. When licences for motor cars are controlled exclusively by provincial governments; when drivers' licences are also under the same provincial jurisdiction, and when we consider that the cancellation of a driving licence is a provincial matter, it seems to me that the subject now before us is also provincial. We are discussing a licence that has been provided by a provincial government to a resident of that province.
I shall make only one comparison and then I shall resume my seat. I was on the water for a great many years, and as a young man I was able to obtain my master's certificate. Since that time I have had a good deal to do with young men who have made application for masters' certificates through the Department of Transport. In that connection I have seen young men in their thirties and forties who were denied masters' certificates due to faulty eyesight.
I recall one particular occasion involving a young man, a personal friend of mine, who had a mail and passenger contract during the summer months between Campobello and Eastport, Maine. The trip was made during the afternoon, arriving home before dark. This young man made application for a master's certificate, which was refused by the Department of Transport because of his eyesight. He has served on the water since he was 16 or 17 years of age, and if I know him as well as I think I do, he is on the water tonight and is able to carry on in that capacity without any trouble at all.
Now, I am not criticizing the regulations under which certificates are granted by the Department of Transport, but it would appear to me that we are much too lax in our provincial regulations having to do with the granting of permits to drive motor cars. If the same approach was used in our provincial legislature that is used by the Department of Transport, there would be very few people driving cars who were incapable of driving them. I am convinced that it is from this cause that a great percentage of our trouble comes.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, a person will apply for a licence to drive a car at speeds of perhaps 75, 80 or even 100 miles an hour. These people may be wearing spectacles an inch thick, and driving at night in all sorts of weather. Yet they are given drivers' licences. If those same persons applied for masters' certificates to operate boats on the water, travelling at 10 or 12 knots at the outside and with no danger involved, they would be turned down on account of faulty eyesight.

Criminal Code
Having followed the discussion which has taken place so far I feel that if we are looking for a remedy the proper place that we may expect to find such remedy is in our provincial legislatures. As I said at the outset, the granting and issuing of licences to drive cars is completely under their jurisdiction, and I feel that the provincial legislature is the one and only body that can deal with the question we have been discussing.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, there are several factors in connection with this clause, and particularly the subsection, with which I should like to deal, but I assume the Minister of Justice will want to deal with the matters that have just been brought forward. I am not going to speak on them for the moment, but later on I shall expect to deal with one or two technical matters in respect to subsection 2.
I think the discussion which has taken place this afternoon and this evening has been most interesting and original, and indicates the evolution which has taken place in our concept of law and society within this country. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Charlotte and others who have spoken, the control of motor vehicles lies within the scope of the provincial legislatures. Only within the last few days I remember reading in the press that the Minister of Transport had stated he thought that the control of motor trucks within Canada should be left to the provinces rather than to the federal government. With that view I am not quarrelling at the moment.
I think the discussion has pointed up the crux of this problem with which we are faced tonight. If we have not already reached it, I suggest to the Minister of Justice that we are rapidly approaching the stage where not only will the punishment of anyone who violates a section of the Criminal Code be a matter of criminal law, but possibly the whole control of driving on the highways should be brought within the ambit and scope of criminal law within this country.
The Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members have referred to this. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway raised the question of the locomotive engineer who is licensed to drive his locomotive at a certain speed. The hon. member for Charlotte raised the question of licensing with respect to motorboat and fishing boat operation. In so far as the highways are concerned there is no control at all; yet if a person happens to come within clause 221, with which we are now dealing, the accused may have committed a criminal offence.

With respect to what has been said before, I do not think it is a matter of punishment. I have had some little experience with these matters, covering more years in court than I sometimes like to think about. I suppose I have had to deal in one way or another with 100 or 150 manslaughter cases and never once-I will not say once, but certainly in not more than 5 per cent of those cases-have I heard a person say that he was responsible for doing something wrong. In 95 per cent of the cases the person would sit in my office and say, "I did not do anything wrong. I don't know what happened. It happened so fast I cannot tell you what happened, but I know I am not responsible". You could have a section in the Criminal Code saying that such a man should be hanged by the neck until dead, and he would still operate his car in exactly the same way because he never thinks of himself as a criminal. In other cases the element of mens rea arises, but there is no mens rea in these cases.
I realize that it is a most difficult situation with which to deal, but I doubt if the solution is a matter of punishment. I think it is a matter of education in the first place. We have to go a lot further than we have gone heretofore in dealing with this matter. As the Leader of the Opposition and others have pointed out, we are faced with a great slaughter on our highways today.
Without wanting to set myself up as a constitutional authority, I think it lies within the ambit of this parliament to declare that certain things come within the scope of the criminal law of this country. I do believe we have to approach this matter in an entirely different way than we have heretofore done. This may be only a preliminary discussion, and it may be five or ten years from now before the matter is finalized. There are constitutional problems involved which I am going to deal with on another clause which we will get to later on. There is also a moral problem. There is a problem going to the roots of every home in this country. I think it has reached the stage where it comes properly within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament and our concept of criminal law.
I know I cannot properly discuss at this time the matter of the cancellation of licences. If this parliament is going to determine that licences can be cancelled for a certain length of time we will be impinging upon civil rights, apart from the punishment imposed for the commission of any crime.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I say that we do not cancel licences. We do not grant them, so we cannot cancel them. The accused's provincial licence to drive and his provincial

Criminal Code
motor vehicle licence are dealt with under clause 225 of this bill by empowering the court to order that the convicted accused cannot drive under his provincial licence. Then I think the provincial authorities follow that up by having the licence cancelled.


George Clyde Nowlan: The statute provides that the magistrate may do certain things. That is one example of the approach which can be made to this problem. I am suggesting that sooner or later we will have to approach it on a far different basis than we have heretofore. I think it is going to have to be done by virtue of the Criminal Code, but I do not think it is going to be done simply by increasing sentences or suggesting that they should be more severe.


Mr. Hahn:: I believe this clause involves the problem which was raised earlier. Since this is a revision of section 285, or a portion of it, to me the one part that stands out particularly is that the onus is on the driver to prove he is not guilty of a certain offence. From the portion of the debate that I could hear-the acoustics are not too good at this end of the chamber-I understand that a driver will have to prove that he is not guilty. I do not understand from the wording of clause 221 that it is necessary for someone to prove that the accused is guilty of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, in which case there is no onus on the driver, unless we have a case similar to what was discussed the other day, where the individual must prove that he is not responsible.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend what clause or subclause he is referring to?


Frederick George Hahn: I was referring to a section further on, but they all are in the same division. I am aware that we are dealing with clause 221, but from what has been said up to this point by hon. members who have spoken before me I gather that it would be necessary for the individual to prove that he is not guilty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to express appreciation for the sympathetic attitude which the Minister of Justice indicated this afternoon toward my insistence that there is something more to this problem than just passing the clause now before us. I think it is fair to say that the views of Canadians generally were never better expressed by their representatives in parliament than they have been this afternoon and this evening by hon. members in various parts of the house who have risen to stress the urgent need of something more being done about this problem of death and injury on our highways.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, with the concurrence of the Minister of
Justice after the minister made one correction, has drawn attention to the fact that constitutional considerations notwithstanding we do have an interest in this question of driving on the highways from the standpoint of the federal Criminal Code. Further, we have an interest because of our concern with respect to criminal negligence, and our concern over the protection of human life. There was one statement made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings which I hope was not taken too seriously. I refer to his suggestion that it may be four or five years before something is done about this matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: Democracy goes slowly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize my hon. friend has been sitting opposite a government that moves slowly, but in this instance I hope he will be pleasantly surprised and that there will be something done in relation to this matter in less time than he indicated.
I wonder if consideration might not be given to this matter being studied along with the other matter which has to be considered by the conference being called by the Minister of Transport. Only two days ago the Minister of Transport announced that in view of another situation he proposed to call a conference of provincial ministers having jurisdiction over highways to discuss the problems arising therefrom and to endeavour to find a common ground on the best way to regulate and control highway transport whether intraprovincial, interprovincial or international.
I recognize that that decision to call together the provincial ministers of highways arose out of a different situation, but in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice this afternoon stated that he concurred in the desirability of a conference being called at a federal-provincial level on this matter, I would ask that serious consideration now be given by the two ministers to whom I am speaking, and perhaps we might add the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I see he is over there and I know he will be interested too-


Mr. Martin:: All the big guns are together.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That requires a salvo.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is something that needs big shots to deal with it. I hope the matter will be treated with the seriousness it merits.
While I am dealing with this subject, Mr. Chairman, and as an indication of a field in which something of great value can be done, I believe that tribute should be paid to the work that is being done in the province from which the Minister of Justice and I both

Criminal Code
come. As he knows the provincial government's highway safety division has imposed in Manitoba, particularly in the greater Winnipeg area, very strict regulations with regard to the issuance of drivers' licences. I have had some connection with people who have obtained licences there in recent months, and I believe it is fair to say that what the applicants go through is not just a test but a course of training. As a matter of fact, they have had enough experience already in the greater Winnipeg area in the educational work being done by the highways branch to know that it is paying off in terms of less frightening statistics with regard to accidents in that area.
I believe something of that nature could be instituted generally throughout the country. I am not too sure, but I believe something similar is done in British Columbia. At any rate I believe the experience they have already had in some parts of the country and the information they have amassed could be shared at a federal-provincial conference. I agree with those who say that you cannot solve the matter entirely by law. Yet we will have to do something about it at the level of criminal law, and certainly this whole field is wide open for real progress. I hope the federal government will accept its responsibility to give a lead in this important matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I hope that if these three big guns who are together over there do finally manage to fire a salvo it will not just be a matter of making a report and then letting the matter drop.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All some of them can do is make a retort.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is as far as you can go with a peashooter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some of the suggestions
advanced are deserving of serious consideration, though I believe we should get back to a closer study of clause 221. In saying that I do not wish to be critical of what was said before. I say that because I believe it can be related very strictly to the problem now before us.
I wish to refer to the discussion which has arisen out of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and me, namely that it is a mistake to increase the maximum penalty under clause 221 to five years when before, under the same section, it was two years.
What I have to say here follows very closely what was said by the hon. member for London, or at least what was inherent in
his remarks, namely that here we are dealing

with the subject of criminal negligence. We are dealing with a subject concerning dangerous objects, in other words motor cars on highways; yet at the same time we are dealing with it under the Criminal Code. What we are trying to deal with under the Criminal Code in this instance is something which is not essentially criminal, something which is not essentially a crime. It is a perfectly legal thing to drive a motor vehicle on the highway and, as has been said, before there can be any conviction there has to be proven an element of intent or mens rea. Yet by the introduction both in the present draft bill and in the previous bill of an element of negligence, we eliminate to a large extent the element of intent. You are making a crime of that which a person did not intend to do. You are making him guilty of a crime simply because he was careless.
I am not questioning the right of parliament to do that. That right has been established. But the fact is that you are making a crime out of something or continuing as a crime something which does not necessarily involve the element of intent. I would therefore suggest, particularly in regard to the subject matter now under discussion, that by this negligence arising out of the use of motor vehicles you are creating what I might call a quasi-criminal offence for which the proper punishment may be not so much purely criminal, that is a jail sentence, as it may be punishment of what I might call a quasi-civil nature, namely prohibition of the right to drive.
I therefore go right back to clause 221, where I question the advisability of making the maximum penalty five years. I would suggest that the maximum penalty be continued as before at two years and then later, when we come to clause 225, that we greatly increase the prohibition on driving which a magistrate may impose. Possibly under clause 225 (a) if the offence is one which upon conviction could result in a sentence of life, it should be provided that the prohibition against driving should be for not less than 10 years. If it is under clause 225 (b) for an offence which would not result in a sentence for life, the prohibition against driving should be a maximum of 10 years. In other words you relate your penalty more closely to the civil element of the offence, and you diminish the criminal element of the penalty because the offence is not so much a criminal offence as it is quasi-criminal or indeed quasi-civil.
I hope I have not become too technical. I believe the minister follows my reasoning. I do not want to move this-I do not think the minister agrees with me necessarily, but I hope he follows my reasoning-

Criminal Code


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I follow your reasoning, but I disagree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is all right if the minister does not agree with it. We are entitled to have a difference of opinion in this house. But I venture to suggest that in the light of everything that has been said here the general consensus of opinion, at least on the part of those who have spoken, is that this is not purely a criminal matter. Indeed one might frequently have raised points of order and said, "Why are you discussing this matter under the Criminal Code?"
As I see it the fact is, of course, that we are dealing in the Criminal Code with a matter which is not essentially a criminal offence. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) has pointed out, these men did not intend to do what they did, and they will deny until their dying day that they were responsible in a criminal sense. Yet we have felt it proper to deal with the act which was done under the Criminal Code which, by and large, involves the element of intent.
I do not think I need to say anything more in order to explain my meaning. The minister perhaps will not agree with me but I hope that, even if it is not done now, within a measurable period of time the penalties with respect to the prohibition of the right to drive will be increased; and at the same time I think it would follow that as to the strictly criminal punishment, the length of the prison sentence might be reduced. Otherwise you probably will not get a jury to convict.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend, in the course of his remarks-as did the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings - dealt with the nub of this matter. The real question here is whether this kind of negligence that we are discussing in this section is criminal negligence. That is the point. As I indicated previously in this new code the commissioners have deliberately left out lesser motor vehicle offences as coming more appropriately under provincial legislation, which I take it would be in accord with the views of both of my hon. friends.
Is this which we are discussing criminal negligence? I do not think a better answer to that question can be found than in a brief quotation, which perhaps I might put on the record, from the report of the royal commission on the Criminal Code itself. This is what it says:


Edmund Davie Fulton: What page?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is page 12.
The definition of criminal negligence in clause 191 is in accord with the judicial authorities which state that wanton or reckless misconduct is required to support a charge involving criminal negligence.
In other words, before the negligence that is in question in a prosecution can be shown to be criminal negligence, the crown must prove wanton or reckless conduct. They quote there as authority Rex v. Bateman, 94 L.J.K.B., 791; Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 106 L.J.K.B., 37; Rex v. Greis-man, 59 L.R., 151 and 46 Canadian Criminal Cases, 179; Rex v. Baker, (1929) Supreme Court Reports, 354. Then the report goes on to say:
In Rex v. Bateman supra. Lord Hewart stated that to support an indictment for manslaughter based on criminal negligence the prosecution must prove the matters necessary to establish civil liability (except pecuniary loss) and in addition-
That is the point.
-must satisfy the court that the negligence alleged "went beyond a mere matter of compensation and showed such disregard for the lives and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving of punishment".
That is the point of this clause. What we are defining is criminal negligence; and we are providing punishment for that criminal negligence. I agree with everything that has been so well said by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for London-


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Oxford.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister left out the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who was pre-eminent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't forget the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I agree with them when they say that the place to prevent this death on the highways is in the licensing and in provincial legislation such as that to which my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre properly referred in the province of Manitoba where, under that legislation, they have cancelled the licences of thousands of drivers because they showed, by their conduct, that they were not fit to have a licence. But the licensing of motor cars is a matter of property and civil rights which comes under provincial jurisdiction. The licensing of drivers likewise comes under provincial jurisdiction. The rules of the road are under provincial jurisdiction. The policing of the

Criminal Code
roads, even when it is done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under contract with the various provinces, is under the direction of the provincial authorities. We here are powerless to accomplish anything in that particular field of the prevention of highway accidents. The only thing in this connection that is under our jurisdiction is the criminal law and, as a result of the recent privy council judgment, the question of interprovincial or international traffic but not intraprovincial traffic.
The great bulk of the traffic we are now discussing as the source of traffic accidents and deaths takes place wholly within the confines of one province. These things being so, we have to confine our contribution to the stamping out of death upon the highways to those matters which come under our jurisdiction. To that end the royal commission has recommended, and I think very wisely, that we should undertake to state, as we do in the section under discussion, that where the negligence of a motor car driver is of such a serious character as to be a crime against the state, we should so designate it and should so penalize for it.
We have so designated it, and we have provided a maximum penalty of five years. Surely a maximum penalty of five years is not too much where, as a result of gross negligence, one man-a motor car driver- may have crippled a fellow citizen for life. I am sure the victim would be very glad to change places with him, to have his body back whole again and serve the penalty for him. With all deference to my friend the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings- who, I admit, has had a great deal more experience in these matters than I-I do not think the jury are going to shrink from bringing in a verdict of guilty if the facts of a case are sufficiently heinous, because the judge may impose a sentence of not more than five years or maybe as little as one day, following their verdict.
I agree with much that has been said in this very constructive debate, and I want to express my appreciation for the nonpartisan, fair-minded, sincerely constructive and co-operative manner in which all members have taken part in the discussion. I agree with much of what they have said; but I also emphasize that our best contribution toward a solution of the matter is that we in this house should deal now with those things which are within our power. Having done this we then can go on and do our part toward encouraging the provincial and municipal authorities to do the best they can in their spheres.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, probably I know more about automobiles than I do about law, and I am not rising merely in order that I may have a chance to attach my name to the distinguished list of legal authorities given by the minister but because there is one idea arising out of my own experience that I thought I might interject.
I was very much interested in the suggestion of the hon. member for London, I believe it was, that suspension of the permit to drive is likely to be one of the best deterrents. I agree with him completely in that respect. Having said that as an introduction, I merely want to say this. I have had two or three people from my own city of Saskatoon write me after they got into difficulties through infractions of the law of the province of Saskatchewan. I could not help but notice in each case that while it was bad enough to have to pay a fine or go to jail for a week or two, the thing that concerned them particularly was the fact that the province of Saskatchewan had, in view of the offence committed, suspended their permission to drive for three months, six months, a year, or whatever it might happen to be.
I am completely in favour of the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this matter should be discussed on the dominion-provincial level. I am well aware that licensing lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and perhaps it should be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference such as the hon. member proposed. Perhaps it might be discussed at the conference suggested by the Minister of Transport. If it could be discussed the provinces might be able to get together on their ideas with respect to the matter and reach some degree of uniformity, which I think would be an excellent thing from the point of view of licence suspension acting as a deterrent to this criminal negligence.
While most of us drive cars at least partly for pleasure, some of the people who get into trouble make their living by driving trucks, small delivery vans or whatever it may be. The letters I received from constituents of mine who had gotten into trouble were from people of that type. They said that the $40 or $50 fine was not so bad, but the point was that they made their living with the vehicle. These people of course ignore the fact that such vehicles can be driven at 70 miles an hour down a road and, weighing a couple of tons, attain a momentum of I know not what. They ignore the fact that in their hands these vehicles can be dangerous and lethal

weapons. I think there is merit in the idea of the suspension of licences, and if some uniformity among the provinces as to what should be done in that regard could be achieved I think it might help to meet the situation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I make one point. We will shortly come to clause 225, and the hon. member for Saskatoon will see that there we ourselves are taking the power to prohibit a convicted person from driving. That provision will be uniform in effect across Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Like the hon. member for Saskatoon, I know far more about automobiles than I do about criminal law. I would not need to know much about automobiles to know more than I do about criminal law, because my knowledge of criminal law is just about zero. It seems to me that even though section 221 may represent the best draftsmanship possible, even though it may be the best that can come out of the discussion tonight, there is nothing in the section that will do much to prevent accidents. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, we should not think that the passing of this section will meet the problem completely.
I have noticed, as have other hon. members, that the federal government is now to have jurisdiction over in ter provincial automobile and truck traffic. I have one suggestion to make to the minister if he should attend a dominion-provincial conference on the control of automobile and truck traffic in the interprovincial sphere. In my opinion one thing that would do more to reduce accidents than anything else would be to exercise some control over the horsepower of engines installed in modern automobiles. Automobile manufacturers are making bigger and more powerful cars all the time. You can buy a car now that is-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member must recognize that we are discussing clause 221 and not something having to do with governors on automobiles.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been sitting here for some time, and I have listened to others discussing what the minister might do as a result of the judicial decision respecting the control of interprovincial highway traffic. I had pretty nearly completed my comment in any event. I believe it is something that the minister might well consider, because it is my opinion that if you put an ordinary human being in one of our very powerful modern 83276-1574
Criminal Code
cars he is going to try out the automobile irrespective of section 221 of the Criminal Code.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I intimated earlier, before the clause carries I have two questions to ask and a general comment to make about subsection 2. Before I leave the lofty plane on which we have been travelling for the last hour and for an hour before dinner, I must say, with all respect, that I am not too impressed by the minister's statement that after all this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Just to show you how long, unfortunately, I have been practising law, may I say that I can well remember that one time I was defending a man for driving while intoxicated. He was charged under the Nova Scotia statute. At that time he came under the law of the province of Nova Scotia, but during the period between the time the information was laid and the time he came up for his trial the parliament of Canada decided that it constituted a crime, and made it a section of the Criminal Code. I appeared before the magistrate on that benign morning, pointed out the section of the Criminal Code and got an acquittal under the Nova Scotia statute.
That is how the wheels turn throughout the years and, as I say, it is an admission of more years gone by than I should like to admit. But if that can be done with respect to a prosecution for driving while drunk, some of these other matters which the minister has quite properly said come within provincial jurisdiction can by a declaration of this parliament be transferred, as was the charge of driving while intoxicated, and come within the scope of this volume of law which we have before us tonight.
Having said that, I want to refer to one or two matters of a very mundane nature. The first subsection refers to "every one who is criminally negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle." There is no definition of "motor vehicle". I am wondering whether there may be judicial decisions on this point. I am not certain. I am thinking, for instance, of a farmer driving a tractor, and of various other vehicles operated on the roads. Will they come within the scope of that provision?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at clause 2, subsection 25, page 4, he will see that it reads:
"Motor vehicle" means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than by muscular power, but does not include a vehicle ol a railway that operates on rails.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are horses muscular?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.

Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you mean the ones that were in the army?


George Clyde Nowlan: Turning to subsection 2,
again I want to say what has been said by others. Here again we get an increase in the penalty, which has been stepped up from the old section. To illustrate how rapidly the penalty has been increased, I may say that I have in front of me the 1938 edition of Crankshaw which shows the penalty as 30 days. After that the penalty was increased to six months, and now it has been increased to two years.
I quite realize that a reading of that clause, covering one who runs away to avoid this, that and the other thing, indicates it is a very formidable-sounding charge. Actually one finds from experience that in 999 out of 1,000 cases-perhaps that is too many, but certainly in 990 out of 1,000-the man has temporarily lost his head; he is scared, and he acts on an impulse. He is technically guilty of an offence under this clause. If anything of a serious criminal nature has occurred he can be convicted under one of these other clauses with which we are dealing. I doubt very much if it is necessary to increase the penalty under this clause. It seems to me this is a catch-all provision, that if you fail to convict him on some other offence then you convict him under this clause and you can still give him a fairly stiff sentence.
Actually, as anyone who has had experience in defending these cases knows, in most cases if he had remained at the scene there would have been an acquittal anyway because there would not be any suggestion of criminal intent. It is the fact of his running away which probably results in a conviction. With all respect to the Minister of Justice, who this afternoon read this very formidable list of members of this commission, and who says these men are without fault and are the perfect men-


An hon. Member:: Carried.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is not carried, and it will not be carried for some time if someone keeps interrupting.
As I say we were discussing the matter of the commission this afternoon, and the Minister of Justice read the names of the members. We have great respect for them, but I still say many of those gentlemen have not had much experience in either prosecuting or defending-some of them have prosecuted-for a good many years. Without becoming at all critical of them I say-I have said this privately and I will say it in connection with other clauses-there is a

prosecution complex in connection with many of these clauses where the sentences, it seems to me, have been automatically increased without justification. I want to express my protest against that.
There is one other minor question, but still a rather important one, I think. In subclause 2, Mr. Chairman, there is reference to accidents involving a person, horse or vehicle. I wonder why you have the horse in that provision. Apparently it is not an offence to have a collision with a cow. Certainly I realize that is the phraseology from the old section. I know of cases containing judicial comments as to why it is there.
The Minister of Justice referred to these commissioners, and took credit for all the work they had done. I am suggesting that possibly they would have been wise if they had omitted the reference to the horse, because the words "person or vehicle" would be wide enough. As the minister knows, it very often happens that a horse breaks out of a field and runs down a road alone. Why should it be an offence to strike that horse, and not an offence to strike any other animal? I think the phraseology is bad, and some attention should be given to it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe I should give some attention to the two points raised by my hon. friend. So far as the penalty is concerned, he will see it is only where the charge is considered by the crown prosecutor to be sufficiently serious that he proceeds by way of indictment that it takes the penalty of two years. My hon. friend is quite right that in the great majority of cases, it is a minor offence. In such cases the crown proceeds by way of summary conviction and, as I recall it, a summary conviction takes a penalty of six months or $500; which is the maximum for a summary conviction.
With reference to the inclusion of the word "horse", my hon. friend is quite right in saying that is the language which was taken from the old section. The reason for its inclusion may be that the phrase has been judicially interpreted, and it was thought desirable to retain it. I would prefer to be cautious and leave it the way it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister is not quite right, with respect, in saying the wording has been taken as a whole from the other section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The word "horse" has been.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The old section related to a horse in charge of a person, not just an accident involving a horse. The horse or vehicle had to be in charge of a person before the

offence of rushing away without stopping and reporting the accident became a criminal offence. As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings points out, if you run into a horse or a vehicle or an empty car, you now come within the provisions of the proposed section. Under the old section the horse had to be in charge of a person.


George Clyde Nowlan: I think there is an anomaly here that should be looked at.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend would look up the proceedings he would see that the very point he is raising was discussed at great length in the committee of the other place and in the House of Commons committee, and after this discussion they decided to keep it as it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why?


Mr. Bell:: Why was the joy-riding section, I think it was section 285 (3), taken out of here? I appreciate that it comes in later under car theft, but I wondered why it was not left in here where it was a so-called lesser offence. Is it the intention of the provincial legislatures to cover that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will make a note of his question, could we consider it when we come to the other clause?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 222-Driving while intoxicated.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There are one or two brief observations I should like to make. It has been the custom in the past, as most hon. members are aware, if a person is found in an intoxicated condition in a motor vehicle, even if it is motionless on the side of the road, to convict that person under this section. It has always seemed rather peculiar to me that a person who has obviously been drinking but feels incapable of taking charge of the car and has pulled off to the side of the road, should be punished for having removed himself from the road when he was obviously a menace. It does not seem reasonable to me. I cannot help but feel there ought to be some change in this section to take care of such a situation. I know of two people in my own constituency who, within the last four months, removed their car from the road knowing they were in no condition to drive it, yet received a sentence of seven days upon being convicted of this offence.
Another thing I should like to mention is the difference between the alcoholic and the ordinary, to coin a phrase, Saturday night drunk. There is quite a difference between the two, because the alcoholic is a sick person and seven days in jail is not going to keep
Criminal Code
him from continuing to drink and drive. I think the punishment in this section is quite suitable for the ordinary Saturday night drunk or the person who is drunk after a party, although the penalties might even be increased a little. I believe there is a difference when we are dealing with alcoholics.
Would the minister take into consideration, either on this clause or at some other point in the Criminal Code, the possibility of some alteration which would give a magistrate discretion, where it is shown that a person is an alcoholic, to send such person to some type of institution? I do not like to refer to it as punishment, because it is not punishment I have in mind. I should think that such person might be sent to an institution for some period of time to take treatment. If he would not go, then the penalty set out in clause 222 could be imposed. This might be worth consideration, because it would draw a distinction between the ordinary party drunk and the type of person who might be considered an alcoholic.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Before the minister answers I should like to place before him a situation which I believe causes greater injustice than the one described by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. The presumption would be that if a man was out driving on the road, felt too intoxicated to carry on and pulled in to the side of the road, the crown would not have much difficulty in proving that he had been driving and had been in an intoxicated state.
But, if that is an injustice, then I know of one that is much greater. I know of a case which happened not long ago where a man came to town, went to a dance, had two or three drinks and decided he would not drive home while intoxicated or, in the words of clause 223, "while his ability to drive a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol". One of the other fellows with him said, "Oh, come on home". He said, "No, I am not going to drive. I might get picked up. I am not going home at all". The other man said, "What are you going to do?" He said, "I am going to stay in town until I am sober". The unfortunate part of it was that he had spent his money and could not afford a hotel bed. The other chap said, "Where are you going to sleep?" He said, "I am going to sleep in my car". So he foolishly climbed into the front seat of his car and went to sleep. He refused to go home. He did not leave town at all-did not even commence his journey. The police came along about three or four o'clock in the morning, wakened him up and laid a charge against him, I presume under this

Criminal Code
clause, for being in charge of an automobile, even though it was not in motion. I think this has some bearing on my hon. friend's case.
While I am on my feet I should like to make one other remark, and that is that the difference between clauses 222 and 223 is that in one case the person is intoxicated while in the other he is driving his car while his ability is impaired. I suggest that he is still intoxicated; and I do not see any particular difference between being intoxicated and being in a condition where your ability to drive is impaired.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My legal friends have had their turn, and now a mere layman is going to have his inning. I have been reading in the newspapers about blood tests, breath tests, and tests of different varieties-whether they can write their names, whether they can say "three grey geese"-and perhaps my inability to say that clearly may indicate my inability to drive a car, or that my ability is impaired. The point I wish to make is that-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member appears to be discussing the clause dealing with impaired driving which, I believe, is clause 223. I was wondering whether it might be the wish of the committee to discuss those two clauses together.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If my argument follows, that the terms are synonymous, then I am discussing clause 222, which refers to driving while intoxicated; and I shall stick to that.


Donald MacInnis: Would there be any objection to discussing the two clauses at the same time?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The chairman has made an excellent suggestion, that they are two branches of one matter, and I think we might very well discuss them together.


Frederick George Hahn: Clause 224 deals with the same matter, and I would' hope that it might be included also.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have no objection to adding clause 224, so long as I am allowed to speak.


William Alfred Robinson: Then is it agreed that we discuss clauses 222, 223 and 224 at the same time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was going to suggest that we go back to clause 221 and allow it to stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought it was passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I find I do not quite agree with the minister's statement, because I have

checked with my colleagues who served on the House of Commons committee and neither of them recalls a discussion of the question to which we referred. Unfortunately there is no transcript of proceedings; therefore it is impossible to say definitely. Would there be any objection to letting clause 221 (2) stand?


William Alfred Robinson: But clause 221 is carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am making this request. The minister made a statement when we were discussing clause 221 (2) to the effect that it was discussed fully in the Senate subcommittee and in the special committee of the House of Commons. I was not able to engage in a discussion of the point because, as I say, there is no transcript of proceedings of the House of Commons committee. However, I checked immediately with my colleagues who were on the committee last year and, without wishing to enter into any controversy, they simply say they cannot recall any such discussion.
All I am asking is that under the circumstances clause 221 (2) be allowed to stand- not the whole clause-because I have some observations which I think are important.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask for guidance? Am I in order in speaking?


William Alfred Robinson: I am entirely in the hands of the committee. I must remind hon. members, however, that I cannot allow them to revert to clause 221 without unanimous consent, because it has been carried.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am asking, Mr. Chairman, if I am in order in discussing clause 222; that is all I want to know.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand the committee has agreed to discuss clauses 222, 223 and 224 at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether there was any objection when the request was made by the hon. member for Kamloops that clause 221 be considered carried so far as subclauses 1 and 3 are concerned, but that subclause 2 be not regarded as carried?


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member for Kamloops leave to revert to clause 221 (2)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And have it stand.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I would ask that that subclause stand, if there is no objection.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no objection.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has no objection.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I had only one other thing to say, before I was interrupted.

I wanted to talk about the word "intoxicated" in clause 222. I was saying that I am very hazy as to the definition of that word. I am convinced, however, that a great many of the accidents, and perhaps most of the fatal accidents, are attributable to indulgence in alcohol. I am not for the moment criticizing drinking; but I am going to say this, that if a man is going to drive a car he should not drink at all. I would go so far as to say that he should not have even a single drink. And I think that if we go farther with higher speeds on the road, and better roads and more powerful automobiles, we are going to reach a state of affairs where it will have to be made a criminal offence for a man to drive a motor car if it can be proved that he has indulged at all in alcoholic drinks.
In other words, so far as I am concerned, to save lives I should like to see it made a criminal offence if a man steps into a car and takes charge of it, if it can be proved that he has had even a single drink. It is not a case of being a teetotaller, and I am not now discussing that particular phase of morality, whether you should drink or should not. But I do say that when it is so difficult to prove the state of intoxication of a person after an accident has happened, because there may be an element of shock which is often mistaken for the effects of alcohol, it seems to me that we will get to the point, and it will not be very long, when we will have to decide that a man should not be allowed to drive a car at all if he has had a single drink.
Speaking for myself, if I had to drive two or three hundred miles I would not drink a single glass of beer, because I know perfectly well it is not a good thing to do. It is not safe for me and it is not safe for the people I meet on the road. I wonder if the minister would mind commenting on the case of the man who is wise enough not to go home or even to start to go home because he feels he is not capable of doing so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We are dealing in this instance with what has been referred to as death on the highway, and serious injury on the highway. It is a rather harsh and painful subject for many people and this notion that we can try to stamp it out without hurting anybody's feelings is a mistaken one.
If a man is intoxicated and has the good sense at that particular stage of his intoxication to pull off to the side of the road and go to sleep or stay there in a sort of stupor, there is no guarantee that later on, when his intoxication wears off a little bit, he will not switch on the ignition and start to drive his car.
Criminal Code
There is difference of opinion as to what is intoxication and there is some variation in the interpretation of this word by the courts. Several cases have held, and I think quite rightly, that if a man is drunk in his car at the side of the road he should be charged and convicted under the section. If you do not impose that hardship upon him you are going to provide a wide-open defence for every person who has still enough sense to be quiet when the police come along. He will simply say, "I have been sitting here not doing anything at all", and he will get off. If you are going to prohibit driving while intoxicated, in my judgment you have to go the whole way. It is much better to have that injustice, if you like, than to have some person crippled.


Donald MacInnis: I think the minister has made a very good case for the enforcement of the law when a person is found in a car on the highway, whether the car is in motion or not. Besides what the minister has said, I think it is putting a tremendous responsibility on the police officer if when he is going to arrest a man he has to take the responsibility of saying not only that he is drunk but that he may not drive his car while he is drunk.
We discussed this in committee, and I cannot see that a case can be made out for not invoking the law against a person found in charge of a car, whether the car is or is not in motion. As the minister says, there is no telling when he is going to turn the key and start off.


Mr. Cardiff:: Suppose he had given the key to somebody, or somebody had taken it from him and he was left there to sleep; what about that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps in that case he could prove that he was not in control of the car within the meaning of the section and would be able to establish a defence, although as a matter of legislative policy I wonder even in that case whether it is not better that the prohibition should be an outright prohibition of an intoxicated man being in a car. In this death and maiming on the highway we are dealing with something we should not trifle with; and in my judgment it is better to make the prohibition outright. You will find that in those provincial jurisdictions where there is a strong enforcement of this law there are lower accident and insurance rates.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: It may be rather difficult to handle a man in that condition. He may be in a mood where you cannot take him out

Criminal Code
of his car or do anything with him. You want to protect him, so you take his key from him and leave him in the car. Then the police come along and pick him up after you have tried to make him safe. It does not seem exactly right that he should be fined for not doing anything with the car.


Mr. Lusby:: With regard to that situation, in my own province it is generally considered that if the car cannot be started, it is not an automobile. There are a series of cases which hold that a disabled car or one that cannot be started is not considered to be an automobile within the meaning of the section.
However, the point I wished to speak on more particularly was the one touched upon by an earlier speaker, that is the question of intention with regard to care or control. I was under the impression that there was a difference of opinion in the courts of the different provinces about whether the intention to drive was a necessary element. I know it has been decided in Nova Scotia in Rex v. Crowe that no intention was necessary. That was a case in which the man was so drunk that he could form no intention whatever. He was found in his car hopelessly drunk.
I was under the impression, which may not be correct, that in some of the other provinces it has been held that it is necessary to show that the man had the intention to drive. I suggest that it would be most desirable that there be no such conflict. The wording of clauses 222 and 223 should make it perfectly clear whether the intention of driving is a necessary element in the charge of care or control.
I have heard it said that clause 224(2), which was an amendment passed I think in 1951, indicated that parliament intended that it must be proved when not presumed that the man had the intention of driving. If that is so, it is a very weak and uncertain way of indicating it. If there is any uncertainty, and I think there is, then I submit that the wording of the section should be changed to make it absolutely certain whether the intention of driving is a necessary element. I am not so much concerned with whether it should or should not be made an element-I think the Minister of Justice considers that the intention of driving should not be a necessary element-but I do suggest that the section should remove any such uncertainty.


Mr. Winch:: I am interested in the discussion which is taking place, but before making any comments I should like to ask whether we are dealing only with clause 222 or with clauses 223 and 224?


William Alfred Robinson: I understood that the committee had agreed to discuss clauses 222, 223 and 224 at this time.


Harold Edward Winch: As I said, I am very interested in this discussion. As a general rule I find that I can go along with the explanations of the Minister of Justice, but this is one time when I certainly cannot go along with his explanation and his thinking. It may be somewhat repetitious, but I wanted to go over it again.
There is one point I should like to make. A man or woman goes into a club or some place where drinks are served. He or she has perhaps one too many and heads for home. If he or she is picked up on the way home, that is just their bad luck under the law. But if he has enough sense left to realize that he is not capable of driving and pulls to the side of the road or a parking place, according to the statement made by the minister he can be charged, and he said he should be charged, because of the fact that he may, while still under the influence of liquor, start driving.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with this matter. Since when did we in the Dominion of Canada give the police authority to arrest someone under the Criminal Code because they think that person may break the law? It seems to me an extraordinary supposition that a person who has done the right thing should be arrested because in the minutes or perhaps the hour ahead he might do something wrong. To my mind that is an absurd interpretation of the meaning of justice, and there can be no justification for the arrest of a man simply because the policeman thinks he might break the law. I believe a man or a woman who does the right thing in that manner should have a medal instead of being condemned and indicted, because even with befuddled brains they did do the right thing, pulled to one side and stopped.
The minister referred to a later clause relating to a person being in a position to drive. If a person happens to go to sleep in the driver's seat it appears he is then in control of that car, although it is at a standstill. But I honestly cannot understand the Minister of Justice putting forward that kind of proposition. I can understand the provision in clause 222 under which a person can be charged if the vehicle is stationary, because it is conceivable that they might stop in the middle of the street to the danger of the general public simply because of the manner in which they were stopped; but surely if drivers pull to the side and park because

they realize they are not in a fit condition to drive, then that should be recognized under some provision in this code, and they should not be considered guilty because they might drive a car afterward and still be under the influence of liquor.
I would like the minister to think that over. However, as the chairman has said, we are discussing three clauses. In this regard I would like the Minister of Justice to consider clause 224 (3) which deals with the chemical analysis of a sample of blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance which may be admitted in evidence. Subsection 3 of clause 224 reads as follows:
In any proceedings under section 222 or 223, the result of a chemical analysis of a sample of the blood, urine, breath or other bodily substance of a person may be admitted in evidence on the issue whether that person was intoxicated or under the influence of a narcotic drug, or whether his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug, notwithstanding that he was not, before he gave the sample, warned that he need not give the sample or that the results of the analysis of the sample might be used in evidence.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the point I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice. Under this clause, whether a person is warned or not, if the sample is taken upon his being charged it can be introduced in evidence and undoubtedly on being introduced in evidence it will have some influence on the magistrate, judge or perhaps the jury, depending on the procedure under which he is being tried.
The point I am particularly concerned with at this moment is the fact that under subsection 3 of clause 224 there is the right to take a sample of the breath. That sample is taken and it is chemically analysed. But there is nothing whatsoever in this subsection which states that the instrument used in the chemical analysis of the breath must be an approved instrument or machine. The reason I raise this, Mr. Chairman, is that there are, as far as I know, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 such machines on the market at the present time, but only three of them are recognized as being fairly accurate. The first is known as an intoximeter, the second is the drunkometer and the third is the alco-meter. Tests with these machines are admitted as evidence in, I believe, 17 states in the United States. In spite of that there is nothing in this subsection which states that an approved machine must be used in analysing a sample of the breath.
I wonder if the reason for that omission is that subsection 3 of clause 224 is only a permissive clause, and that ancillary legislation will be required by provincial legislatures
Criminal Code
or city councils or municipalities. An hon. member beside me says "No" and I hear "No" from other hon. members; it would therefore appear that this is the law. If that is so, then it would appear that as the law reads any chemical test without the use of approved machines can be submitted as evidence as to whether a person is inebriated, or as to the percentage of alcohol in his breath. That is the way I read it, and I believe it is an important point which should be cleared up.
An hon. member beside me says that it depends on the nature of the test, but I am not referring to a test of the urine or the blood. I am referring to a test of the breath. My hon. friend says that the same rule applies, but where has there been a rule established as to the correctness of that medical evidence? That brings me back to my point that there are 12 machines on which the breath can be tested, but only three are recognized in the United States. Have I made my point clear?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, quite clear. At the time this legislation was introduced we in the justice department called in some scientists of the University of Toronto to assist us in devising a method of dealing with such matters. There were then two courses of action which might have been followed. One would have been to do as has been done in some European countries; that is, to provide for the taking of blood or other tests by specified and approved apparatus under strict control at all stages by competent technicians, and then use these tests, without any further evidence of intoxication at all, as conclusive evidence of intoxication if these proper tests showed X parts of alcohol in the blood. After careful consideration we came to the conclusion that if this method were to be adopted at all then we thought it would be more consonant with British justice that the burden of proving the case should continue to rest upon the crown, and that we should admit evidence from these technicians and this apparatus for what it was worth in establishing the facts which it purported to prove.
Of course, as is implied by the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East, in a case under our legislation here the crown, after having laid the charge and undertaken to prove it by this method, would have to show that the sample of the breath was taken-or a sample of the urine or of the blood-by a certain apparatus, and would have to trace that sample from the body of the accused person to the laboratory, then have the man who had taken the sample and analysed it appear in court and testify and submit

Criminal Code
to cross-examination as to what the analysis was. They would have to show that it had been handled from beginning to end with such care that the resulting data were accurate.
I should think that in most cases, unless they were careful and expert, using proper apparatus, they would put the case for the crown in a very weak position indeed; for defence counsel, by merely cross-examining those who had had the handling of the sample, would be able to show either that the apparatus was not on the approved list that my hon. friend for Vancouver East referred to and therefore was not reliable, or that the proper precautions were not taken in getting the sample in the first place and in caring for it from the time it was taken until the time it was analysed.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question before the minister leaves that point?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Would it be up to the prosecutor then to prove the qualifications of the man who had taken the test and also the approval of the machine? My third question is on the same subject. If a definite figure of 1-5 per cent or 1 * 537 per cent of alcohol in the blood is accepted by the Department of Justice as a state of intoxication, should it not then be in the act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I thought I had made it clear that we rejected the method of X per cent or any other percentage in the blood as being conclusive evidence of intoxication. That was one of the alternatives which we could have adopted, but we rejected it. This present legislation provides for this sampling device being used as evidence for what it is worth to prove a straight question of fact of how many parts of alcohol the accused had in his blood. As I can see from his remarks my hon. friend understands that the crown would have to show that the technician who took the sample was competent. The technician would have to undergo cross-examination on how he took it; what he did with it; if it was kept at a certain temperature; if when he took it from the accused's blood he used alcohol in swabbing the skin before he injected the hypodermic needle and so on. The whole thing would then just be a simple question of fact no different in character from the evidence a policeman gives as to whether the accused could walk a straight line after he was arrested.
We thought in this way the accused's right to a fair trial would be better safeguarded than by our adopting this method of convicting him solely because he had X parts of alcohol in his blood. This was a midway

position between the full reliance placed by some European countries on the alcohol content of bodily substances, and our then method of proving intoxication by police evidence of the accused's behaviour. We thought this was a happy compromise.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know whether or not I used the correct term, but the minister understands what I have in mind. Is there any case law on this matter at all, on which you are basing this legislation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I have the information on it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is not very much, I must confess. I do not think it is going to be of much use to my hon. friend because it establishes, in the province in which it was taken, that the enactment of this subsection (4d) and subsection (4e)-that is of the present section-has not changed the law as laid down in Rex v. McNamara, 51 Ontario Law Reports, that evidence of a blood sample taken from the accused in custody, even without his consent, is admissible. In other words, in the province of Ontario it has been held, before this amendment was brought down in parliament here, that the blood sample could be taken and was admissible in evidence in the courts of Ontario. All this case law establishes is that the enactment of these sections has not changed what the courts, before they were enacted, had declared to be the law.


Harold Edward Winch: In other words there is no case law as far as your introduction of this subsection is concerned?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not on any of the points raised by my hon. friend. That is right.


Leonard T. Stick: I should like to ask a few questions of the minister, but as it is ten o'clock may I move the adjournment of the debate?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is not ten o'clock yet.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Edmund Davie Fulton: How about letting clauses 222 to 225 inclusive stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 225 has not been called.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As far as I am concerned 1 have no objection to that procedure. I would bespeak the co-operation of my hon. friends when we take them up again, that we might put them through fairly expeditiously.


Harold Edward Winch: And may I bespeak co-operation in having the answers to the other questions?


Mr. Harkness:: Do I understand that these sections will not be discussed when we come back to the Criminal Code next?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think what the hon. member tor Kamloops meant was that we should let them stand merely from this sitting until the next sitting.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: While I am on my feet I might clear up the other point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am sorry if he does not agree with my opinion as to what the legislative policy in this matter should be. As I said when I was on my feet the last time, the Canadian courts differ in their interpretations. Some of them take the position that it is not necessary, to use the terms used by the hon. member for Cumberland, to establish mens rea or any guilty intent. Such courts interpret these sections as an absolute prohibition of a person being intoxicated while in a motor car. Notwithstanding my hon. friend's protest, I must confess that that is the interpretation which seems to me to be the more appropriate one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I am not mistaken, is that not the case in the United Kingdom where there is not a criminal code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend may be right in that regard. But on the other hand the courts of other provinces have held that it is necessary to prove mens rea, and that an accused found in a car under the circumstances named by my hon. friend, too drunk to have any criminal intent, should be acquitted.
The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Cumberland that we should clear up this point by an amendment to this clause. With deference may I say that, unusual as my suggestion may seem to be, it might be better not to clear it up. I say that for this reason. The efficacy of legislation of this kind is directly proportionate to the efficiency with
Criminal Code
which it is enforced by provincial authorities. When we have not received requests from any of the provinces for a clearing up of this point, it may well be that the interpretation which is made by the courts of the provinces is the one that is most satisfactory to the law enforcement authorities, and under which they would prefer to carry on their work of law enforcement.


Harold Edward Winch: Where does the authority lie with regard to the machine or the test? Is it federal or provincial authority?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am speaking of the other point my hon. friend raised, as to the position of an accused who has been found in a hopelessly intoxicated condition in a parked car. I think we can probably get a more effective enforcement if we leave each province with that interpretation now in effect which, from the fact that they have not made any representations to us concerning it, they seem to favour.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the position-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think it is generally understood that at ten o'clock clauses 222, 223 and 224 were under discussion. Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses stand.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with the Criminal Code. On Monday we shall move to go into supply and if we do attain that desirable end we shall proceed with public works after calling six departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was four the last time.


Walter Edward Harris: It goes up two a week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you keep raising it you will never get into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 26, 1954