1954-04-02

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on industrial relations.-Mr. Viau.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 4, the fifth anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic treaty occurs. In connection with the celebration of that anniversary I should like with your permission, sir, to call the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery today of ten cadets who are representative of the nine hundred cadets now training in Canada under the NATO air training plan.
These ten cadets are newly arrived in Canada, and are now taking preliminary training at the Royal Canadian Air Force school at London, Ontario. They represent five countries, two of them being from Great Britain, two from France, two from The Netherlands, two from Belgium and two from Turkey.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 394, respecting Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.-Mr. Balcom.
Bill No. 395, for the relief of Elsie Elizabeth Belford Grant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 396, for the relief of Jean Monette. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Pearl Mary Brown Pratt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Annie Holman James.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of Marie Paule Lemay Mondello.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of Marilyn Lesley Simpson Lavallee.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Edith Lorraine McBurney Robinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Aline Gosselin du Berger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Eileen Lucy Tollett Power-Williams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of William Pappas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Claire Labelle Cousineau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 406, for the relief of Denise Marie Helene Laporte Woodhouse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 407, for the relief of Lois Helena Kearns Higham.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 408, for the relief of Dorothy Rita Wade Moulden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 409, for the relief of Albert Thornton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 410, for the relief of Koidula Laigma Hagel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 411, for the relief of Yvette Lafon-taine Tatos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 412, for the relief of Freda Becker Blumenthal.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 413, for the relief of Monica Elizabeth Benoit Mullin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 414, for the relief of Felix Andre Landry.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 415, for the relief of Marie-Claire Parisien Barbeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 416, for the relief of Marie Muriel Gladys Lena Soubre Dubour.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 417, for the relief of Joan Millicent Kemp Tessier.-Mr. Hunter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning civil defence. Will the minister make a statement concerning the impact on our civil defence planning of developments during the last few weeks in the field of thermonuclear weapons?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I shall fully satisfy my hon. friend in the statement I am about to make. I do not now propose to answer the question in all its implications, except to say that information now available on the destructive potentialities of thermonuclear weapons

Inquiries of the Ministry necessitates, here as elsewhere, re-examination of some aspects of our civil defence program. It emphasizes the importance of the consideration of matters having to do with the dispersal of urban populations, through evacuation, if such need should ever arise-and I am not saying that it will.
Specific consideration is being given to the problem both in Canada and the United States. The new situation increases the importance of mutual aid in civil defence. We are currently engaged with United Kingdom and United States civil defence authorities in a reappraisal of the new situation which now exists, and of which we have been aware since February 11, on the civil defence side.
This has been given top priority at the meeting of the United States-Canada civil defence committee which was held in Washington on February 11, and at the meeting of the federal-provincial civil defence committee which was held here on Monday and Tuesday of this week, with the ministers in the provinces sharing responsibility for civil defence in Canada.
Consultations are continuing with the director of civil defence training for the United Kingdom, Sir John Hodsoll, who is in Canada, and who is spending some time with us in appraising this and other situations having to do with civil defence.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister make inquiries about box car distribution in centres north of the river in the Peace river country? It is reported to me by reliable people that farmers at some points along the Northern Alberta Railways have not been able to deliver their first quota as yet. Will the minister also try to determine whether there is truth in the report that railway employees deliberately pull empty cars past points where the car order book is in effect because it makes extra work for them where the order book is in effect?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Since receiving notice of this question I have been making inquiries. In answer to the first question, it is my understanding that the Canadian wheat board supplies to the Northern Alberta Railways, from time to time, a request for the distribution of box cars and the transport controller instructs the railway to place the cars in accordance with the board's request.


The purpose of the wheat board's request is to make sure that every point can deliver the five-bushel quota as soon as possible, and the distribution of cars is ordered with that objective in mind.
In answer to the second question, I think there is no basis for the belief that the train crews place the cars to save themselves work. It must be remembered that large quantities of No. 2 northern are already at Fort William and east of Fort William, and we are not presently moving further No. 2 northern wheat. The grain is being selected from grades that are required for immediate sale, and that may have an effect on the car distribution; but in any event both the wheat board and the transport controller are doing their best to see that every point can realize this five-bushel quota.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorklon):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Probably it is supplementary to the question asked of him by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). What steps are being taken to check on radioactive materials reaching Canada, already reported in several districts? Is the action which he has taken taking that into consideration at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, that matter is being pursued through consultations with the appropriate authorities in the provinces.



PROTECTION FROM POSSIBLE DANGER OF CONTAMINATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, notice of which I gave him last Tuesday. When may I expect a reply to the question I asked last Tuesday concerning Canada's defence against atomic radioactive materials?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can assure the hon. member that the developments to which he refers are being closely studied. I am not in a position to make a statement at the moment, nor can I give any definite date at which a statement will be made.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. According to representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress, the American Federation of Labour and the Trades and Labour Council of Quebec and Levis-


Some hon. Members:: Why don't you put your question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is entitled to give whatever facts are necessary to make his question intelligible, but I think that the best method is first to put the question and then give perhaps a short explanation after the question has been put. It is very difficult for the person who has to judge the value of the question, to say whether the character of the question is one that is justified, if the hon. member prefaces his remarks by a long statement.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: There is no long statement in my question; but I think I should have the privilege of rising in this house without being disturbed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will agree that he has been shown all the fairness that he was entitled to expect.
It would be much easier both for him and for all hon. members if he would put his question in the customary fashion. That is all we are asking him to do. He is entitled to ask his question, but he must not supply information. The purpose of asking questions at this period is to ask for information, not to give it.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have not started yet, and I have already been disturbed by hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In view of the alarming unemployment situation in the city of Quebec, in which there are at present 22,000 people unemployed-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Oh, they can raise their
voices!


Mr. Speaker:: I presume that the hon. member is now coming to his question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I was already in my question when I was interrupted.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member be kind enough not to argue with the remarks that I make, because arguing does not help order in
Inquiries of the Ministry debate. All he has to do is to put his question: In view of the alarming situation in the city of Quebec, where he says there are 22,000 unemployed-now, the question.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I have already respected your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I shall continue that way, but I wish I could be-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege: These questions on the orders of the day have become an established practice, and I submit that on the consideration of procedure that is now being undertaken very careful regard should be had for the possibility that we deny any effectiveness to these questions if there are rigid limitations imposed upon the manner in which they may be asked.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to comment briefly on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Quebec West has often asked questions in this house, and on several occasions to my knowledge he has seen fit to preface his remarks by statements or by preliminary remarks instead of coming to the question. He is entitled to ask a question, but he must not recapitulate previous questions, as he did yesterday, for instance, in bringing up a new question. He is doing that again. I have asked him to put his question. I have asked him on three occasions, and I heard him say words to this effect: "That is the way I have been conducting myself and I will do it again." I think these words indicate that he is not taking in good part the remarks that I made to him in good part. I want him to ask his question, but after I have asked him three times he should not argue with hon. members who are entitled to say "Order" if the hon. member is not submitting himself to the decision of the Chair, and that is all that I was trying to have him do. I hope that this perhaps drastic decision that I have had to take in this instance today will help him to co-operate on future occasions. That is the procedure, and that is why authority is put in my hands. It is to make sure that the rules are going to be observed by all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fulton:: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in order that fairness-
3600	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does not help decorum in this house when two hon. members try to catch the Speaker's eye. The hon. member for Kamloops has risen on a question of privilege.


Mr. Pearson:: Not from his seat.


Hector Dupuis: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be a point of order at this time. I thought that April fool's day was yesterday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in order that fairness may be shown to the hon. member for Quebec West, and not to enter into an argument on the form of the question, when the hon. member made the remark to which Your Honour referred I was in my place in another part of the house and I heard him say with respect to Your Honour's rulings:	"I have
always tried to abide by them and intend to continue to do so." I think that Your Honour missed the first part of that sentence.
I certainly did not understand the hon. gentleman to be criticizing your rulings but rather to say that he would continue to observe your rulings. His quarrel was with the members on the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member for Kamloops brought these observations to my attention. I stand corrected. I am sorry that I did not hear correctly the remarks made by the hon. member for Quebec West. Perhaps later in this period of questions and answers, if the hon. member will be kind enough to put his question I will give him the floor.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Can the Minister of Labour
tell the house if it is the intention of the government to undertake public works in the near future to help the 22,000 unemployed workers in the Quebec city area?


Mr. Speaker:: I rise to tell the hon. member that if he had put his question in that form in the first instance, he would have avoided a lot of trouble.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I am afraid that I shall not be able to give an answer, other than one that might be considered as an anticlimax to the preliminary discussion. I should like to thank my hon. friend for sending me notice of his question, together with the preamble. In the preamble and explanation which he has given at the end of his question, I think perhaps he has something of an incomplete impression as to the area served by the two unemployment insurance commission offices in the cities of


Quebec and Levis. They not only serve those two cities, but they serve the thickly-populated area astride the St. Lawrence river, totalling about 80 miles along the river and covering some six counties.
The other point I would make is that I would take exception to the total figures which he has estimated in his explanation. As to the question itself, if there should be any extension of the expenditures now reflected in the estimates before the house, whether it is in the Department of Public Works or elsewhere, it would be a matter of government policy and announced at the appropriate time.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whichever is more suitable. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking to the committee about the sum of $12,750,000 owing by the Ming Sung company, said to me, as reported on page 2400 of Hansard for February 24, 1954:
While I am not promising the house that the amount due will be collected, I am not saying it is a hopeless account.
My question is: Will this matter and any other matters of a similar nature be discussed with the Chinese authorities at the forthcoming meeting at Geneva?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not expect there will be a suitable opportunity at the Geneva conference, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this matter. If there is, we will discuss it.


George Alexander Drew: You will take their assurances.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Has
the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare been drawn to the fact that the water pollution situation in the city of Prince Albert is almost as serious as ever? Will he, under the circumstances, give consideration to convening a conference of the three western provinces as well as the federal officials, in order to take further steps to meet the almost intolerable situation that has continued now for five months?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend was kind enough to send me the newspaper clipping which summarizes fairly well the situation he has just mentioned. I have been in touch, since he gave me notice of intention to ask this question, with the deputy minister of health in Alberta, and Mr. Bentley, the minister of health for Saskatchewan, both of whom confirm the situation which I outlined to the house some days ago, namely, that the situation had been substantially corrected at the source, but it would take some time before, following the flow of the river, the correction would be noticed both at North Battleford and Prince Albert.
I am advised by Mr. J. G. Schaeffer, provincial sanitary engineer for the department of public health of Saskatchewan, there has been a slight improvement in the situation at North Battleford and a slight improvement in the situation at Prince Albert. The situation at Prince Albert will not be corrected immediately, but I am told by this time next week it should be fundamentally improved.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY AS TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace): I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us whether the government has given up all hope of commencing construction of the St. Lawrence seaway during this year?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Mr. Hamilton:: Supplementary to my
previous question, could the Prime Minister tell us whether government policy now is that this will be an all Canadian project, since he indicates there is some hope it will be commenced this year, and since indications are the United States will not be in a position to co-operate with Canada this year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member no doubt knows that the seaway is dependent upon the construction of a dam reaching across the river, and that arrangements have been made for that dam to be constructed by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission and by the power authority of the state of New York. The power authority of the state of New York has obtained a licence from the federal power commission to go ahead with the construction of that dam. There have been appeals before the court, but I believe the trial court dismissed the
Inquiries of the Ministry appeal or contestation of the licence and the trial court's decision was confirmed by the appellate division of the circuit court.
Under United States procedure I believe there is a period during which an application can be made for appeal to the supreme court, and that delay has not yet expired. Now, I understand that the matter the hon. member had in mind was probably the report that the United States congress has postponed what is known as the Wiley bill. The hon. gentleman can be assured, however, that from what we know of the intentions of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission and the power authority of the state of New York, as soon as the legal impediments have been disposed of work will be started on the construction of the dam. With the construction of the dam under way, the seaway can be provided on either side of the river, and this government has declared its intention, as authorized by parliament, to proceed alone if, at the time work can be proceeded with, proper arrangements for the participation of United States authorities with Canadian authorities in the constructing of the seaway have not been made.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth asked the following question:
Why did CBOT curtail televising the General Foods program last Sunday evening, when it was carried in full by Toronto, Montreal and every station on the continent of North America?
The answer is that a commitment had already been made for the showing on CBOT of the live program "Le tele-theatre de Radio-Canada," which is the regular feature drama on the French TV network on Sunday evenings from 9 to 10.30.
Our schedules are arranged a considerable time in advance and there was a prior commitment on CBOT, so only one hour was available for the Rodgers and Hammerstein show.
1Later: ]


Mr. Lennard:: I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a supplementary question. Was the program to which he referred televised in Ottawa?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, that is my understanding.

Criminal Code



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 150-Obscene matter.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening we were considering clause 150 and the amendment which had been proposed by Mr. Fulton. Shall the amendment carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, there were
certain remarks made by the minister yesterday in the course of the discussion which, along with remarks made by other hon. members, make me hopeful that if my amendment could be modified it might find more acceptance than it has up to the present.
The minister has pointed out that under section 623 the present provision sets no ceiling upon the fine which can be levied on a corporation which is found guilty of such an offence. My point is, and I made it yesterday in the course of a question to the minister, that there has been no case to my knowledge, or to the minister's knowledge, in which a fine as high as $25,000 has been imposed on a corporation for an offence of this sort. My object was to place in the bill a provision which would have the effect of providing that where a corporation was guilty of this offence, which I believe most hon. members if not all regard as a most serious one, it should receive a substantial penalty. As regards the case to which the minister referred, the National News case, I have the records in my file somewhere though I have not been able to locate them; but my recollection is that the fine imposed was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $750, which is not a substantial penalty. In that case action was taken against the local distributor and he is pretty far down in the chain of responsibility. It may be felt that the fine in that case was adequate. But the effect of the amendment which I have placed before the house would not alter that because it would not raise the maximum penalty now provided for the news vendor or the local distributor. The effect of this amendment would be at the printer's and publisher's level, and possibly at the level of the people who first bring offensive articles into Canada.
I wonder if it would be acceptable to alter the amendment, by leave of the committee, so that it would read:
... Is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years, or if a corporation to a fine of not less than $10,000.
That changes the fine of $25,000 to a fine of not less than $10,000.

I want to say a brief word in further support of my position. I would like to have been able to work out an amendment which would have the effect of providing that, in a case where a prosecution is launched against an individual or a corporation in connection with offensive literature, whether it be of an obscene nature or a crime comic, an effort must be made to find the person primarily responsible for the introduction and releasing of the literature in Canada; because in my view no good purpose is served by confining prosecution, as seems to have been done in the past, entirely to the local vendor or the local distributor.
Something was said yesterday by the hon. member for Dauphin, in defence of the local vendor and the distributor, with which in principle I agree, although, as I have said before, I do not think you can totally absolve them from responsibility. They are not the people who are really at fault in this matter. The fault surely lies with those who have injected this stream of poison into the national life or the national system. It therefore seems to me that in every case where an offensive publication is found on a newsstand, while it may be proper to launch a prosecution against the vendor, who has undoubtedly committed an offence, it should not stop there. Surely in every case a strenuous effort should also be made to trace the thing back through the channels of distribution, through the local distributor, to the wholesale distributor and to the publisher. If the publisher is in Canada, or even if he is not in Canada, attempts should be made to find the person who first imported this offensive material in large quantities and then distributed it across Canada. Our prosecution in every case where offensive material is found on local newsstands should also be directed against the people who are primarily responsible.
I could not think of any way of working that out in an amendment. I am not sufficiently expert as a draftsman to attempt to do that, because in addition to the problem of stating the principle there would also be the technical problem of reducing it to legal terminology.
I would ask the minister to consider whether it is not possible to work out some such provision in our Criminal Code so that we will not be going after the small fry, the man who is lowest in the chain of responsibility, but really dealing and dealing effectively with the source of primary responsibility.
I again want to recommend to the committee that they read Dr. Wertham's book

"Seduction of the Innocent" when it appears. It is one of the finest analyses of the problem that I have seen, and one of the best arguments both as to the seriousness of the problem and as to the necessity of dealing with it. I should like, if I may, to place on the record two or three other excerpts from the book, because they seem to me to establish the case overwhelmingly for action against the publisher.
The following quotation is taken from page 93 of the galley proofs:
From innumerable talks with children I got this image. Picture to yourself a typical American boy-
This might well read "Canadian boy."
-of nine or 10 walking along the street. In his pocket is his spending money, or his weekly allowance, or his lunch money, or his movie money or candy money, or some of his saved money, or part of his earnings from after-school work or from a birthday or Christmas gift. A very small group of men is lurking behind him intent on getting most of that money away from him. They want even more than the money he has. They tempt him, they lure him, they show him how to steal, how to break into houses through the windows and how to sell
stolen goods. They even sell him the weapons___
guns and knives. The profit from all this runs into tens of millions of dollars. What do the children get in return? The Child Study Association of America says that they get "escape"; but what they really get is entrapment.
Then, as he points out and as I know from my own observations happens here:
Old comic books never die; they just trade away. Just as children were taken advantage of in the field of physical labour, so now they are taken advantage of economically, as a market. In the matter of reading the adults get the best, the children the worst.
Against the child is concentrated the economic power of a large industry. It has been estimated that a third of all cheap pulp made in the United States and Canada is used by comic-book publishers. Even granting that many adults read these comic books, the proportion of adult and child readers is such that over a million dollars a week is taken out of the pockets of children. In other words, children are the main outlet for the industry.
As to the cost of production and the profits made by these publishers, he says this:
The actual cost of production varies. Some books have royalties attached to them. One comic-book publisher told me that "it costs roughly four cents to produce a comic book". A small comic book, such as one that Columbia University Press got out for educational purposes, costs about one and one-half cents, but if done less carefully could be done for three-fourths of a cent. A sixteen-page comic book such as those used for advertising or in politics costs no more than two and one-fourth cents for an average edition of 650,000.
So those are the figures as to the potential profits to be made by the publishers. As to the argument of free speech, some reference was made yesterday to the problem of censorship. I think that reference was made
Criminal Code
by the hon. member for Saskatoon. I want to emphasize again that what I am seeking to avoid is the necessity for censorship. The effort being made is to deal with this question adequately and effectively by legislation so that our courts can decide whether an offence is committed and so that it will not be necessary to set up a board of censors which I would detest almost as much as I detest the present stream of poison literature. I should have said I want to deal with the question of responsibility. Dr. Wertham says this:
My associates and I have spoken to many vendors. And very many of them do not like to sell crime comic books. They know they are not good for children and they would rather not handle them The president of the Atlantic Coast Independent Distributors Association has estimated that three-fourths of comic books are not "worthy of distribution" and the president of the National Association of Retail Druggists said at a convention: "It is a tragic fact that many retail druggists are peddlers of gutter muck. The charge can be held against them with justice; their only defence is that it has never occurred to them to check on the comic books."
When parents critical of comic books have realized how defenceless they are against them they have made two unreasonable demands of vendors in stands or stories. First they have asked them to read the comic books before they sell them! That is of course impossible, just as it is impossible for a busy housewife to read all her children's comic books first, though that has been suggested by some experts.
The second demand is that the small vendor should reject the most bloody and sadistic comics. But is it fair to ask these economically hard-pressed people to eliminate those comic books that sell best, when nothing is done at their source?
So Dr. Wertham agrees with me, the hon. member for Dauphin and others who have spoken in this matter, that the responsibility does not rest on the vendor-certainly not the main responsibility, at any rate-but that it rests back up at the source. That is where the big profits are made. That is where it is easy to know what you are dealing with and to refrain from producing it, and thus not only to save the vendors from the possibility of committing an offence but to save the children from the poison to which they are otherwise exposed.
Finally in connection with this matter of free speech there is in the book, at page 97 of the proofs, a very interesting commentary where Dr. Wertham says this:
I am told that if I were to visit the National Cartoonists Society my reception there would lack chumminess. In fact, collectively they consider me to be a devil with two horns. Actually, when we extended our studies to include artists who make drawings for crime comic books, far from blaming them we found that they are victims too. I doubt whether there are any artists doing this work whose life ambition was to draw for crime comic books From interviews, telephone calls and letters we found out that they are afraid too. This is the

Criminal Code
kind of thing I was told: ''Please don't mention that I even spoke to you! I'd be blackballed: I'd be ruined!" Here I found the comic book industry's conception of freedom of speech again. It is a strange part of the comic book industry that its vendors, writers and artists are so afraid. Maybe they should take the advice of the industry's experts and read horror comics to get rid of their fears.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think that all the evidence points to the conclusion that there is nothing to be said in favour of this form of poison and that the problem that confronts us is how to get rid of it. It was to meet that problem that my amendment was framed. It was to try to meet the problem at its source and to try to make it unprofitable for a printer or publisher to engage in this trafficking, so that first, he would realize that he had better stay out of the business and, second, if he goes into it we can get at him and can deal with him in a way which will effectively prevent him from repeating the offence. It is certainly my impression that, up to the present at any rate, the fine which the courts have felt themselves free to impose on wealthy concerns who make enormous profits from the printing and publishing of this material has been little more than a licence fee to continue in business.
I would hope that the minister might feel that the amendment would be acceptable if we put the fine at a minimum which will indicate to the court that this is the amount which parliament feels the courts should take as the minimum measure of their contempt for and of their opinion against this form of activity and that therefore they should impose this amount as a minimum fine, leaving the discretion to increase the top limit. If the minister would indicate that he would find that amendment more acceptable, I would ask leave of the committee to change it accordingly.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand that the hon. gentleman wishes to alter his amendment by deleting the words "$25,000" and substituting the words "not less than $10,000"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that the hon. member has leave to do this?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I should read the amendment. It is moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton):
That section 150 be amended by adding thereto the following words as subsection (8) :
(8) (a) Every one who commits an offence under this section and who is the person who makes, prints or publishes or has in his possession for the purpose of publishing any of the things enumerated in subsections 1 (a) and 1 (b) of this section is

guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for five years, or if a corporation to a fine of not less than $10,000.
(b) Every one who commits an offence under this section and who is the person who distributes or circulates or has in his possession for the purpose of distribution or circulation any of the things enumerated in subsections 1 (a) and 1 (b) of this section is guilty of (i) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years, or (ii) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have to leave and go to a standing committee, but I have a word to say on this matter. I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that the individual who initiates the evil thought should be taken care of. But the education of the youth of Canada is not being neglected at the present time. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops knows that there is another type of crime comic coming into use. Perhaps he has seen the story of Daniel when he stood up for what was right and won out. Perhaps he has seen that in the form of such comics. Tons of this type of literature are being used in our Sunday schools today. That is taking the place of crime comics, comics that show people being killed. I think our religious education leaders, Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish, are to be commended for taking the initiative and not only fighting this evil thing but putting something better in its place.


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


Mr. Garson:: I think perhaps I should say a word or two concerning the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops. I am all too frequently embarrassed in relation to arguments put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops to have to keep on reiterating that we in this parliament can only enact the criminal law, that the enforcement of it is entirely the responsibility of the provincial authorities, and that the judgment in respect of any prosecutions which are instituted is properly that of the independent judges and magistrates of Canada.
One of the principles of independence which we have tried to emphasize in this new bill is the giving to the courts of wider discretion with regard to penalties. If we have not competent magistrates and judges in Canada, and they cannot be trusted with that discretion, then what we should do is get rid of the ones we have and replace them with ones in whom we have confidence. But in my opinion it is wholly wrong that parliament or a provincial legislature should restrict the discretion vested in a judge or magistrate by imposing minimum penalties, and in the whole of the present Bill No. 7 there are

only three cases in which minimum penalties are prescribed, with regard to drunken driving, impaired driving and thefts from the mails.
In this present case I should like to suggest today, as I did on the previous occasion last spring when my hon. friend was then making some suggestions with respect to tinkering with the present law, that thanks to his initiative in the first place and to the care with which the present provision has been drafted we know now that we have a law that is quite enforceable. In my view what will prevent effective action more than anything else in the enforcement of this law is divided counsel as to what should be done to deal with this problem from this point on. I say that what we should do from this point on, having achieved an excellent and enforceable law, is to stop tinkering with it and call upon the people whose responsibility it is to enforce it to enforce it. I say there is nothing else we can do in relation to this matter other than enforcing the law that will have one-quarter the effect in stamping out crime comics and obscene literature.
Inasmuch as the publishers of these crime comics, as I believe is the case, have not in one single instance been prosecuted by the law enforcement authorities of the provinces, is any member so naive as to suppose we are going to increase the possibility of enforcement by imposing a minimum penalty of $10,000? I for one must reject such naivete. I do think that the present debate, just as the debate last spring, has served a useful purpose in bringing to the attention of public opinion the gravity of this practice and the necessity of stamping it out, and that it will have a good effect in encouraging public opinion in the various communities throughout Canada to insist that the prosecuting authorities take some steps to enforce this law. But I do suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is the only method by which we will get any effective action in this matter, and that the longer we create the impression by tinkering around with the law that if we just bring in some new amendment, such as the one my hon. friend suggests, that is going to cure the evil, the longer we are going to be deluded into the type of inaction or divided counsels which postpone any effective results.
With regard to everything the hon. member for Kamloops has said today and with what he said yesterday, I find myself in almost complete agreement. The only trouble is he is saying it in the wrong place. He has come to parliament, which only has the power to enact the law, and is making long speeches 83276-228 '
Criminal Code
concerning the manner in which it should be enforced. I agree with him. I think it should be enforced more than it is. But he should be talking to the attorney general of Ontario, the attorney general of Quebec, the attorney general of Manitoba, the attorney general of British Columbia and the attorneys general of the rest of the provinces. They are the only ones who can bring about the enforcement of this law that he desires.
With an enforceable law upon the statute books, a law which the court of appeal of Ontario has now confirmed is completely enforceable so far as obscenity is concerned, I do suggest that if we have up to date not a single example of prosecution of a publisher of these books I am not so simple myself, and I think there will not be many members of the house so simple, as to think we are going to compel that enforcement by suggesting a minimum penalty of $10,000. When my hon. friend suggested yesterday that there should be a penalty of $25,000 I pointed out to him, and he now concedes the fact, that the law as it stands has no limit. If the prosecuting authorities wish to urge it and if they can find a judge who is prepared to give judgment to that effect, a penalty of $2 million can be imposed upon a publisher of crime comics, and if the evidence in the case warranted such a heavy penalty, that penalty would be perfectly good in law.
That being the case, I think we would be well advised to defeat my hon. friend's amendment and to carry on with the law we have at the present time. If my hon. friend will permit me to say so, I think he would be well advised if he would make these excellent suggestions that he has made in the house to his friends, the provincial attorneys general.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question? The minister has stated that there has not been a single case of prosecution against a publisher. As a matter of fact, I think most of the publishers are in the United States, but 1 take it what he has in mind is at the publisher level or the level of the first importer. Would he agree the law is satisfactory if that is the case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would not agree that the law is satisfactory because that implies that my hon. friend thinks it is, and I have just understood him to say that he does not think it is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does he really think the law is satisfactory?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I most assuredly do, but I would point out to my friend, I think for about the tenth time, what seems to me to be

Criminal Code
a very simple and elementary principle, namely, that the most excellent law, if not enforced is no better than no law at all. That is all there is to this matter, that and nothing else. I suggest further as another elementary principle that you will not secure one atom more enforcement by putting in this provision about the penalty, either the one moved yesterday or the one moved today, because it seems to me to be a most elementary principle of logic, that if these publishers are not prosecuted with the present penalty, there is no greater likelihood of their being prosecuted with a minimum penalty of $10,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the present penalty?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The present penalty-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not under the new code but under the code as it exists. What is the present maximum penalty?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The present maximum penalty under the code as it exists-I am speaking from memory and I hope my assistant will correct me if I am wrong-is two years' imprisonment for an indictable offence in the case of a person accused, and in the case of a corporate accused the court is empowered, under the analogue to section 623 to which my hon. friend was referred, to impose a fine without any limit whatsoever. That being the case, unless we regard all our judges and magistrates as being incompetent to judge as to the facts of cases before them, what is there more that we can provide, in the matter of penalty, than what we have had on the statute books ever since my hon. friend from Kamloops brought in his bill, and we coopered it up and enacted it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does the minister ascribe as the reason why, since 1949, the prosecutions have all been against individual vendors, and none against those higher up in the chain?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, my hon. friend is wrong in that. If he will look at the law report in his hand he will see that that is against a corporation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh no, the case I have in my hand is one that was before the Manitoba court of appeal. It is the case of Regina v. Roher, an individual news vendor who was fined $5 in respect of crime comics.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry; I thought my hon. friend had before him the report of the Ontario court of appeal against the National News Company Limited.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question related to crime comics, and the minister will not forget that the case he mentioned related to obscene literature.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point is that the only prosecutions in respect of crime comics I have been able to find have been one against an individual vendor, and another against a local distributor. Neither was against anyone higher up. To what does the minister ascribe that fact?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, not being in the confidence of the provincial prosecuting officers concerned, I am unable to answer my hon. friend's question.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, this discussion indicates the basic weakness in the section. Here we have a law which the minister tells us has not been enforced, so far as any publisher is concerned. There have been a number of cases where vendors have been charged-and I do not know whether the minister has the number of those cases. But during all the discussion it has been made clear that the real and basic weakness has not been pointed out sufficiently.
Last night the hon. member for Dauphin, speaking as one who has had practical experience in the sale of comics, brought out a point which has not been given the consideration it deserves by this committee.
I know in my own constituency a good many news vendors operate restaurants, barber shops and various other businesses, in which they sell magazines only as a sideline. Under the terms of this law they are held responsible for the magazines sold. Yet I suggest they are not always in a position to exercise judgment. As the hon. member for Dauphin pointed out last night, he had turned over a number of these magazines to a police magistrate and, in another instance, to a crown prosecutor, inviting them to check them over and decide whether or not they were crime comics. They did not undertake that responsibility, claiming that the only person who was able to judge whether or not they were crime comics was the attorney general of the province.
In all the discussion that has gone on we have heard no mention of that basic fact; because, as the law reads now, the people who are most likely to run foul of the law are not those who publish the comics at all, but rather the small news vendors who sell them. That is the weakness that should be given serious consideration.
APRIL 2, 1954	f"'
1 r


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has he read the section?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have read it, yes. But I am now referring to the statement made a moment ago by the minister to the effect that publishers have not been convicted under this section. Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, but that is not necessarily an indication of any fault in the section. It means they have not been prosecuted.


Alfred Claude Ellis: And it indicates a basic weakness in the law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly not.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If a law is on the statute books and is never enforced, would the minister call it a good law?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would suggest to my hon. friend again, as an elementary principle, that, whether or not over any given period of time the law enforcement officers for one reason or another do not choose to prosecute, the point as to whether they do or do not prosecute has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the law. The law may be an excellent law; but if you do not invoke it I suggest it is no less excellent because of that fact that you do not invoke it. That has to do with enforcement; and I suggest that is just as simple as two plus two equals four.


Alfred Claude Ellis: But that is not my point. What I am saying is that at the present time there is a section in the Criminal Code which the provincial attorneys general have not seen fit to use in order to prosecute publishers. In other words, we will take it either that there are no crimes being committed under the section-and I think the minister will agree with what I am saying in this connection-or that the various provinces consider it is not important enough to undertake prosecutions.
In either case, we have spent a great deal of time in this committee discussing the section and an amendment. This section is either unnecessary, because there have been no prosecutions under it, or it is not considered serious enough for the law enforcement officers to take any action under it.
The point I want to draw to the minister's attention is this: Is it not possible under this section to place the blame and responsibility where it should rest, namely on the publishers of these magazines? In other words, when these publications appear on the newsstands they bear the names of publishers.
83276-228J
Criminal Code
If law enforcement officers go into a news vendor's store and pick up a magazine, and feel that that magazine is being circulated in violation of the section, why could they not prosecute the publisher direct? Why hold the news vendor responsible when, after all, he sells many hundreds of books and magazines and, under the conditions described last night by the hon. member for Dauphin, is not in a position to judge whether they contravene the law.
As I see it the basic issue is that this law should be directed, not against individual news vendors but solely against the publishers. Would the minister tell the committee whether in his opinion direct prosecution of the publishers would not put a stop to the publication of magazines and comic books that we consider offensive under the terms of the act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have some modest claim to being a lawyer-but not to being a prophet. Therefore I would not like to prophesy what the results would be in prosecuting publishers. But I think that having regard to the fact that our responsibility here is to recognize an abuse and then to draw an effective law which can be invoked by those whose responsibility it is to prevent that abuse, it is on that feature of the matter we should focus our attention. That is what we are here for. One might move toward answering my hon. friend s question by putting it in this form: Is it possible to prosecute a publisher of crime comics?
The reason I asked my hon. friend whether he had read the section was that I thought if he had he would have found the answer to his question in that section. It reads in this way:
Every one commits an offence who (a) makes prints, publishes-	*
The publisher is guilty. I continue:
-distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model phonograph record or other thing whatsoever or
(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has In his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation, a crime comic.
. 1 would ask my hon. friend to tell me how in the English language the meaning could be made more clear than that, as to whether the publisher could be prosecuted?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have read the bill; I know full well the publisher can be prosecuted; but my question is this: Is it not possible to prevent the circulation of crime comics in Canada by prosecuting the publisher, period? In other words, should it be necessary to go beyond

Criminal Code
that point? After all, there are relatively few publishers of comics in this country. Is it not possible, by applying sanctions at the level of publication, to make it unnecessary for the small newsstand owner throughout the country-and there are many thousands of them, at least 10,000 of them-to be perpetually in danger of running foul of the law, under the terms of this act? My question to the minister was not whether publishers could be prosecuted. I know quite well they can be prosecuted, although none has been, as the minister pointed out to my hon. friend.
I repeat: Is it not possible to put a stop to the publication of crime comics in Canada by applying the law at the publication level only?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that I might give a fairly cautious answer to that question by saying that the prosecution of the publishers would undoubtedly tend in that direction. I am not sufficiently familiar with all of the details of this business to know whether that would constitute an entire solution, because there may be sources that I do not know other than Canadian publishers. But I would certainly agree with what I take to be the view of my hon. friend, namely, that prosecution of the Canadian publishers would certainly tend to stamp out the practice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Mr. Nesbitt:: I have a brief comment or two and I should like to ask a question as well. First of all, numerous remarks have been made during the course of the debate on this clause to the effect that very few prosecutions have been laid under the existing section in the code. I should like to suggest, and the minister has pointed out repeatedly, that it is a question of enforcement and not so much a question of the law. The two are related. This whole question of crime comics is a relatively new idea in the law. Unless a local crown attorney or police officer receives complaints from people he simply does not do anything about it. The thing to do to help enforcement is to show the people of the country that this House of Commons means business. A very good way to do that would be to put in a penalty of $10,000.
In addition to that, when magistrates and judges are applying the law and the penalty, and if they have no precedent or example before them-and it is admitted that there are very few under the existing sections of the present code-they have to look at the code to try to find the proper term, or the intention of the legislature. They might have some difficulty in that regard, if they read the proceedings of this debate, to find out what the intention was. But they would have to look at the wording of the statute itself.
Now, a judge or magistrate making a decision and deciding on a penalty would look at section 150. He would then turn to section 154, and he would find that prosecution could be taken either by indictment or on summary conviction, which could not help but indicate to the judge or magistrate that since that was the intention of parliament in passing this law, it was a relatively minor offence, because when a person has the choice of proceeding by way of indictment or on summary conviction-the choice is up to the crown prosecutor-the offence is a relatively minor one. The minister is not going to

agree with me when I say this is a minor offence, but one would certainly not get the impression that it is as severe an offence as murder or robbery, where proceedings are taken by indictment alone.
A person could be punished on summary conviction for committing a relatively small offence under clause 150. If there was a minimum penalty of $10,000 it would clearly indicate to any judge who had to give a decision that the House of Commons meant business in so far as the publishers were concerned when this clause was passed.
We can look at other clauses and we see that there is no amount mentioned. There is no limit to the amount that you can fine a corporation. The minister said you could fine it $2 million. That is true, but no judge is going to do that. He will look back at the section and the method of proceeding against the accused, and then he will have to form some conclusion. Any judge would be loath to inflict a very heavy penalty of $10,000 to $25,000 unless he had some precedent or could get some indication from the statute. As Bill No. 7 now stands, the clauses relating to crime comics certainly do not indicate that the intention of the House of Commons is to have very heavy penalties inflicted.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I have a question to ask at this point. Can the minister give us information as to the number of prosecutions and also the number of convictions, if any, in the three categories covered, namely, publishers, distributors and vendors, since the amendment was passed in 1949?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I could not. In order to give reliable figures on that we would have to make an inquiry to all the provinces of Canada; for it is of course provincial prosecutions which are involved. We can only get these figures from the provinces. There are cases, of course, like the ones that have appeared in the law reports, but by no means all the prosecutions involving the point at issue here have been reported in the law reports. There must be quite a number of cases that do not appear in the law reports, and the only way one could get them would be to write to the provinces for them.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As I understand it, unless I did not hear correctly the statement that was made, there have been no prosecutions so far as publishers are concerned. Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, my hon. friend is quite right in what he heard. Perhaps I was at fault in stating what after all was just a deduction on my part. I formed the judgment that the prosecution of a publisher
Criminal Code
would be a rather big-scale affair and probably a defended case, so it would be recorded in the newspapers and I would have read about it if it had occurred.
My hon. friend will recall the prosecution of the company in Ottawa, and they took the case to the court of appeals. It appeared in the newspapers a number of times, both during the trial and when it was in the court of appeal. I have deduced, from not having read any reference in the newspaper to a prosecution of a publisher, that there had been no such prosecution. I suppose I perhaps should not state that as a fact, it is more a deduction.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The point I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is this. If there have been prosecutions of vendors or distributors, then it would appear rather strange if there were no prosecutions of publishers. As has been pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina, it should be a simple matter to trace back from the vendor to the distributor and so to the publisher from whom the material emanated. If that is the situation it would indicate, to a certain extent, what the minister has said is quite correct, in that we can only make the law but the enforcement of it is elsewhere. If the provinces do not see fit to prosecute the publisher, then the penalty is not of great importance until such prosecution is begun.
On that point, I wonder if the minister could perhaps enlighten the committee any further. Does he know of any reason, in cases where there has been prosecution of the vendor or distributor, why it was not followed by prosecution of the publisher?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I can state one case, the case the hon. member for Kamloops mentioned concerning the prosecution of a retail vendor in Manitoba. This case could not be followed up by prosecution of the publisher because I believe there are no publishers in Manitoba. The Manitoba authorities could not prosecute because they can only prosecute for offences which occur in the province. The only prosecution of publishers that could take place would be prosecutions in provinces in which there are publishers.


Mr. Shaw:: It was not possible for me to be in the house last night during much of the discussion, and I have not felt equal to the task of reading the whole debate. Possibly the question I desire to ask has been asked. When these publications or the plates from which the publications are printed reach the border are they simply passed through without any examination whatever by the customs officials? Is the gate wide open? Certain crime comics appear here week by

Criminal Code
week or month by month under the same name each time. They are known to be crime comics, so would the minister see any merit in the suggestion that the appropriate authority simply ban the importation into Canada of certain specified publications? ,
So far as these little pocket editions are concerned, I realize that they appear under different names, and I would not for a moment advise putting a ban on them. They are not all crime comics, nor is it a type of literature which, in all cases, would be bad. It would seem to me that when so many of these publications-I am speaking of crime comics particularly because they are the ones about which we are most concerned and which get into the hands of the children- are known, the appropriate authorities could simply say that those publications are undesirable and therefore are not permitted entry into Canada, nor are the plates. Would the minister see any merit in a suggestion of that kind?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is not recent knowledge on my part, and as I have not made a point of checking it I may be wrong. My impression is that there is a long list of publications including comics which are banned, that is the documents or the magazines themselves, and the plates for making them are also completely banned at the border.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would suggest that, since this has become such a serious problem, the authority which presently has the right to ban simply take upon itself the responsibility of extending that list. I think if you could curb the action at that point we would not have such a serious problem as that which has been brought up this afternoon, namely the prosecution of the responsible person.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I just want to say now, lest I should otherwise by association appear to be recommending, as a solution to this problem, the extension of any ban or censorship, that all my effort has been towards working out a method of dealing with this under the law and not by resorting to censorship. Even granted that there is a list of those things which the Department of National Revenue, under existing authority, has listed as being prohibited entry into Canada, if we are going to make the department discharge the function of censors, for which they are not really qualified in the first place, I should imagine we would have to add tens of thousands to the staff of the department in order to cope with the enormous volume of this stuff crossing the border. The answer, I say, is to make the penalty sufficiently severe against

the people who bring the material into Canada and put it into circulation. We should deal with it that way rather than by enlarging the staff of quasi-censors.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member proposes not to censor the entry of the magazines from the United States, which are published in the United States, how is he going to prosecute the publisher?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know what the minister means.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: How is the hon. member going to prosecute the publisher in the United States?


Edmund Davie Fulton: You cannot prosecute the publisher in the United States, whether there is censorship of the material or not.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has been saying that the publisher should be prosecuted. Then he says, I am not in favour of censoring the merchandise coming in from the United States. If it comes in from United States publishers, and there is no censorship-


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I did not say that-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let me finish my sentence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, let the minister be accurate in his interpretation of what I said. I did not say what he has suggested I said.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understood my hon. friend to say he did not wish the Department of National Revenue to exercise any discretion over the entry-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I said I did not wish to extend the functions of the Department of National Revenue as that is not the answer to this problem.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But you do not object to the exercise of the function as it has been exercised in the past.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. I said that if you are
going to make censorship your answer you would have to increase your staff to something in the neighbourhood of tens of thousands because of the enormous volume of this material that comes into the country. The duty of these people is not to make themselves censors of mail or parcels or things that cross the border. Their job is to levy tariffs and duties and see that the appropriate customs tariffs are paid. As I say, censorship is a job that has been thrust upon them. I am not suggesting it be withdrawn, but I do not think the answer to this problem lies in extending the quasi-censorship powers of the Department of National Revenue.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend will agree we cannot in Canada prosecute publishers in the United States.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No; but you can prosecute those who print books after the plates are brought over. You can prosecute those who bring in and circulate within Canada things which are an offence within Canada.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one thing perfectly clear. I did not suggest that customs officers should act as censors. I said we know that certain publications which appear regularly under certain names are undesirable. As far as I am concerned, I make no apology whatsoever for stating that when that fact becomes known we should ban that publication from Canada. We have no hesitation in passing a law respecting sawed-off shotguns or certain other weapons when we are trying to prevent instances of crime within this country. I make no apology whatsoever for taking this position. I believe we could probably go a long way towards solving this problem if we just simply said: "We know that publication and we do not want it in Canada." I did not suggest it should be the individual customs officer who should determine whether a publication is desirable. We should have an appropriate authority for making that decision.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 35.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, before this clause is carried I have another amendment I want to submit which is in line with what I had to say last evening as regards the possibility of unjust treatment of vendors and distributors. I hope that the gate will not be closed in this regard and that they will be able to plead ignorance in accordance with the law as it now stands. Subclause 6 of clause 150 reads:
Where an accused is charged with an offence under subsection (1) the fact that the accused was ignorant of the nature or presence of the matter, picture, model, phonograph record, crime comic or other thing by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed is not a defence to the charge.
I believe that if that subclause were removed it would not absolve the vendor or the distributor from liability as regards crime comics, but it would at least not bar them from pleading ignorance. I want to assure the committee that I anticipate the argument that such a provision might easily be extended to cover publishers, but I cannot conceive of any difficulty in proving in court
Criminal Code
that a publisher knew the content of what he was publishing. The same is not the case when it comes to the vendor or the distributor. I therefore move, seconded by hon. member for Regina City, that subclause 6 of clause 150 be deleted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think I
should comment briefly on this amendment. It may appear upon the surface to be a bit harsh upon the accused to deny him the plea of ignorance, but, when an amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops in 1949, and we in the federal government submitted this to the provincial law enforcement officers, we were told among other things that, unless we had a clause like this in the section, almost any of those who were involved, either in retail or wholesale distribution, would be able to say in relation to the charge in respect of any specfic book: "Oh, my goodness, I am shocked to find in page 25 of this book something that is terribly repugnant to my moral nature. But I did not know anything about it. I thank you for bringing it to my attention and I will strike it off my list."
One can easily see that in a situation of that kind we would have a law which was not very readily enforceable, and for that reason we have included this subclause in the bill. The hon. member who moved this amendment told us yesterday about his own experience as a retail distributor. Knowing his reputation for accuracy in all matters, I expected that he would explain that when he received books from the distributor he was able to send any back he wished, because quite contrary to the popular impression none of the retail vendors are under the necessity of selling these books if they do not wish to sell them. As my hon. friend from Dauphin said, the distributor who has a large volume of titles to sell cannot be bothered making up parcels individually for each of their retail vendors. The wholesale distributor sends out in the first instance, as the hon. gentleman from Dauphin correctly stated, a package of books which the wholesaler believes the retailer's community will absorb. If the retailer cannot sell some of these books he may return them. The wholesaler then simply modifies his selection of titles in the next parcel he sends out for no more complex reason than that this is the simple, easy, automatic way to keep the retailer supplied with books which his community will buy. If the retail vendor, with the concern for the morals of the young people in this community to which my hon. friend from Dauphin laid claim, sees amongst the books in his possession something that is clearly a crime comic or obscene, he can send it back

Criminal Code
to the wholesale distributor. He is required to do nothing more complicated than that to avoid committing the offence of selling these things to the public. That being the case, I do not think there is any reason for an amendment of this sort.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Would the minister tell us how the vendor is going to decide what to send back. The hon. member last night pointed out that in his experience certain local people in his own community would not undertake the task of deciding which magazines should be sent back and which should be kept on the shelf. I would like the minister to tell the committee how the individual vendor is going to accurately sort out good material from bad.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know how familiar the hon. member is with these pocket books, but I would suggest to him that if he goes to the average stand and casually goes through the books there he will not have too much trouble in selecting some of the more prominently obscene ones, and in pretty short order. The identification of crime comics might be even easier than that. I must say for my part that this difficulty which has been alleged in separating the wheat from the chaff never impressed me very much. It may be that in the odd case an innocent dealer might be caught, but I do not believe there would be very many such hardships. So far as I know, none have occurred so far under this present section of the code as if now stands.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If it is that easy to decide on the part of the vendor, would it not be just as easy for the appropriate authorities to examine the material as it leaves the publishers, or as has been suggested this afternoon, for the material to be looked over and to be decided on before ever reaching the vendor's hands? In other words, the hon. member for Kamloops spoke of his aversion to censorship. There are two types of censorship. There is the direct type of censorship and there is the more indirect type.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is the obligation of selfcensorship that everybody has to accept.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The point I tried to make this afternoon was this: Why have we got these publications floating around the country?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because there are profits to be made from them.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Because the publishers of crime comics find that they can make money out of selling crime comics. Consequently, if the job were done properly, and if the responsibility were placed on the "boulders
[Mr. Garson.1
of those who publish the offending periodicals-if it were done at that level-it would not be necessary for the vendor to have to be under the obligation of deciding whether or not he was within the law.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a word or two on this matter because I shall feel constrained to vote against the amendment and I should not like to vote against it without letting my friend the hon. member for Dauphin know why. I would be opposed to the deletion of this subsection because I do not believe wg should give anyone the excuse to say that he was selling something the nature of which he did not know. I think that is making it too easy altogether for people to sell salacious literature and to clear their consciences by the fact that they did not take the trouble to know what they were distributing throughout the community. I cannot accept this excuse at all. I think we shall have to keep this subsection in the law in order to make it enforceable to some extent at least.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise mainly for the purpose of commenting. While I agree with the minister that the evidence seems to establish that as between the local distributor and the vendor, the vendor is free to return titles which he does not wish to sell, and he gets a credit for them when he returns them, other evidence, particularly the evidence in the recent contempt case at Cornwall, is to the effect that as between a local distributor and his wholesale supplier there is a term in the contract which compels the local distributor to accept all the titles which he is offered. He is not allowed to exercise his discretion; he is not allowed to go through his block parcels and to return direct the titles which he thinks are undesirable. I think the process is that he has to pass those on to his local retailers and that if then they are returned to him by his local retailers, he in turn can return them to the wholesale supplier. I do not know what the correct term for that individual is, but he would be on a bigger scale than the local distributor.
The minister and I have had some discussion of that feature in connection with another provision of the law. Even if the minister is not satisfied that the combines law should be invoked against that practice, I think it should be made clear that it is not a practice to which approval should be given and that everyone who receives goods to sell or distribute, which he does not think it is desirable to distribute, should have the right to return them and should not be bound by a contract to accept them and to pass them on where they may continue to poison the

minds of young children. However, for the reasons that I have indicated previously, I do not think that anyone concerned in this process can be absolved from that responsibility, whether he be the vendor, the local distributor, the wholesale distributor, the man who prints the book or the man who publishes it. I therefore think that this subsection should be left in.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I should like to repeat something I said when I moved the amendment. I thought I had made it quite clear then, but in view of what has just been said by the hon. member for Kamloops I think it should be repeated. The removal of this subsection will not absolve from responsibility the vendor or the distributor. Its removal will simply have the effect of giving him the opportunity in court of pleading ignorance. That in itself does not mean that by the very fact that he pleads ignorance he is automatically acquitted. There may be plenty of other evidence to show that he is responsible, and that he was not ignorant of the contents. But this section arbitrarily states that he cannot even plead ignorance. It closes that door.
As to what has just been said by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, for whom I have great admiration, I am afraid there is some misapprehension about this matter. Some people are under the impression that this law forbids what is known or has been referred to as salacious literature. It does nothing of the sort. It refers to the commission of crime. The only description of a crime comic-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It refers to obscene literature.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes; to obscene literature.


Donald MacInnis: That is the same thing.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: There is a difference. The only definition I can find here that would act as a guide to what is a crime comic is in subsection 7 of section 150, which reads as follows:
In this section, "crime comic" means a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
(a)	the commission of crimes, real or fictitious, or
(b)	events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious, whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.
As I pointed out yesterday, that language is extremely wide, hazy and vague. May I also ask why we pick on comics exclusively? When it comes to pictures or stories depicting crime, the matter goes a great deal further than comics. You have, for example, your radio programs and even your television. You have other methods by which crime is depicted, both pictorially and in words; yet 83276-229
.	Criminal Code
you seem to get all excited and hysterical about one particular phase of it. When it comes to some of that lurid literature to which the hon. member for Macleod referred yesterday, I submit that I have not read anything that contains stronger language than do some of the proceedings of the divorce committee that is handled by this very house. Certainly if that was contrary to law, some of the members of this house might find themselves in difficulties.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Parliamentary privilege.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: But to be serious about the matter, there is not much doubt that the average vendor or-I will not even say the "average vendor"-that the great majority of vendors, even if the wording of this section were brought to their attention, would have great difficulty in deciding what is a crime comic. Not only would vendors have difficulty, but as I have pointed out, even crown prosecutors and police magistrates have found great difficulty in deciding what is a crime comic. For that reason I believe that, without absolving the vendor entirely from responsibility, certainly the removal of this subsection would provide some little measure of leniency by giving him an opportunity to prove that he was in fact innocent.


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I make a comment regarding the difficulty of the vendor? Yesterday the hon. member for Macleod sent across to the minister a copy of a pocket book and pointed out that, while on the whole the book was not too bad, he had found one paragraph in it which he did not like. I suggest that the vendor who sold the book might not have read the entire book or might not have read the offending paragraph. Apparently the hon. member for Macleod feels that the book is not the type of book which should be sold in spite of the fact that the book as a whole was all right.
What the hon. member for Dauphin has just pointed out is quite correct. There is a great deal or difference in the case of the vendor who has on his rack something that he knows, and that anyone can tell at a glance, is obscene or salacious or a crime comic. But a great many publications and books appear on the shelves of a vendor and unless he was prepared to read the entire book from cover to cover, in fact, even after having read the book, he might find it very difficult to decide whether or not the book was salacious in its effect.
The book to which the hon. member for Macleod referred had one offending paragraph. Does one offending paragraph make the book undesirable? This opens up a tremendous field so far as the vendor is

Criminal Code
concerned. I should like to reiterate what the hon. member for Dauphin has pointed out. The amendment is not going to absolve vendors who knowingly place on their shelves for sale material which they know or have every reason to know offends against this section, but it does protect the vendor who unknowingly places books on his shelves, perhaps because of the fact he has not had time to read the material in its entirety, from being subject to a charge.
Amendment (Mr. Zaplitny) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 151 to 153 inclusive agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: The next group of clauses is under the general heading "defamatory libel" and commences with clause 247.
Clause 247 agreed to.
On clause 248-Definition.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is a question I should like to ask the minister which I think may clear up the matter very quickly as far as I am concerned. In the city of Toronto, as the minister is no doubt well aware in his capacity as Minister of Justice, certain weekly publications are issued which deal almost exclusively and substantially in lurid crimes, sex offences and that kind of thing. It is quite clear of course that if the material in these periodicals contravenes this section so far as any particular person is concerned a prosecution can be instituted. However, very unusual situations may arise. I know of at least one occasion, and I am quite sure it has occurred fairly often. Apparently many of the articles and stories purporting to be news in these weekly publications are not news at all. They are fictitious, although they appear to be news.
I realize there are other sections of the code dealing with the publication and spreading of false news but the matter of defamatory libel does enter into the picture. Fairly recently an article was published as a news item in one of these weekly publications which referred to a person in the city of Woodstock. It was stated that this person had been convicted of having improper relations with his secretary. As a matter of fact, it stated that he had been tried and convicted. It so happened that the person referred to in the article was non-existent. In addition, no such case had ever been heard in the city of Woodstock in the previous forty years.
Nevertheless, by pure accident a quite prominent and highly respected businessman in the town happened to have similar initials plus the same last name as the person referred

to in the fictitious news article. He was caused a great deal of embarrassment, possible loss of business and everything else.
I should like to ask the minister whether, in his opinion, this section would cover such a situation. I see that it says:
A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that Is likely to injure the reputation of any person . . .
What I am particularly curious about is whether the term "any person" would include anybody who happened to be embarrassed by such publication in view of the fact that further on in the definition of defamatory libel it says:
... or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
In other words, does this particular section of the code envisage that the publisher must have some particular person in mind when he makes the publication or does it envisage that if the publisher happens to hit someone of whom the publisher knew nothing a prosecution for defamatory libel could be instituted?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this is a point of order that I think I probably should have raised earlier in the proceedings. As Minister of Justice my responsibility is to advise the various departments of the government in matters of law but never the House of Commons or its members. I am afraid if I were to rest upon that point of order in piloting a bill of this sort through the house I would hold up proceedings unduly, and that is why I have not done so. But one would think-this is not an opinion because, as my hon. friend who is himself a lawyer knows, I would have to give the matter much more mature consideration than I have had time to do now-from a reading of section 248 as applied to the facts which he has stated, providing they could be proven, there might be defamatory libel which is defined as "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person." It is any person at all, and in this particular case, through the unhappy coincidence of the man whose name had been published in this sort of scandal mongering type of magazine, I suppose, is it-was that the type of magazine?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: One of those weekly periodicals in Toronto.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. He happened to live in the same town designated, have the same name and the same initials, and I should think the accused would have a very interesting time indeed proving that he did

not intend to prejudice that man by merely pleading the coincidence of the two names being identical.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Excuse me; in this particular case the initials were not exactly identical. They were almost identical and the impression created with the public was that it was that person.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I took that to be the case. But what I would think would be a more serious difficulty in his invoking this particular provision is the essential difference between ordinary libel, which is the foundation for a civil action in damages on the one hand, and on the other hand the defamatory libel under the code which we are discussing. If my hon. friend will refer to Tremeear, fifth edition, page 372, he will find this:
The essential difference between civil and criminal libel is not in the matter published, but in its tendency. "It is the policy of the law to leave the care of men's reputations to themselves, and no damage therefore done simply to the reputation of anyone by an individual is foundation for a criminal prosecution. There are two remedies for the wrong caused by a libel; one, where the offence is of a public nature as tending to a breach of peace, by indictment, and the other, when the injury is of a private nature, and merely causes damage to the libelled party, by action.
In this case, if the question ever arose as to its applying to this one man, and his reputation was in fact injured, offhand I should think he might have to seek his recourse by a civil action for damages.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 253 agreed to.
On clause 163-Offensive volatile substance.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this clause was dealt with at some length when the matter originally came before the committee. I wish now to deal with it for only a few moments.
On the last occasion the matter was under discussion I referred to the very serious situation in the town of Battleford, to which reference has been made on a number of occasions by the hon. member for The Battle-fords, and in the city of Prince Albert where, since November 7 last, the people have been unable to drink water from the Saskatchewan river because of pollution caused through the dumping into the river at Edmonton by the Canadian Chemical Company of certain chemical substances in the effluent from their industry at that point.
I am not here to discuss the responsibility of the federal or provincial authorities, or to criticize either of them for its lack of action. But assuredly the people in Prince Albert and in Battleford as well as in The 83276-2294
Criminal Code
Pas, Manitoba, to a lesser degree, have been most critical of a situation that has placed^ them in a position where they have been* unable to drink the waters of a river as-important to the domestic and industrial uses in the western provinces as is the North Saskatchewan river.
For a considerable period of time the serious question before both the federal and provincial authorities was, first, to have an analysis of the waters, and then to determine the responsibility of one or other industries in respect of the condition of affairs prevailing in the cities and towns I have mentioned.
Finally, as a result of a co-operative effort between federal and provincial authorities an analysis was made of the water, and it was found to have a taste that would prevent any human being from consuming it-unless that human were equipped, as were the locomotive boilers at Prince Albert, the flues of which were de-scaled by the use of this water without any further treatment. In short, the situation was nothing less than terrible.
The analysis showed that the water has in it formaldehyde, methanol and acetaldehyde, all of which suggested that the river was being contaminated by waste from a plant which produced pentaerythritol. Full analysis was made, and it was found finally that Canadian Chemical Company was responsible. There is no desire to have legislation brought in that in any way is retroactive in effect. At no time was there a suggestion to that effect. But it does seem passing strange that under the law as it now exists counsel advising the corporations I have mentioned have concluded that there is no right of action under the Criminal Code as at present worded.
The city of Prince Albert and the town of Battleford, as well as other municipal corporations, have petitioned the government to make provision against the continuance of a situation similar to that, consequent upon the contamination of water necessary for domestic and industrial uses. They have asked for an amendment to the Criminal Code.
The federal government has taken the constitutional position that despite the fact that the Saskatchewan river traverses more than two provinces, the responsibility is a provincial one. It has been pointed out before that there is very little a province can do to punish contamination without the assistance of the government in the province in which the contamination arises.
The government of Alberta has given considerable co-operation and has secured from Canadian Chemicals Limited a promise that the practice heretofore followed will

Criminal Code
not be continued. The chemical corporation has stopped the course it was following of dumping the effluent into the river. Not only-have the various municipalities asked that action be taken, but 1 am informed that the municipal associations in Saskatchewan have indicated the impossibility of that province doing anything to protect its citizens under the law as it now stands. For, after all, any action that could be taken must be in Alberta.
They have asked for an amendment to the Criminal Code so that certain punishment will follow a repetition of the circumstances in this instance, and for the provision of a law to protect other parts of this country from pollution, which is becoming a problem in almost every province. Pollution of rivers flowing from one province to another is today an offence without adequate punishment and, indeed, without any machinery under the law for the punishment of the wrongdoers.
The home and school association in Prince Albert, with the support of similar organizations in other provinces, has sent in a resolution. The one from Prince Albert is an emergency appeal to all home and school associations, and is signed by Joseph Johnson, president, and Mrs. A. E. Rawlinson, secretary, in the following words:
We believe that all possible avenues must be explored by municipal, provincial and federal governments, in order to prevent, by adequate legislative action and strict and impartial enforcement of same, any similar situation arising in future within our land.
That would seem to be a reasonable request. The council of the city of Prince Albert, through the health committee of that council, of which the chairman is Alderman Marion Sherman, called upon the federal government to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code making the discharge of chemicals into an interprovincial river an offence.
I am not going to recapitulate what I said previously, but it is a matter of interest that this condition of affairs has continued for five months. Fifty thousand people have been placed in a position where they have had to secure water supplies from wells, springs, and indeed from other rivers adjacent to the municipalities in question. It was because the law provided for no punishment and no offence that when the Criminal Code, clause 163, was before the committee on an earlier occasion I suggested that the clause might be amended. Since then on a number of occasions I have asked the government whether it proposed to take action to amend the Fisheries Act to make it an offence under the particular circumstances. Interest was shown in the question when it began to

be apparent that the fish in the river were being destroyed, but action has not yet been taken.
In so far as the Criminal Code is concerned, I asked on one occasion whether the government had given consideration to an amendment to make it an offence to dump deleterious substance into streams upon which people depend for water for domestic and industrial purposes. The answer was that the matter was receiving consideration and that in due course the government policy would be announced. There is no way in which the municipalities in Saskatchewan can meet the problem themselves. The city of Prince Albert has tried to treat the water chemically, but after all formaldehyde may be all right as an embalming fluid, but it is not very good for human beings while still living. They ask for action. People asked for action on the part of the city, but nothing that could be done, according to chemists, would rid the water of the chemicals to which I have made reference, and in particular the formaldehyde and the acetates.
Historically the prevention of pollution under law is founded upon the principle that only baeteria-carrying agencies in the water gave rise to any action. This is not a problem peculiar to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta. It is becoming a problem everywhere in this country, but it has been brought to a head there. If I could transmit to hon. members the feelings of the people affected by what they have passed through during the past five months in the areas of Prince Albert, Battleford and surrounding areas, the language that I would use would be ruled out as unparliamentary almost before I started to detail what people have said. They are aroused as I have never seen them aroused. They are not asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code to cover what happened in the past.
Today with that optimism that he reveals on all occasions, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that a week or so from now conditions would be so materially improved in Prince Albert-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He hoped.


John George Diefenbaker: -that the immediate
cause for complaint would be removed. Well, as I read the file that was brought down in the house in sessional paper No. 190-A on Monday, March 8, I find there, sir, that spirit of optimism, that assured hope that all is well, has not been uncharacteristic of the minister since he first undertook to give assistance, with his officials, to the solution of this problem, and that goes back to January 8 last.

What we are asking for is that conduct such as characterized the industry in question will become an offence under the law. As I said a moment ago, the province of Saskatchewan can take no action with respect to the pollution of a stream or river when that pollution takes place in another province. I therefore wish to suggest an amendment to the minister. He has submitted the matter to his law officers and he may have one that is more effective than the one I have in mind. As a tentative amendment to be considered by the committee I wish to move as follows. I will first read material portions of the clause and then I will place before you, sir, the amendment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Which clause?


John George Diefenbaker: Clause 163:
Every one other than a peace officer engaged in the discharge of his duty who has in his possession in a public place-
Now, we come to the material parts:
-or who deposits, throws or injects or causes to be deposited, thrown or injected in, into or near any place,
(a) an offensive volatile substance that is likely to alarm, inconvenience, discommode or cause discomfort to any person.-
And so on:
-is guilty of an offence.
I said a moment ago that that clause does not cover the situation because the substances which are being poured into the river do not come within the ambit of the word "volatile". I therefore suggest, sir, that after the word "place" in line 36 the words:
or in any river or stream whose waters are used for domestic or industrial purposes-
-be inserted, and after the word "substance" in subclause (a) the following words be added:
or any chemical or synthetic chemical or any other substance.
The effective portion of the section in so far as the pertinent facts of this question are concerned would then read:
Every one . . . who deposits, throws or injects or causes to be deposited, thrown or injected in, into or near any place, or in any river or stream whose waters are used for domestic or industrial purposes,
(a) an offensive volatile substance or any chemical or synthetic chemical or any other substance that is likely to alarm, inconvenience, discommode or cause discomfort to any person
And so forth:
-is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
And so on. That is the submission I make.
I feel that the minister might want to go farther or there might be a suggestion that the matter should be proceeded with by way
Criminal Code
of indictment. Such an alteration might be made in the section. However, the purport of the amendment that I wish to place before the committee is incorporated in the words that I have just placed before the committee. I bespeak the co-operation of members in all parts of the house to assist us so that power will be placed in the hands of the people, where it belongs, to resist the action of any corporation or individual who, for its own ends, interferes with or destroys the use of our rivers and streams. Unless this problem of the pollution of streams upon which human beings depend for their water supply is met, this water supply will be endangered more and more as the years go by and these chemical industries are being established, particularly within the western provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has my hon. friend copies of his amendment?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Mr. Campbell:: I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment that has been moved. I am not particularly interested in what kind of legislation is to be put on the statute books, provided it does the job. After the Minister of National Health and Welfare made his report to the house some time ago, I wrote to the people in my constituency and to the people of North Battleford, sending them copies of the report and asking them if they felt that was sufficient or did they wish me to continue trying to have something done by way of the Criminal Code. All the answers I received, from practically the same organizations as those mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Albert, the city councils, boards of trade, home and school organizations as well as individual farmers, asked me to try to get legislation passed that would prevent this sort of thing happening in the future. The individual farmers were affected because their cattle would not drink the river water.
I want to say a word about the set-up in Edmonton. I thought the hon. member for Prince Albert was rather mild in what he said along that line. Here we have an industry that commenced operation last September. It is a wealthy organization and requires the best chemists in the land in order to produce this material. Why did the company select Edmonton as a site? These people are rather astute and they have hired the best brains available. They said, here is the river which flows for two hundred miles without passing any city. We could set up our factory here and empty the kind of chemicals we want into this river and probably by the time the

Private Bills
river flows past the first town these objectionable odours will have disappeared.
In addition to that, there is no federal law which will give protection to the people residing within the first two hundred mile area. There is a law in Alberta, it is true, that says orders can be given to stop dumping chemicals or waste into the rivers if they cause pollution. It seems to me that is taking action after the crime has taken place. So far as I can ascertain there is no law in Alberta requiring a company to obtain permission before dumping chemical wastes into the river. I have been writing back and forth attempting to get as much information and advice as possible about this problem. I believe that we need a provision in the Criminal Code concerning the pollution of our rivers.
Another suggestion which I believe has merit is that the federal department of health should have jurisdiction over these interprovincial rivers for the purpose of preventing the pollution of the water. I believe that is what we need. We need the federal department of health to decide whether or not they are going to permit these chemical plants to dump waste material in a certain manner. These chemical plants should give an undertaking before they can get a permit to set up the plants.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but it is five o'clock. The house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 169, respecting Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 340, respecting Canadian Nurses' Association.'-Mr. Stick.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 378, to incorporate North American Baptists Inc., (Canada)-Mr. James-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, there is just one question which I am prompted to ask by the manner in which Your Honour read the title of this bill. It seems to me you read the title in the form in which it should be printed, for in this house we are used to things being spelled out.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not quite understand the hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking if it would not be more proper to have "Inc." spelled out.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Edward Turney Applewhaite: There are a number of divorce bills which might well be taken together.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that today you might follow the correct procedure and call these bills one at a time. I am not suggesting there is going to be discussion on all of these bills, but I believe some of them have been the subject of contention when before the committee on miscellaneous private bills and there may be members of the committee who will wish to say something on some of these bills. Perhaps you might call them one at a time, Mr. Chairman.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Alfred Rubens. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Clara Stein Rosenberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Lilli Schwab Barber.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Laura Fanny Hoddinott Peckford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Natalie Wynoh-radnyk Wolcovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Joan Bechard Tutty Copeland.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Georgette Mertens Herscovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Mary Veronica Carmichael Mosher.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of George Thomas LeGrow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Marie-Reine Roy Laflamme.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Gabrielle Gagne Nantel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Velma Mack-land Giles Boyer.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of John Wright Sinclair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Florence Jean Moffatt Tucker Johnston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Margaret Hilda Popper Parker.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 317, for the relief of Cecil Alfred Ellis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Robert Jack-son.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Madeleine Marguerite Faure Eden.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of William James Cutler McKillop.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Agnes Mary Kelly Winters.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Florence Elizabeth Hough Topp.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Roch Cote.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Domina Emerius Lefebvre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Donald Clarke Allen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Jean Albert Raymond Rasson Desloover.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Hazel Helena King Featherston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Jessie Ruby Dawe Greenslade.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Jean Nelson Williams Blampied.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Margaret Ann Eddie Casselman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	337,	for	the	relief	of	Marcel
Prud'homme.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	341,	for	the	relief	of	Michele
Grignon Ferguson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Emile Groulx. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	343,	for	the	relief	of	Doreen
Jeannette Yvonne Sarah Mary Dorothy Sibley Cowans.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Muriel Spencer Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Yetta Frumkin Binder.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Vera Mary Drummond Stafford.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Alice Beatrice Cutler Murdoch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Maartje Stelling McLachlan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Wilfred Roy Fricker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Dorothy Adelaide Jorbahn Rosburg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Joseph Bernard Bertrand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Ann McKinnon Archibald Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Joseph Gerard Arthur Valmore Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Marie Jeannette Lucille Catherine Clement Cantin.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	356,	for	the	relief of Pauline
Prussick Astrof.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Martha Betty Schenck Clarke.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	358,	for	the	relief	of	Felice
D'Abate.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Olga Korim Falardeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	360,	for	the	relief	of	Harold
Robertson Mann.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Sophie Rosenberg Rosenberg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Frederica Priesel Barrett.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Jean Bertha Thomson Lanthier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	364,	for	the	relief	of	Roger
Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of Adelaide Nina Hall Lanktree.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 366, for the relief of Fernande Gilberte Andrea Leclair Daoust.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 367, for the relief of Diana Barbara Boone Guinness.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Clara Sperber Meilen Fink.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Maria Assunta Pilozzi Raspa.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Robert James Cooper.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Diana Frances Nash Milmine.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Ross Willis Garrow.-Mr. Hunter.



BIRDIE GLADYS SCHWARZ BARD YUDELSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 300, an act for the relief of Birdie Gladys Schwarz Bard Yudelson-Mr. Hunter-Mr. Apple-whaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 of this bill is carried there are just a few words I should like to say which apply to this bill and may apply to others. I mention this one because I happen to have the evidence at hand, although I have not taken the time to read it through. There are certain characteristics about this bill which seem to be on the increase. There used to be a measure of originality and some difference amongst these various divorce cases

Private Bills-Divorce and the evidence that came into our hands but more and more there seems to be a great deal of similarity about them. The same investigators or detectives appear in the evidence in connection with this case as appear in connection with the evidence in many other cases. They give the same type of evidence and it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, without singling out this particular case, that parliament is being made to look rather silly in this whole process. I do not wish to say more because as you know, the matter is on the agenda of Mr. Speaker's committee on the rules and procedure of this house and that committee has not yet reached the stage of discussing this matter. Nevertheless, I think it should be pointed out that we are being asked to carry on a process which amounts to rubber-stamping cases such as the one before us.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 303, an act for the relief of Michael Samulack -Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether any of my colleagues wish to speak on this bill at this time or whether they prefer to leave it for discussion at the third reading stage. This is a case which, I understand, was contested, and I believe the case was heard rather fully in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 312, an act for the relief of Bessie Katz Elman -Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, before we
go any further I would like to know from the chairman of the committee whether the evidence heard by the Senate committee was in the hands of the special committee of the

house. If the chairman of the committee is in the house probably he could give us that information.


Mr. Harris:: I think it is obvious that the chairman of a private bills committee would not be in the house. If my hon. friend wishes to make a point of it we shall have to allow this particular bill to stand.


George Hugh Castleden: I would like this bill to stand until the chairman of the committee can be in the house to give that information.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



LUCIEN L'ESPERANCE, JUNIOR

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 327, for the relief of Lucien L'Esperance, junior -Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this particular bill. I might say that it is the first opportunity I have had to say anything on it, although I am a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee which passed this bill. I must plead guilty to having also agreed to the passage of this bill there without having looked over the contents of the bill or any of the material or evidence that was supplied with the bill. The reason I was in that position was that it was not until after the meeting of the committee that I received this communication in my mail. At the time I received it in the mail I was so greatly amazed at what was there revealed that I laid it aside and I asked a few other members to look it over. We intended to speak on this bill when it came up for second reading. This morning, in looking over my Votes and Proceedings, I suddenly realized that this bill had already had second reading and that I myself had been guilty of voting for this bill in the miscellaneous private bills committee. I just mention these matters, Mr. Chairman, because I feel that something ought to be placed on the record to show the summary manner in which we deal with some of these matters that vitally affect the lives of our Canadian citizens.
When we look into the story behind this divorce bill, we find a man who apparently is fairly well off financially and who has a wife who is in extremely poor health. They have not got along too well and he obtains, shall I say, a temporary separation from her. He employs various detective agencies; and I say "various detective agencies" advisedly. He pays $300 to one detective agency to find some evidence for him. They report back that they are unable to do so. Then he hires

another firm and they also report their failure. I believe there is an indication that he hired several more firms and spent a good deal of money on this business of obtaining evidence.
Finally a man walked into his office to sell him life insurance. He asks the man, "How is the insurance business?" The man replies, "Oh, not so good." Then he goes on to relate to this insurance agent his own marital difficulties and the insurance agent volunteers to find the evidence that is so essential in this case. He agrees to pay the insurance agent-and this is all from the evidence- the sum of $750 and the expenses involved. Later on, another witness admits having received $250. A third witness claims that he did not receive anything. He could not very well admit having received anything because he was also the co-respondent that is named. Yet he turns up as a witness for the petitioner. They are a remarkable pair of unlicensed investigators who, in the course of thirteen days, I believe it is-it might have been fourteen days-find evidence on three different occasions that adultery has been committed.
Where licensed agencies have been working for a long period of time, for a considerable amount of money and are unable to show that the woman is other than a chaste woman these men, in the amazingly short time mentioned, turn up all this evidence. Also in the course of the evidence the corespondent has a fist fight with one of the so-called investigators. However, in appearing here in Ottawa he admits that he is now living in the same room with the man with whom he had the fist fight, and that he has wholly forgiven him. He says that the reason he has forgiven him is that he is a Bulgarian also, that there is therefore this natural feeling of kinship, and they are very sorry for having engaged in a fight with one another.
The lady is then called upon the stand and she tells her story. The co-respondent named became acquainted with her at a social evening. She has this back injury as a result of various factors, possibly. One may well have been the poor treatment she has received on the part of the husband. She cannot ride on the public transportation system and she always has to be taken to and from places in an automobile. This new acquaintance of hers is introduced to her as the fiance of her very good girl friend. He happens to claim, at least, to live in much the same area of town as that in which she lives. When the evening ends, it is only natural that he offers to take her home.
Private Bills-Divorce
Whether natural or by design, at any rate she agrees to allow this fiance of her good friend to take her home. Then this same thing happens on another occasion. According to her testimony the man makes a point of showing up at another function she is at and again has occasion to take her home.
On the third occasion when the man offers to take her home she agrees to permit him to take her home rather than impose upon others. I can well understand how people in that condition feel. They do not like to be telephoning their friends and relatives at all times of the day or evening and so on, and be forever asking them, "Will you take me home?" The evidence shows that the lady, despite her handicap, is making a supreme effort to mix in with the normal life of the community. Of the witnesses, these three men, two were hired at an amazing fee. I was seriously wondering whether we had raised our salary enough when I saw that fee, because I think our work is at least as important as that. However, these three men claimed that on each of these three occasions adultery was committed. Naturally they claimed it was done with the consent of the lady concerned.
She claims that on the first two occasions there was no adultery. She does have a story about the third occasion and she has some witnesses. One is a medical doctor. The case has all the appearances of either attempted rape or rape. The amazing thing is that while this is going on his elbow continues to rest on the horn until finally the other two witnesses show up and are able to identify the people concerned.
I may not be well informed about the night life of our cities. However, this continuous honking of the horn was not denied by the co-respondent, although he claimed it had been accidental. However, there is no serious cross-questioning. I was very sorry that we were not fully informed in the private bills committee because as a member of that committee I would have insisted on hearing the evidence over again. I think I have a right to demand that. However, because I knew nothing about the case I had to accept it in good faith. It indicates the summary manner in which $10,000 a year men handle such very serious matters.
I am not too familiar with the laws of the South American countries or with the laws of Spain, France and Italy, but I do know that in a goodly number of these countries they have divorce courts set up to handle these matters. My people elected me to help to legislate and not to act in a judicial capacity. Legislation is an entirely different matter.

Private Bills-Divorce When I see that a certain lady is suing her husband for divorce I admit, possibly like some of the rest of us, that I do not pay too much attention to it. However, I carefully read every case that comes to my notice where a husband is attempting to get a divorce. Incidentally, I have never received a copy of a divorce bill yet, and I am rather amazed that I was asked to vote without having had a copy of a bill.
To come back to the point, when a man sues for divorce he wants to be free of his wife. I am thinking of a certain possibility, although I am not going to say that it happened here. Suppose the woman obtains a separation agreement by order of a provincial court and the man is under obligation to pay the lady or the family $100 or $150 a month, whatever the case may be. I notice that such allowances are a little higher now than they used to be. It is a burden on the man that he originally assumed by virtue of the judgment of the court. He pays the money for a year or two and finally it begins to irk him. He becomes very annoyed and restless because of this heavy monthly obligation which ordinarily a married man assumes not only as a responsibility but as a pleasure, even though he howls when the lady comes around for more money.
What is his only way out? There is one possible way out and that is to hire people to obtain evidence, honestly or otherwise, take the case to Ottawa and possibly rely on the financial inability of the lady to fight back. It may also be that a desire not to incur undue publicity may cause the lady not to fight back. The result is that the man is able to obtain a divorce which indicates that the lady has been guilty of adultery. He can immediately reapply to the provincial court to be relieved of his monthly payment. I mention this because I found out afterwards with respect to one case that it was the monthly payment for the upkeep of a child that was irking the man so much, and he was going to get married again. I think he is getting married next week. By the way, his case has not yet been given royal assent. However, that is my information and I feel that it is reliable. The wife-to-be wants the youngster and, after all, it might not cost so much money and he would be completely relieved of any responsibility to the other woman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. At this stage I think I should point out to the hon. member that we are in committee on one particular bill. I think he will agree with me that we have passed the stage where this bill can be used as a vehicle to discuss the handling of divorce legislation generally, and

I think I should ask the hon. member to connect his remarks with the specific bill we are considering.


Erhart Regier: I have almost said what I
wish to say on this point. I should only like to appeal to every hon. member to read the evidence in this particular case over the week end. I certainly hope that the bill will not be given third reading today. I do not think it deserves such summary treatment here. I think it deserves our attention, and if hon. members of this house will do that I believe that the bill will never receive the approval of the $10,000 a year men sitting in this chamber. In my opinion it is a case of a rich man attempting to get rid of a sick, helpless woman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause
carry?


Mr. Coldwell:: No. I think what should be done with this case is to refer it back to the committee for reconsideration when we get to third reading. Like the hon. member who has just spoken, I have not seen this bill before. I must say that as a rule-and I think this is true of most members-that with the tremendous volume of divorce bills coming before the house it is impossible to read the evidence whether or not you want to do so. But while the hon. member was speaking I have been looking over the evidence that has now been circulated, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. member that it looks as though this is a case which needs a very thorough review. The witnesses should be heard again by the committee.
If the circumstances of this case are such as evidently as far as I can see were proven to be so and the two men who allege that they saw the act committed were virtually called by the continual buzzing of the horn of the automobile, it looks to me, as the hon. gentleman says, that this was a case of attempted rape. I do not think there is any question about it from the admitted evidence.


An hon. Member:: It was a frame-up.


Major James William Coldwell: How on earth this bill
comes before us with evidence of this type behind it I do not know. I cannot understand how it got by the other place. I suppose that in the pressure of the hundreds of these bills going before the committee of the other place it went through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Over 400 this session.


Major James William Coldwell: Over 400 already this session. This business of dealing with divorce is a public scandal. This woman is a sick woman. She is a cripple. Her husband has been trying to get rid of her. He is a rich

man. He has got to pay alimony to the wife and the children by virtue of the order of the Quebec court, and it appears to me that this is a put-up job of rape or attempted rape and that the man is trying to get out of paying alimony to his wife. I think that this bill should not pass the house and that we should not have anything to do with it. It is too bad that a bill of this description should reach this committee stage before it can be reviewed. Imagine the standing committee having to pass on these bills! I am not criticizing members of the committee; I am not criticizing my hon. friend who has taken his seat. But here we have a case coming before this committee, and not one solitary member of it, probably, knew the evidence behind the bill. The thing is a public scandal, Mr. Speaker, and this case brings it before us very forcibly.
I say when we reach third reading of this bill we shall move that the bill be referred back to the committee so that we may make sure that justice shall be done in this particular case. But we are not going to accept this holus-bolus and go through with it in this manner. The thing is shocking, to me. As I say, I have not had time to read it all, but I am going to read it fully. I have just read some of it; and my impression is that it is scandalous.


Walter Edward Harris: Without in any way agreeing with the comments made by the last two speakers I suggest that the committee might be prepared to report the bill, without prejudice to what we might do in the future, and then we shall hold third reading for consideration, to do as my hon. friend suggests, move to send it back.


Major James William Coldwell: I say that is the only procedure that should be followed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can say, without reflecting in any way upon the decision which may be reached by my hon. friends here on the spur of the moment, that I certainly would not agree to pass this bill. I would not propose to talk it out, or hold it up; but after what lias been said, and in the absence of any evidence, and with the conclusions drawn by the hon. members who have spoken, I will certainly be compelled to vote against this bill.
I might say that I have several reasons which may perhaps occur to other hon. members. I have refrained heretofore from making speeches on this subject of divorce in the House of Commons, and I intend to follow that course. But I will consistently vote against this method of dealing with the matter, and I will most certainly vote against any
Private Bills-Divorce
bill on which a division may be called-and quite apart from any personal feeling in the matter. In the light of what has been said with respect to this particular case, I certainly feel compelled to vote against this particular bill.


Walter Edward Harris: One can understand my hon. friend's position. But he might also take into consideration the position of others who would accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that it would be better to have the matter considered again in committee, rather than to have any decision at this moment either for or against the bill. And that is the purpose I think both hon. members have in mind. Perhaps the hon. member for Kamloops would agree to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will be compelled to say, "on division", then.


Walter Edward Harris: All right, if that is the hon. member's wish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am opposed to the bill; I wish to make that clear.


Walter Edward Harris: Then we can follow that procedure, without debating the merits of the bill further, until the committee have had a further chance to look at the evidence.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I have great regard for the minister's integrity, and I do not wish to appear to be suspicious in any way. But some of us have been fooled before. I recall that last session we were fooled right in the committee, and called back again to deal with a bill that was subsequently passed, in spite of the fact that it was turned down previously. It was brought back into the house. At that time, if we had desired to be vicious we could have talked it out, because it was the last day we were going to meet to consider private bills. We could have killed the bill that day.
The only reason I will agree with the procedure suggested is the promise of the minister that when it receives third reading-


Stanley Howard Knowles: When it is called for third reading, you mean.


Ernest George Hansell: -that when it is called for third reading we will have the support of the government in sending it back to the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: I thought I made that clear.


Major James William Coldwell: You did.


Ernest George Hansell: All right. I might say this, then, that I am opposed to the bill. But perhaps I have to take some blame for letting this thing slip through the committee.
3624	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce However I am in the same position as many others. We had a long list of bills. The names of the bills were on our order sheet, and we did not receive the evidence for this one. I supposed that we had received it. Therefore we let them go through.
At a previous committee meeting we had not received the evidence. Some of us protested; and I think it is reasonable to say we expected that protest would serve as notice at least that we were not going to countenance putting bills through the committee when we did not have the evidence.
I am inclined to think that perhaps somebody slipped something over on us on Wednesday by having these all in one block and knowing at the same time that there was at least one case the evidence of which we had not yet received. We will have to take the blame for not scrutinizing it more carefully. I do not cast any reflection upon the chairman of the committee, because he is conducting the committee very well. But there is another point to be kept in mind, and that is that the sponsor of the bill is not in the house-at least I do not see him. And I think he should be here when the bills are in committee. There may be questions we would wish to ask, and yet he is not here.
Now, with those few words, I am willing to be in league with other members of the private bills committee and accept the minister's word that it will be turned back to the committee.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to stand up here and voice my protest against this bill and the way the thing has been handled. I agree that the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will probably be the best one. I do recommend to the house however that it keep in mind that we are going to be called upon to vote upon this particular bill, and that this might serve as notice to other members to get the evidence in. When a vote is called we can rely upon the good judgment of hon. members to pass judgment, after they have heard the evidence, and to vote according to their judgment. If that is done, I think justice will be done, despite the fact, as someone said, that we are not supposed to sit here in judgment but that we sit in a legislative capacity.
The thing that surprises me, and that I think will come as a surprise to the whole House of Commons, is that the special committee which was set up by the House of Commons to deal with these bills, and dealt with them in that committee by numbers and names, found out after they had voted and passed upon this bill that they had not received the evidence in the mail. And it


was not until after the committee had passed the bill and it was returned to the house that they got the evidence upon which they were supposed to base their judgment.
This is the kind of thing that casts reflection upon this house, and every member in it. And it lights up for public notice- and I hope the public will take notice of it- the slipshod manner in which this kind of thing is being done here. And it should be stopped.
In this case, when an application was made in the superior court in Montreal for a separation, that court, which is set up to pass judgment in such cases, thought so much of the evidence given by the wife defending herself that it awarded what they call interim alimony, and granted custody of the child to the mother. Now, when this man finds he is going to have to pay alimony, it would look to me, from the evidence, that he has come to this House of Commons in the hope that he could get a divorce through the house- or a considerable distance through it-without having the evidence presented to the committee.
That I think is wrong. It is a travesty. It is the kind of thing we have been objecting to for years, and we are going to continue to object to this kind of thing. When this kind of thing can happen then surely we have evidence that the whole set-up is wrong and that some different procedure is required in order that justice be done and that this type of thing is not continued. Every hon. member is responsible, if, as a result of the decision here, this man is granted a divorce. If he is granted a divorce then this crippled wife will be turned away by her well-to-do husband and left with the custody of the child and he will be relieved even of alimony. It is something that smells to high heaven.
The evidence proves, so far as I have read, that this man hired people to frame the woman. Everything connected with it stinks to high heaven. If that is justice, then we are wrong, our courts are wrong and this whole system is wrong. I do not intend to vote for it. I will vote against it now and I will vote against it at every opportunity that presents itself. The whole thing is a reflection on parliament. It is a reflection on the whole of Canada. Justice, if that is it, Mr. Chairman, should not be supported by this house.


Mr. Winch:: I want to make my own position clear, because this is strictly on procedure. I do not know whether we have to get this out of committee in order to have it come up for third reading before we can send it back to the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: That being so I want my position made clear, because after reading all this evidence from beginning to end, in no stage of the discussion can I support the bill for divorce which is now before us. I do not think I am at all backward or bashful, and I have an open mind in the reading of books. In all my life 1 have never read any evidence that is so despicable, so odious as the evidence that is contained in this case, and I personally received it only yesterday. Because I feel the situation is so terrible and the action of this man is so despicable, I have to vote against it in all stages. I am going to vote against it at this stage, since we are now in the committee of the whole.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those in favour of the clause carrying please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Those against it, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The question is on clause 1.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am afraid I do not understand what my hon. friends are doing. I accepted the suggestion they made in good faith for the purpose of carrying out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. I accepted that. Having accepted that I thought the matter would rest there. It is difficult enough to be leader of the house under any conditions, but if hon. members make suggestions and we accept them I should hope that they would live up to the offer they made. Now, I gather it is their purpose to defeat the bill by voting against the carrying of this clause. If that is the purpose, then let us understand each other. The offer that was made was accepted, but it is not now being carried out by those who made the offer. I am prepared under those conditions to deal with this bill in a different manner from that which is now being apparently followed.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that the hon. member for Kamloops suggested he was against the bill and would vote against it.
Private Bills-Divorce What the minister said is perfectly true. I am prepared to let the bill go through committee, and when it is called for third reading someone would move that it be referred back to the committee for further inquiry and investigation.


Walter Edward Harris: I undertook to do that.


Major James William Coldwell: But if a vote is called, I find myself in a very difficult position, because I cannot support the carrying of the bill at any stage. That is the predicament I find myself in. I am quite willing to go along with the minister, if that is the general agreement. If a vote is called, you can understand my position.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure that if I were in my hon. friend's position my understanding would be that I would vote to carry it on the understanding that had been reached. He will have another opportunity to vote on the bill again when it comes back to this house. At that stage he can state his position as he will. If my hon. friend accepts that, when we vote on this, and if a majority vote in favour of it and the bill is carried as a decision, I hope he will understand that I will not then move on third reading to send it back to the committee as I have agreed to do.


George Hugh Castleden: Perhaps we might let it stand on the understanding that it go back to the committee.


Walter Edward Harris: The only way you can do that, Mr. Chairman, is by this procedure of carrying the bill in this committee, then getting it up for third reading and then move to send it back to the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what I would like.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The committee could carry it on division.


Donald MacInnis: Surely it is the end sought that we want in this case, namely, a new hearing. If to get a new hearing of the case involves anyone voting for the bill-I do not think that really involves that-he does not have to do anything. But if voting against the bill means that the bill will be carried, then everything that he wanted done is lost.


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


Donald MacInnis: Surely we should go after that which we want in the way that we shall get it and not in the way to defeat what we want.


Mr. Philpott:: Could we not all accomplish the purpose that we have in mind by carrying this stage on division on the distinct understanding that it is going to be referred back on third reading.

Private Bills-Divorce


Ernest George Hansell: May I have one word? The minister is right in this. We must not assume that when the committee carries this the house has carried it; it is only the committee that has carried it so that it can reach another stage. The house still has to carry it, and when it is called for third reading the minister, as he has agreed, will move that it be referred back to the private bills committee, and it will come back here again.


Major James William Coldwell: That is agreed.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall	clause	1
carry?


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall	clause	2
carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 327, for the relief of Lucien L'Esperance, junior.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I move, by way of amendment, that this bill be referred back to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 328, for the relief of Charles Edouard Dubois- Mr. Hunter-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Erhart Regier: As far as I know those of us who were objecting to the last bill and who had any objections to raise have raised them. I am just raising the possibility whether we could not save ourselves some work-
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the committee agreed that the remaining bills shall be considered as one?


Major James William Coldwell: No. I think the procedure we are following is the correct one.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause carry?
(Mr. Philpott.]


Pierre Gauthier: On division, and that applies to all these bills.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 335, for the relief of Horace Gervais-Mr. Hunter -Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
George Hugh Castleden: Before the bill passes I
should like to ask the members of the committee who were on the private bills committee whether the evidence connected with this bill was before them when they passed it.


Mr. Knight:: In that connection the method followed by the miscellaneous private bills committee was just the usual one. The usual one is that all the bills are called together, and all the bills were passed except for the little annual speech that I make every year in that committee. So far as I know now, nobody knew whether we had the evidence of these bills or whether we did not. We simply followed the general procedure. There were some questions raised in the committee as to what our job was. One hon. member said, is this an appeal that we are considering against the decision of the Senate? The chairman said no, it is not an appeal against a decision of the Senate. Well then, what is it? Nobody knew what it was. For ten or fifteen minutes I spoke and protested against this general method of handling divorces. Then, as I say, the 15, 20 or 30 bills, whatever the number was, went through very quickly, just as you are doing today, sir. That was the end of the matter.
There were two protested cases, and those we gave fairly deliberate consideration. One of them we decided not to pass the preamble, and the result was the divorce was not granted. It is now removed from this list. That is a record of the procedure in that particular committee. The committee did not vary at all this year from what it had done in the past.


George Hugh Castleden: We are glad to have that information, Mr. Chairman. It further confirms the information that we had and the evidence that we have before the house that these bills are being passed without members

knowing the evidence or being aware of the circumstances. I hope that will be ended.
Bill reported.


William Gilbert Weir: the third readings of Bills Nos. 298 to 311 inclusive, 314 to 324 inclusive, and 328 to 372 inclusive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
it agreed that these bills be now read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point, although perhaps it is highly technical. Just to keep it clear, when you listed those groups of numbers it sounds as though you included Bill No. 333, and since Bill No. 333 is not on the order paper I should like it to be clear that there is not some slip by means of which it gets passed.


Mr. Fleming:: There are other gaps, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are other gaps, but Bill No. 333 happens to be a divorce bill that was defeated in the private bills committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Bill
No. 333 does not appear on the order paper, so perhaps I should say except Bill No. 333.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The divorce bills on the order paper except Bills Nos. 312 and 327.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
is agreed that these bills be read a third time?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bills read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: At
eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: At five o'clock the committee was discussing clause 163 of the Criminal Code and the amendment moved by Mr. Diefenbaker.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Chairman, when the committee was adjourned at five o'clock I was discussing the need for federal legislation which would give the federal government
Criminal Code
power to deal with the pollution of interprovincial rivers. On January 19, the hon. member for Prince Albert asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. The minister replied as follows as reported at page 1234 of Hansard:
My hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his question. He asks first of all what, pursuant to the inquiry made of my officers in my absence, was the situation resulting from communications made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to the appropriate departments of health of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Contact has been made with the officers in the two departments of the two provinces. The facts of the matter have been ascertained.
This is what I want the committee to note.
The responsibility for remedying the situation is recognized by both provinces as not coming within the competence of the federal government. Indeed, whether or not there was that acknowledgment I would have to submit that would have to be the situation as far as the federal government is concerned, for this is clearly a matter that does not come within the competence of the federal government.
As I emphasized in my remarks before the recess, the people in my constituency who are affected by this pollution have urged me to get this government to introduce legislation which would give them some protection. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that the province of Alberta had the authority to deal with this matter and was fully capable of dealing with it. I wish to put section 12, chapter 53 of the Alberta public health act on record. The act states:
The provincial board shall have the general supervision of all springs, wells, ponds, lakes, streams or rivers used as a source of a public water supply, or for agricultural, domestic or industrial purposes with reference to their purity, together with the waters feeding the same, and shall examine the same from time to time when the necessity for such examination arises, and inquire what, if any, pollution exists and the causes thereof.
They only have to examine the water when the necessity for examination arises and inquire what, if any, pollution exists and the causes thereof. The act continues:
The provincial board may inquire into and hear and determine any complaint made by or on behalf of a riparian proprietor entitled to the use of water, that any industrial waste or any other polluting material of any kind whatsoever, which either by itself or in connection with other matter may corrupt or impair the quality of the water or may render such water unfit for accustomed or ordinary use, has been placed in or discharged into such water, or placed or deposited upon the ice thereof, or placed or suffered to remain upon the bank or shore thereof. The provincial board may make a report to the minister upon such complaint and as to what remedial measures, if any, are required in respect to any alleged injury or invasion of right as it may deem just.
Where the report of the provincial board recommends the removal or degree of treatment of any such polluting material, any riparian proprietor interested or the minister may apply to a judge of the supreme court or to a district court judge

Criminal Code
by way of originating notice according to the practice of the court, for an order for the removal or abatement of the injury in terms of the report of the provincial board and to restrain the proprietors of the industry from carrying on the same, or the proprietors or other offending party or parties from continuing the acts complained of until the injury or invasion of right has been abated to the satisfaction of the provincial board.
That is quite all right as far as it goes, but there is no penalty provided in the act after what I might call the crime has been committed. When the board issued an order to the Canadian Chemical Company to stop pouring certain elements into the river the company did what they could. They put up a temporary pipe and that pipe was used to divert certain elements for 24 hours, but after 24 hours the pipe was clogged with residue. What did they do? Did they shut the plant down? No, they turned it right back into the river again. I for one cannot understand why this company which knew of the distress which was being caused to 25,000 or 30,000 people did not close their plant down until they could erect a permanent take-off or pipeline. But instead of that they put the stuff back into the river and it was allowed to run into the river for another 36 hours.
The Prince Albert city council held a meeting a report of which is contained in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 16. Here is the report in part:
Our solicitors tell us that company officials worked frantically to clear the obstruction in the pipes last week. But they were not frantic enough to close the plant.
That is the Canadian Chemical Company.
I note, too, that a director of the plant, a Col. H. A. Eydt, expressed annoyance at the publicity given the re-pollution of the river.
I said earlier that the people in my constituency wanted this mess cleaned up. The hon. member for Prince Albert in his remarks stated he had never seen the people in that part of the country so worked up over anything as they are over this particular situation. I am not going to read the dozens of letters I have received, but I want to put two or three editorials on the record. These are newspaper editorials and have no particular political background. I have one here, the North Battleford News-Optimist. I am not going to read it all, but 1 will read the last part:
Whatever the truth may be one thing is certain.
And here I would like to make a correction. The minister has mentioned North Battleford in connection with pollution several times, but the city of North Battleford is not affected. The city of North Battleford is using well water. But the town of Battleford is affected. The editorial continues:
North Battleford is blessed with untainted water. What a blessing that is!

At Battleford, the Saskatchewan hospital, Prince Albert, and numerous other communities up and down the North Saskatchewan river, a real threat exists. The water smells ... it tastes like varnish.
That any single industry should so pollute a nation's natural resource is a crime that should be punishable by the law of the land. We in North Battleford who fortunately have not suffered should, and we sure do support our brothers in their fight to have this menace dealt with by the government at Ottawa.
And then the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix had this to say:
It is true, no doubt, that the water pollution from which North Battleford and Prince Albert-
They are wrong again there. They say "North Battleford". It should be Battleford.
-are now suffering does not make the North Saskatchewan river any less navigable than usual. From this point of view, Mr. Chevrier's objection to Mr. Campbell's proposal to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act to take account of the difficulty may have been justified. But the Minister of Transport did not argue on that basis alone. He seemed to be claiming that it would be unconstitutional for parliament to legislate at all with respect to a form of pollution which does not affect navigation or fisheries and may not be medically injurious to health.
We should like to see Mr. Chevrier's opinion tested in the courts, especially if investigation proves the theory that the pollution originates in Alberta.
And that theory has been proven.
For whatever the health implications, there is no doubt, we think, that the taste and smell of their domestic water are more than annoyances to the people of the two Saskatchewan cities. People just will not drink disagreeable water if they can help it; and because they will not North Battleford, Prince Albert and perhaos other communities along the river may suffer economically.
Then I have another editorial again from the North Battleford News-Optimist which reads as follows:
We sympathize with the residents of Battleford. Their water tastes like varnish and smells like . . ., well, it smells like varnish too. Some 3,400 residents of Battleford and the Saskatchewan hospital are presently suffering from the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river.
Fortunately, the people of the city of North Battleford are not affected. They derive their water from wells which have not yet been tainted.
It is unfortunate that governments act so slow. The government of Saskatchewan has not been able to deal effectively with the government of Alberta. It thus seems time that the senior government at Ottawa should step into the picture immediately and settle this issue. The pollution cannot be allowed to continue, for not only is it obnoxious to the taste and smell, but there is a new fear growing among members of the medical profession at Prince Albert that it is also injurious to our people's health.
The water of the great rivers belongs to all the people of Canada. We cannot afford at any time to allow industries to destroy it. The waters of the North Saskatchewan river are a resource which must be protected since it would not be possible for the thousands of people who depend upon it for water to live without it comfortably.

Then Godfrey Hudson whom all of the western members will know-he is one of Canada's noted news commentators-has this to say in a commentary he made on February 24:
The water in the rivers of this country belongs to the Canadian people. Yet a member of the federal cabinet has said that industries and communities from coast to coast have been polluting river water for years, and that the federal government has no jurisdiction over pollution. We think it is high time the federal government amended the constitution, if necessary, to get the power to control the dumping of wastes into rivers. The federal government has the power to control navigation in our rivers. If it is important enough for Ottawa to wield control over navigation, surely it is important enough for Ottawa to exercise control over something that affects the well-being of tens of thousands of Canadians.
We submit that the awful water that the people of Battleford, the patients and the staff of the Saskatchewan hospital at North Battleford, the residents of Prince Albert and the residents of The Pas, Manitoba, have had to drink in recent months has shown a glaring weakness in the present division of powers between the provinces and the federal government. There should be federal legislation establishing uniform control coast to coast over what can be dumped into rivers that are sources of drinking water. And any industry or municipal corporation that plans to dump waste into a river should have to get a federal health permit before getting a construction permit.
That is just what I was saying before supper. Most of what has been said has had to do with humans but we have fisheries legislation in Canada. What has happened to the fish in the North Saskatchewan river? Here is an article from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 16, from the Prince Albert correspondent:
"The chemical pollution of the North Saskatchewan river threatens to wipe out the fish population of the river," A. H. McDonald, director of the fisheries branch of the Saskatchewan department of natural resources, stated here Monday afternoon. A full report on the situation is to be made to the provincial government and federal department of fisheries.
At the same time, city council here, through its Edmonton solicitors, said it would take legal action against the Canadian Chemical Company at Edmonton, unless concrete assurances were given that no more polluting chemicals would be placed in the river by the company.
Then I am passing over and leaving out a portion of this article which continues further on as follows:
In his fisheries report, Mr. McDonald said tests conducted by his department during the last month had shown a "dangerously low oxygen content" of the water of the river and that the chemicals present appeared to be responsible. "We have noted increasing numbers of dead fish in the river, with a total of 130 dead fish being noted at one small open area near the city."
He said the situation was better downstream, after the junction of the north and south branches of the Saskatchewan river. However, at Cumberland House the fish, while alive, were unfit to eat because of an offensively oily taste, and residents had discontinued fishing.
Criminal Code
Recent tests conducted at Prince Albert, when fish from the South Saskatchewan were kept in observation tanks at the power house here, showed that fish placed in a wire screen under the ice, died within an hour of being placed in the water.
The oxygen content of the river necessary for proper fish respiration varies from five to nine parts per million parts of water, Mr. McDonald said. "As far west as Frenchman Butte, the average oxygen content of the North Saskatchewan river is approximately one part per million," he said. "In comparison, the water of the South Saskatchewan at St. Louis averages 13 parts per million, which is good for the time of the year."
"Our biologists are of the opinion that few fish can survive the condition prevalent in the North Saskatchewan," Mr. McDonald said.
What does that mean? That means that it is almost certain that there is not a live fish in the North Saskatchewan river today. How many fish are in the river normally? I do not know. There are probably hundreds of thousands. What is going to happen now when the river has perhaps hundreds of thousands of dead fish in it? How is it going to affect the health of our people? Our people write me and tell me that they are now desperately afraid of a typhoid epidemic. There is a great deal more that I could say, but I do not want to take up any more of the time of the committee. However, I want to make this plea to the government. Our people are looking to this government across the way to bring in legislation that will definitely put a stop to this sort of thing. They are looking, not only to me and to the hon. member for Prince Albert to make a fight but to the other members from the province of Saskatchewan and to every member of the house who may possibly find himself and his constituency in the same position.
It can happen to other constituencies besides Prince Albert and The Battlefords. I appeal, I plead with the government of Canada to take remedial action first of all to bring in health laws which will prevent any industry from commencing business until such time as it has given assurance that it is not going to pollute our rivers. In the second place, we want legislation in the Criminal Code which will make it a crime for any industry to do what the Canadian Chemical Company did. They set up a mechanical monster that can do even greater and bigger things than Paul Bunyan and his blue ox. In the early days on the western plains people used to tell great stories about Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, about what the blue ox could do and what Paul Bunyan could do, but this mechanical monster can put its odours and stenches into every home in the city of Prince Albert, the town of Battleford and even into the provincial hospital.
Surely it is time that we did something to stop this. I want to hear from the Minister

Criminal Code
of National Health and Welfare and I want to hear from the Minister of Justice and others. I suggested an amendment a couple of weeks ago. I do not want to try to amend the Criminal Code because I am not a lawyer. That is the job of the government across the way. That is the job that our people are looking to you to do. Let us hear what you will do about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, with the great and rapid growth of the petrochemical and other types of industry in the oil fields of northern Alberta I think we can all agree that the nation is faced with the problem of what to do with the river pollution which could be caused by such industries in northern Alberta unless something is done to prevent it. Western Canada is faced for the first time with a problem that has been common in eastern Canada, namely, how, under the pressure of industrial development, the rivers of the country can be put to the most advantageous use. I do not think there will be any argument as to the necessity of our facing up to the problem. Perhaps the only argument that will develop is as to the best methods of solving it.
I should like to examine the matter tonight from that standpoint, and to begin with an examination of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert since that is the immediate question before us. Then, because I think that is not a satisfactory method, I should like to move on to suggest others which in my view would be much more satisfactory than the one he has suggested. First of all I should like to deal with some of the facts which he mentioned in his remarks. The first one is that he stated that the corporation in question had stopped the practice of discharging effluent into the river. As we will recall, on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter the problem was not quite that which we have tonight. The problem then was to find out what the facts were.
I suggested on that occasion that it would be impossible, no matter what clauses we had in the Criminal Code, to lay a charge against the guilty corporation until we knew what the facts were and knew which corporation was the guilty one. If my hon. friend will recall, I also suggested that I thought that when we found out what the facts were I would be very much surprised indeed if, when confronted with those facts, the corporation in question would not be quite willing to desist from the practice of discharging its effluent into the river without the necessity of any prosecution at all. It was very gratifying to have the hon. member for Prince Albert tell us this afternoon that

that is precisely what has happened, that when the facts were established and the company in question was confronted with them it did desist although, as the hon. member for The Battlefords suggested, there was a short period of time during which the arrangements it made to divert its effluent from the Saskatchewan river broke down.
The suggestion is now made that there is no offence in the code covering this act, and in due course I want to take issue with that statement. The hon. member for Prince Albert having alleged that there now is no offence covering the act of pollution suggests an amendment to provide such an offence. I should like to deal with his amendment. To begin with, I think the amendment is made to quite an inappropriate clause of the bill. It is made to section 163 which comes under the general heading of "Disturbing religious services". This section 163 in its present form is aimed at those who, as set out in the second subsection (b) of this section, throw a stink bomb or stench bomb or device from which any offensive volatile substance mentioned in paragraph (a) of the same section is or is capable of being liberated, and is likely to alarm, inconvenience, discommode or cause discomfort to any person or to cause damage to property.
I do not think that is an appropriate section to amend for the purpose of preventing the discharge of effluent into a river. But I am not stating that as a captious criticism because I will admit at once that if section 163 is not an appropriate section to amend it would be a very simple matter, once we had concluded that such an amendment was the proper method of dealing with the problem, to select a suitable section of the code or to create a new and suitable section to deal with this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Right on that point I would point out to my hon. friend that the reference to disturbing religious services cannot apply to this group of sections in general because section 162 says:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, loiters or prowls at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
That has nothing to do with church services at all. As a matter of fact the heading for this group of sections is not a correct designation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at the section that he is seeking to amend, he will see that the significant words in it read as follows:
Every one other than a peace officer . . . who deposits, throws or injects or causes to be deposited, thrown or injected in, into or near any place,

(a)	an offensive volatile substance that is likely to alarm, inconvenience, discommode or cause discomfort to any person or to cause damage to property, or
(b)	a stink or stench bomb or device from which any substance mentioned in paragraph (a) is or is capable of being liberated . . .
It deals with stench bombs or the contents of stench bombs and their discharge in or near any place to the alarm, inconvenience or discomfort of the people there. As I say, I am not raising this as a captious criticism, because it is quite apparent that if we want to solve the problem of the use of the waters of the North Saskatchewan river by creating new crimes by an amendment to the criminal law-it is a very easy matter, if we do not adopt my hon. friend's amendment, to produce an amendment which would be more appropriate for that purpose.
But what I do suggest is this, that when my hon. friend says there is no offence in Bill No. 7 which covers this act, I would refer him to clause 165 which provides:
Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
Now, the offence my hon. friend was proposing to create was an offence punishable upon summary conviction. It is true that when he moved his amendment he suggested it could be changed to be made punishable upon indictment. But until that change was made, the only penalty which could be imposed upon an accused corporation would be a fine of $1,000 which, I think, under the circumstances we have been considering, would not likely be an effective deterrent. The section dealing with a common nuisance, which I was reading, goes on to define a common nuisance in these terms:
For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or-


John George Diefenbaker: What is the unlawful act, or what is the legal duty?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The unlawful act, among other things, would be the breach of the statute which the hon. member for The Battlefords read a moment ago-by discharging the effluent into the river, in contravention of a statute of the province of Alberta or regulations passed thereunder. That would be an unlawful act beyond question, if we did not go on and deal with other aspects of the crime of a common nuisance and indicate that anything which was done in contravention of the public interest might, in itself,
Criminal Code
apart from being in contravention of the statute be regarded as an unlawful act.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that the legal opinion of the minister's law officers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a statement I am making, and for which I am taking the responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister always
says that he himself does not interpret the law, but that only the law officers do it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am making this speech, and I am responsible for it. And if my hon. friend wishes to contradict it he will have ample opportunity to do so. But I wish he would wait until I have finished before he interrupts to contradict it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not contradicting; I was just asking a question, to see what foundation there was.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, the proposal is to create a new offence. For reasons I have stated, I do not think that this new offence which my hon. friend is proposing to create would be satisfactory for the purpose he has in mind because, among other things, he confines the substance he wishes to prohibit to offensive volatile substances, or any chemical or synthetic chemical, or any other substance.
Now, it is true that in the present case, as would appear from the facts, chemicals were put into the river. But surely if we are going to have a section here which will serve the purposes that have been urged upon us during the present discussion, we would have to have a definition of "substance" which would be broader than merely chemicals.
It is true that my hon. friend says "or any other substance" but he precedes that by the words "volatile substance or any chemical". And I think he will agree that under the ejusdem generis rule, if you have a general term following a number of particular terms, the general term is interpreted as being of the same genus or kind as the particular terms which in the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert refer to chemicals only. This I suggest is not a satisfactory or adequate wording.
Again my hon. friend will say that this is just captious criticism; but I assure him it is not. And it is not captious for this reason, that if my hon. friend adopts a broad enough wording to really provide a solution to this problem, and we put such broad wording into the Criminal Code, which has to have general application to the Dominion of Canada from coast to coast, then I wonder what

Criminal Code
would be the position of most of the municipalities and a large number of the industries, for example, on the Ottawa river and the St. Lawrence river system under this section which my hon. friend is proposing to move.
I do not think for one moment that my hon. friend's amendment provides a satisfactory solution to the problem of how we are to use for the purposes of the general public and the municipalities and industries of western Canada in an orderly way the waters of the South and North Saskatchewan rivers.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Make it applicable to all of Canada, because we do not want pollution anywhere else in Canada, either.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am trying to coniine my remarks to the western problem we are discussing. I think the hon. member for The Battlefords is quite right in this, that if the solution which we provide for the North and South Saskatchewan rivers were to take the form of an amendment to the Criminal Code it would be a solution which would automatically have to be applied to all the other rivers in Canada. And in judging what we should do in that regard we must keep that point in mind.
For that reason we will find that if we are to draft a law of general application for Canada we are more severely restricted in the scope we can take in, because it has to be of general application, than we would be if we were providing a solution which was tailored to the requirements of the North Saskatchewan river alone. And that is another reason why I think the amendment to the Criminal Code is not an orderly solution to this question.
I suggest this-without going into any detail

because I am not a health engineer or a chemical engineer, and I do not know what one should include in a list of substances which were to be barred by the Criminal Code from the Saskatchewan river-but I suggest that if the list were wide enough to be of value then it would be so wide that if applied now to all the rivers in Canada in existing industrial areas it would cause substantial complications which I do not think the hon. member for Prince Albert has taken into account.
For that reason it seems to me that in line with the suggestion made by the hon. member for The Battlefords there is another method of a much more orderly character which would be preferable as a method of utilizing the waters of the Saskatchewan river so that they could be used by industries, within proper limits, and by the general public in western Canada, in a manner

whereby they would both derive benefits and neither would suffer serious injury.
I think the solution is to be found in what has already been done by the international joint commission of the United States and Canada when they have addressed themselves to this subject under conditions of infinitely greater disadvantage than those which apply in connection with the Saskatchewan river. Because we are here dealing with the first signs of the problem of pollution in these western streams, whereas when the members of the international joint commission of the United States and Canada applied themselves to the question of the pollution of boundary waters between the United States and Canada, they had to come to grips with a problem that was already in an aggravated and advanced state.
How did they grapple with this problem? If my hon. friends are interested at all, they can find a reference to these points that I shall be making in the report of the international joint commission of the United States and Canada on the pollution of boundary waters published at Washington and Ottawa in 1951. I will not of course cover any large part of it for it is quite a lengthy document. But perhaps I might be permitted first of all to give an indication of what is covered in the heading of objectives of boundary waters quality control. The general objectives are these:
All wastes,-
And this will give the hon. member for Prince Albert some idea of how you would have to define effluent which you are prohibiting from the streams. I continue:
All wastes, including sanitary sewage, storm water and industrial effluents, shall be in such condition when discharged into any stream that they will not create conditions in the boundary waters which will adversely affect the use of those waters for the following purposes:	source of
domestic water supply or industrial water supply, navigation, fish and wildlife, bathing, recreation, agriculture and other riparian activities.
In general, they say, adverse conditions are caused by:
(A)	Excessive bacterial, physical or chemical contamination.
(B)	Unnatural deposits in the stream, interfering with navigation, fish and wildlife, bathing, recreation, or destructive aesthetic values.
(C)	Toxic substances and materials imparting objectionable tastes and odours to waters used for domestic or industrial purposes.
I ask the hon. member for The Battlefords to see how closely this describes some of the things that he has been complaining about. I go on:
(D)	Floating materials, including oils, grease, garbage, sewage solids, or other refuse.

Then it goes on to state in more specific terms the objectives. They say:
Specific objectives
In more specific terms, adequate controls of pollution will necessitate the following objectives for:
(A) Sanitary sewage, storm water, and wastes from water craft
Sufficient treatment for adequate removal or reduction of solids, bacteria and chemical constituents which may interfere unreasonably with the use of these waters for purposes aforementioned. Adequate protection for these waters, except in certain specific instances influenced by local conditions, should be provided if the conform M.P.M. median value does not exceed 2,400 per hundred ml. at any point in the waters following initial dilution.
Then they go on to deal with industrial wastes, first of all, under the heading:
Chemical wastes-phenolic type
I believe they are the ones that are involved in the Saskatchewan river. Then they go on to deal with chemical wastes other than phenolic. They deal with each one of these one by one, and deal specifically with the conditions in which the effluents must be at the time they are discharged into the river. Then they deal with highly toxic wastes, and with the problem that the hon. member for The Battlefords mentioned tonight, the deoxygenating of waters.
Then they provide for consultation with the various interests concerned. I am informed that far from there being any great amount of difficulty with industry in the carrying out of their objectives, they have found, certainly in several specific cases, the greatest amount of co-operation from the industries concerned. And why should there not be? The industries themselves with large investments have the strongest possible interests in seeing to it that the river upon which they, along with the other residents situate upon it, are dependent for supply of water, should be treated in an orderly and scientific manner.
I should like to read the recommendations af this report. They are not very long, and I ;hink they will shed a good deal of light upon what we might expect from an orderly approach to the problem which we have been discussing. They are as follows:
(1)	The commission recommends that the "objectives for boundary waters quality control" as set forth in this report be adopted by the two governments as the criteria to be met in maintaining boundary waters in satisfactory condition, as contemplated in that portion of Article IV of the boundary waters treaty of 1909 wherein it is stated: "It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other."
(2)	The commission recommends that the remedial measures already known to be necessary as described in the accompanying reports of the
Criminal Code
technical advisers be put into effect and that additional measures be undertaken as may prove to be necessary in the future to meet the recommended "objectives".
(3)	As a procedure to insure accomplishment of the foregoing, the commission recommends that it be specifically authorized by the two governments to establish and maintain continuing supervision over boundary waters pollution through boards of control appointed by the commission. In carrying out this supervisory function, the commission shall notify those responsible for any pollution found objectionable in the light of the objectives recommended above and, in the event that assurance is not received that such pollution will be corrected in a reasonable time, shall make recommendations to the appropriate authority, having jurisdiction as to the further action deemed advisable.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the face of the problem which is posed by the opening of a great industrial expansion within the valleys, certainly of the North Saskatchewan river, that the only intelligent way to approach it is by this method and not by creating some new offence and haling people into police court and fining them, and when the case is closed, what then happens? Do they go and sin no more, or if they do, who is going to check them?


John George Diefenbaker: If they sin some more they are punished again.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the chief of police or the constable a person qualified to deal with a problem such as the one that has been mentioned, or should it not be dealt with by people who are trained in this sort of work and who know what they are talking about when they are dealing, for example, with the type of chemicals that are alleged to have caused this trouble in the North Saskatchewan river or with any other forms of river pollution?
My hon. friend might say, well, this is going to be very difficult because we will not be able to get together these western provincial governments, which, according to the arguments of both the hon. gentlemen who preceded me in this debate, apparently cannot come to an agreement in this matter. The argument is that by co-operation they cannot solve this problem, so therefore they must come down to the great white father, the federal government, and he is to force them all into position and make them agree and come to an intelligent solution of what is their common problem.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not the point at aU.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I say that any statement or implication of that kind is quite unwarranted; and it can be proven to be quite unwarranted in terms of what has already been done in relation to the waters of the Saskatchewan river itself. At the present time there is in

Criminal Code
existence the prairie waters control board set up by the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the powers of that board?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was just about to read them when my hon. friend interjected. I was a little bit hesitant about boring the committee with this long statement of powers, but since my hon. friend provokes me I have the best excuse for doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: You are doing a marvellous job on that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Their first task is this:
(a)	to collate and analyse the data now available relating to the water and associated resources of interprovincial streams with respect to their utilization for irrigation, drainage, storage, power, industrial, municipal, navigation and other purposes;
(b)	to determine what other data are required from time to time in order to reach decisions on questions referred to it and to make recommendations to the appropriate governmental organizations concerned for the carrying out of such field surveys, power investigations, soil surveys, establishment of gauging stations, economic studies relating to drainage and flood control and all similar work which the board considers necessary to supply information required for the proper performance of its duties;
(c)	upon the request of any one of the three provinces or the dominion to recommend the allocation of the waters of any interprovincial stream among the respective provinces;
(d)	to report on any questions relating to specific projects for the utilization or control of common river or lake systems at the request of one or more of the ministers or authorities charged with the administration of such river or lake systems.
Mr. Cold well: May I ask the minister a question? Will he tell us how that covers pollution, because it seems to me if we follow his own argument the powers of the board relate to the water tables and there is nothing covering pollution.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friends are determined to anticipate my arguments, but I do not object to that. It shows they are at least paying attention to them.
Mr. Cold well:	Yes, I am paying close
attention.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It does not cover pollution. It never purported to cover pollution. It was formed before the question of pollution had arisen and naturally it did not deal with something which did not exist.
The point I make, and I might put it in very brief form, is that this board has to do with what quantities of water will be let down from time to time and with the quantities which may be diverted, retained or expended in irrigation and the like.


John George Diefenbaker: But not the quantities polluted.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just give me a little time. I am going to come to pollution in a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have to build the Saskatchewan dam first.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest that just as this is the intelligent way to deal with the quantity of water which is to be in these interprovincial rivers, so the intelligent way of dealing with the quality of the water that is to be in these rivers is along the same lines. I believe the proper thing to do in this particular connection is to suggest to these prairie governments, which should be and I am confident are deeply concerned about this great problem about which the hon. member for Prince Albert has been so eloquent these many times-


John George Diefenbaker: I want to tell you if you
heard the people of Saskatchewan being eloquent, you would understand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, and I am giving him credit. I give the people credit, too, for being eloquent. If I were in their shoes I do not know whether I would be eloquent but I would certainly be strongly articulate.
I suggest that this method of having a body of scientific men to study the problem, to ascertain what is involved in it and deal with it accordingly, offers, on the basis of the precedent of the international joint commission, by long odds the most sensible method of dealing with this problem, and infinitely more sensible than a series of police court prosecutions.
Now, let me make one or two points clear at this stage. This prairie provinces water board now is purely an advisory body. It has no overriding authority of its own at the present time. It has been set up to advise their respective governments whose representatives compose it. It is quite true that before the recommendations they make can become effective they must be ratified by the governments concerned. But I am told the board has had a good measure of success in getting their governments to adopt their recommendations. I would suggest that, as compared with any further amendments to the Criminal Code, especially if they are as inadequate as the ones suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert, it would be infinitely preferable to have this body instructed by the governments which set it up to take over the authority to deal with the question of the quality of the water.
If, for one reason or another, they are not experts in that particular field of pollution because they are men who deal more with quantity problems than with quality problems-they should add to their numbers

people who are competent in this other field. If necessary another body of the same character could be set up.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it not the federal government that set it up?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it was not the great white father.


John George Diefenbaker: The water board in
western Canada was not set up by the federal government?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The water board in western Canada, I may inform my friend, was set up by the four governments who are parties to it.


John George Diefenbaker: Who are they?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have already named them, but I shall name them again in the same way I did a moment ago. They were the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Canada; those are the four.
This is merely a suggestion made, if you like, by an outsider from this problem. We in western Canada are just on the eve of a very large industrial expansion. This trouble we have been having is the first harbinger of a lot of other problems of the same character that will arise shortly. If we are going to deal with them in an orderly way we do not want to give this problem of the chemical or other pollution of water, which is a problem for scientists and engineers, into the hands of the chiefs of police or to throw them into the courts for solution when they can be dealt with by a body of this nature that is competent in the scientific and engineering fields.
In this respect I am completely in agreement with the hon. member for The Battle-fords. I feel this is the opportune time to take this move because in so far as these large western streams are concerned, we will be able to get in at the very beginning of the river pollution problems that are arising. From the beginning we would have that control over the problem which would have been of enormous advantage to the international joint commission if it had been able to deal earlier in their history with the problems with which it is now dealing. It is for these reasons I am very sorry that I cannot support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the hon. member for Prince Albert speaks I think at this stage it is my duty to remind the committee that what is under discussion is the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Prince Albert, widening the description of certain criminal offences. I am asking the
Criminal Code
committee not to allow itself to be led so far away from that amendment that we will find we are debating the merits of alternative methods of dealing with the pollution of a certain river, whereas we should be debating the applicability of the Criminal Code to that situation.
I believe members of the committee will agree with me that where I and others in the Chair have allowed a debate to get too far afield, we eventually found we were debating the merits of something that was not before the committee at all. I submit that for the guidance of the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Never before in this house have I heard such a torrent of words in order to arrive at a negative position. Certainly the minister's suggestion about the water board was one of the most ludicrous I have ever heard advanced. The water board has nothing whatever to do with the quality of the water. It had to do with the allocation of water as among the three western provinces in order to determine whether or not irrigation projects should be permitted.
The minister says we are on the eve of an industrial development and, to use his own words, we ought to deal with matters such as this in an orderly way. So far as the people of Saskatchewan are concerned, those long-suffering 50,000, this will indeed be a very black Friday. A few weeks ago when the matter was under discussion the minister said he could not deal with the question then because we did not know whether there was any evidence against anyone. We did not know who the wrongdoer was, but once we found out who the wrongdoer was then we would be in a position to consider amendments to the Criminal Code.
At that time I stated that in my opinion the wrongdoer was Canadian Chemical Company. That conclusion has since been established beyond peradventure. The minister says we should follow some course similar to that of the international joint commission. That commission has done outstanding work. It has the power to act and it does act. The minister read the preamble of the powers of this body and said that in order to cover pollution in all of its various aspects there would have to be a great many terms defining the offence. But that is what the law officers were to consult about. That is the reason for the delay in connection with this matter. For almost five months now 50,000 people have been waiting for parliament to act. The province of Saskatchewan, and I hold no brief for the government of that province, cannot act. It has no

Criminal Code
power to act and the only government that can act is the government of Alberta. It is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? We have now, as he has said, knowledge as to which company is mainly responsible for this particular pollution. But will the hon. member say whether or not in his opinion it is open to any citizen of the province of Saskatchewan or Alberta or the law officers or any private citizen in Prince Albert to take injunction proceedings against the company in these circumstances? Will the hon. member say "yes" or "no" to that question?


John George Diefenbaker: All I will say is that counsel who have been retained say there is no right of action, and it is counsel's opinion that is accepted. The minister has brought up the question of an injunction. But the health of the people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba has been affected by what has taken place and has been seriously undermined and the minister's department has done nothing but send out two officials-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking at the moment.


An hon. Member:: It is a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will the minister please state his point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, when this debate began I refrained altogether from discussing the merits of this question, but my hon. friend has now stated that the Department of National Health and Welfare has done nothing-


John George Diefenbaker: Except send out two .officials.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and the house knows and the hon. member knows better than anyone else that department materially assisted in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a point of order.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will the hon.
member for Prince Albert kindly allow the minister to put his point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. gentleman is going to be allowed to discuss whether or not the government has done anything in this matter I want the opportunity to reply because that is not the case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend interrupts more than anyone else in this house and when he is on the spot he can never take it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will both hon.
gentlemen kindly resume their seats? I was about to raise the point of order which has been raised by the minister. It is my ruling that it is not within the competence of this committee at this time to discuss whether or not the Department of National Health and Welfare did or did not take certain action in connection with the Saskatchewan river. What this committee is discussing is whether or not the Criminal Code should be amended, and in that connection the situation on the Saskatchewan river certainly comes within the ambit of this discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: All of which indicates, Mr. Chairman, how interruptions such as those made by my hon. friend deviate and divert a discussion which comes within the ambit of your authority.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You should know.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare speaking strictly to the subject matter of this amendment, but apparently we are not going to be able to induce him to rise from his seat to say something definite about this matter which will affect the people of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Have you another chairman over there?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, let me say that we are getting the same interference and the same jeers from the Liberal side of the house as we got a few weeks ago when we were discussing this problem. Have my hon. friends from Saskatchewan who are supporting the government said anything about this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Give them a chance.


John George Diefenbaker: No, not one word.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. My hon. friend, perhaps for the benefit of the residents of Prince Albert, stated quite inaccurately that there were jeers on this side of the house. There was not one single jeer.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, one cannot put jeers on the record and we do not broadcast these proceedings, but certainly the sounds we heard were not sounds of approval. Does the Minister of Justice say they were sounds of approval?


An hon. Member:: They were sounds of disapproval.


John George Diefenbaker: No, there is no answer. The people of Prince Albert and Battleford have waited five long months for action since the matter was first brought up. First it was stated that in a very short time a solution would be forthcoming. But this matter-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend knows very well that no one ever said what he is indicating was said and he knows that better than anyone else.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think in this case the point of order raised by the minister is very well taken. I myself did not consider that the last remarks of the hon. member for Prince Albert were directed to the Criminal Code. I suggest that the hon. member for Prince Albert bring his remarks under the standing order which states that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. If the hon. member will do that I will do my best to see that he is not interrupted.


John George Diefenbaker: Returning once more, without interruption, to the amendment, the Minister of Justice states that it does not cover every eventuality which might arise, that it does not cover all the facets and possibilities in connection with pollution. I therefore suggest that the minister, having available the law officers of the crown and with the experience of the international joint commission, should draft an amendment which will cover the situation. My hon. friend from The Battlefords spoke in the most restrained terms when he asked parliament to act on this question. All we ask is that in the industrial development which is commencing in western Canada no corporation in its own interests may use the rivers in western Canada or any part of Canada to the detriment of the welfare of the people as a whole. There is only one way in which that can be enforced and that is under the nuisance section. I have never heard of such a naive and pompous argument as that which the minister endeavoured to advance when he said that clause 163 dealt with religious services. That was one of the most unusual arguments-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, I would just like to make a correction. What I said was that the clause in question was in that part of the code headed by the terms "disturbing religious services" and that it dealt with the throwing of stench bombs at meetings.
Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: That indicates that the minister has not read the section. I will now refer him to the section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Read it.


John George Diefenbaker: The general heading
under which section 161 comes is "disturbing religious services". Section 162, which is part of that general section according to my hon. friend, reads as follows:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, loiters or prowls at night upon the property of another person near a dwelling house situated on that property is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about vagrancy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No jeering there.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Then section 163 reads as follows:
Every one other than a peace officer engaged in the discharge of his duty who has in his possession in a public place or who deposits, throws or injects or causes to be deposited, thrown or injected in, into or near any place,
(a) an offensive volatile substance ... is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Exactly. Will my hon. friend read subclause (b)? It is the crucial subclause.


John George Diefenbaker: We are not dealing with the stink bomb. We are dealing with volatile substances. After all, my hon. friend seems to be returning forever to the stink bomb. I am not concerned with that matter. I am concerned about the volatile substances going into the Saskatchewan river. My hon. friend says that amendment might well apply to some other section, that an offence could be created. But then after a vast explanation he says that the government does not intend to accept the amendment I suggested by way of a tentative suggestion so that at least the general purport of the demands of the people in Saskatchewan would be brought before the committee. Speaking for the government the minister has stated that no amendment will be accepted. That simply means that from now on if any corporation continues to dump substances into the Saskatchewan river, places our people's health in jeopardy, makes it impossible for people to use the water of the river that belongs to the people of Canada and is not the property of any corporation, nothing can be done.
We can do no more if he refuses that amendment. We have made our representations. We intend to bring the matter to a vote in order to find out whether or not the people in Saskatchewan are to be placed in the position that they are not to be given

Criminal Code
some assistance under the criminal law, not with respect to past offences but with respect to future offences, in order to deny the recurrence of this type of thing. We want to know what is the attitude of the government. Certainly alibis, postponements, explanations as to other statutes that might apply but do not, and references to the international joint commission have nothing whatever to do with this question. All of that may be interesting as a recital but it does not meet the problem.
The last time this matter was before the committee the minister said, "Let us just find out the facts and then we will know whether or not an amendment to the Criminal Code should be made." We now have the facts. We now know that one corporation has been pouring three thousand gallons of chemical waste into the river, and that those chemical wastes have rendered the water unusable 300, 400 and 500 miles away; and there is nothing to prevent a repetition. It was in order to punish possible repetitions of this action that this amendment was moved. It is the only way in which the health of the people can be protected under the law as it now is. Indeed, in Prince Albert we have a sanatorium. The minister himself received from Dr. Kirkby of that sanatorium a letter written on March 15 in which he set forth the facts in these words;
Hon. S. Garson,
Department of Justice,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Please excuse handwritten letter hut have been confined to hospital here for past two months. I am superintendent of Prince Albert sanatorium, a 275-bed institution. The problem of water pollution has been a serious one for our patients. Recently a special filter was installed which was only partially successful.
This pollution question is more than a nuisance. I respectfully request that legislation be placed on our books to prohibit such flagrant disregard of the rights of others by any commercial or other organization.
Respectfully submitted,
R. W. Kirkby, M.D.
Medical Supt.
The only way in which the problem can be met is by making it a crime to do this type of thing. My hon. friend says that we should not make crimes unnecessarily, and I agree; but this is a necessary act. My hon. friend said we should proceed under section 165. Nothing of the kind. Section 165, under the heading "Nuisances", reads as follows:
Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

We cannot establish that: today. The medical doctors say it will be two years before we shall know the degree to which those who have gone ahead and used the water will be affected or not affected physically in consequence thereof.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who said that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would he not say that the comfort of the people of Prince Albert was interfered with-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -within the definition of public nuisance?


John George Diefenbaker: That is right. But again you read these words:
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public . . .


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; comfort of the public.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. My hon. friend has frequently referred to the ejusdem generis rule, that everything is interpreted with reference to the general words preceding it and that that is one of the reasons why counsel gave the opinion that section 165 did not constitute an offence. As I said before, and I repeat it, we cannot establish at the present time that the health is affected of individuals who are using that water; but we know that the Canadian National Railways have found that using this water in its present state is the best means by which to scale the flues of locomotives. If it does that, what must it do to human beings?


Mr. Nicholson:: Before the vote is taken I must rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert. The river with the polluted water crosses my constituency. It is true that I have not as many people involved as have the hon. member for The Battlefords and the hon. member for Prince Albert. They both made a very good case and I do not propose to cover the ground which they have already covered. While Cumberland House is not as large as Prince Albert or Battleford, it is an older centre. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will be interested in the problems that are going to affect his department.
The loss of the supply of fish is going to present a health problem for the Indian people at Cumberland House which I think is extremely serious. I was in Prince Albert on January 22 and I want to submit that if

parliament could have adjourned for a few days to sit in Prince Albert I feel sure we would have had action before now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Before you took the chair, a point of order was raised while the hon. member for Prince Albert was speaking. The issue before the house is whether or not a particular amendment to the Criminal Code should be accepted by the government, namely an amendment to deal with the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river. I as Minister of National Health and Welfare decided that it was not desirable to intervene on a purely legal aspect of the debate but I felt that I should reserve my right if there was going to be any discussion on the merits.
The hon. gentleman now speaking is discussing the merits of our handling of this particular pollution, not the merits of the amendment. If he is going to do that I can tell him that I would want to point out that the minister of health in Saskatchewan takes violent exception to what he has just said. If the hon. gentleman is going to discuss whether or not the government of Canada has done its duty towards this particular matter, then we are going to discuss the merits of the question. But the issue before us is whether or not a particular amendment should be made and accepted. That is the issue. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact you have not had the advantage of the discussion that preceded your taking the chair, that hon. members should observe that point of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that what my hon. friend is doing is trying to point out the necessity for this amendment, and in showing that the amendment is necessary surely he has to say something about the conditions now and the effect, without the amendment, upon the people whom he represents in the house. I think my hon. friend is quite within the four corners of the discussion in showing how failure to carry this amendment will adversely affect the constituents whom he represents.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We may take it for granted that we are all aware of the seriousness of the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no sign of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that he does not know about that. It was the Department of National Health and Welfare, in cooperation with the provinces, that was responsible for the improvement that has taken place. What the hon. member is now doing, and in another debate he would be perfectly 83276-230J
Criminal Code
in order, is seeking to establish the fact that he is interested in the problem, and because others want to keep within the rules of debate we are precluded from indicating that we are as greatly concerned as is the hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: What they want is action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For that reason the rules of debate should be strictly observed and the merits of the pollution of the North Saskatchewan should not be discussed at this time but whether or not the proposed legal method is the one to deal with the question of pollution generally speaking, and in that regard only with this particular pollution.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I feel that the point of order raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare is well taken. On the other hand, this debate has perhaps been somewhat broader than should be allowed under the strict rules of relevancy in committee. I am not going to rule that the hon. member for Mackenzie is entirely out of order but I would ask him to co-operate with the chair in an effort to confine his remarks to the merits of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you. I probably
would have been through by now if I had not been interrupted. The Minister of Justice, before you took the chair, Mr. Chairman, took about thirty minutes in indicating why he is going to oppose the amendment before us at the present time, and I think that I should be permitted to indicate that I am. going to support it and also to give reasons why I support it.
I submit that the welfare of my Indian friends, whose future is being jeopardized' because of the present situation, is a very real problem. As I said, I was in Prince Albert on the 22nd of January. The 22nd of February has passed, the 22nd of March has passed and there is still no legislation on the statute books that will give these people security for the future. If this is not the place to make some provision, then I submit that somewhere along the line the federal government should bring forward legislation that will protect the people because I think it is quite clear that people in Saskatchewan cannot take legal action that will give them the sort of protection they need.
The health of the people of Edmonton is not being affected, and I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the Indian people at Cumberland House should institute legal action against the Canadian Chemical Company, a very wealthy corporation, with a view to convincing the courts of this country that the

Criminal Code
corporation should discontinue a practice that is going to destroy food of the people of that northern area. When I was in Prince Albert on the 22nd of January I found that you could not drink tea or coffee made from the water. I would not want to take a shower or bath in this polluted water. I think hon. members do not realize what it means to have your water supply cut off so abruptly and for such a long period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have here the most recent issue of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which has just come to me and it contains a story from Prince Albert to the effect that whether or not the water improved the council planned to call a conference of all those affected by the pollution to see what measures could be taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not quite sure just what I did say, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are polluting our minds.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Anyway I am sure that I have the support of hon. members in trying to see that legislation is passed that will afford protection to the people living in these northern regions who are dependent on the water supply from the North Saskatchewan river.


Mr. Tucker:: I understand that the Minister of Justice has suggested that this matter is covered already by section 165 of the bill to amend the Criminal Code and that that section has already been dealt with. I would suggest that a reading of section 165 clearly indicates that it does cover this matter because it says:
(1)	Every one who commits a common nuisance and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety or health of the public, or
(b)	causes physical injury to any person, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
The section goes on to define what is a common nuisance. It reads as follows:
(2)	For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a) endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public . . .
I suggest that from a reading of the Alberta public health act, which was cited by the hon. member for The Battlefords, the discharge of this effluent into the river is definitely an unlawful act. My hon. friend said that there was no penalty provided but the penalty is here in the Criminal Code. If under a provincial statute it is an unlawful act

which endangers the comfort of the public it becomes a common nuisance, and section 165 says that anybody who commits a common nuisance is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years.
That is one ground upon which it comes within section 165. The only doubt that one could have about whether it would come under this section would arise from the fact that the common nuisance must endanger the lives, safety or health of the public. I do not think any court would have any difficulty whatever in saying that the pollution of river water, which caused people to be unwilling or unable to drink it, does endanger the health of the public where they have to rely upon that water. Certainly, as the minister pointed out, it does endanger the comfort of the public.
There is another way, I suggest, in which that comes within section 165. Some years ago the rural municipality of Cory obtained an injunction against the city of Saskatoon ordering that it should not discharge sewage into the Saskatchewan river. That injunction was a court order, and failure to obey it was an unlawful act. If they continued to disobey the injunction they would come squarely within the terms of section 165 of the act.
Surely if it is a nuisance subject to the obtaining of an injunction to discharge sewage into the river, it certainly would be possible to get an injunction to prevent the discharge of this material into the river, because it would be just as deleterious as the discharge of sewage. I have great respect for the opinion of the hon. member for Prince Albert, but I am sure he must be familiar with the fact that the rural municipality of Cory did obtain such an injunction, and that because of that the city of Saskatoon has had to make arrangements either to build a sewage disposal plant or render itself liable to be proceeded against under the Criminal Code, and the additional liability of contempt of court.
The way the law is at the present time, the actual commission of the nuisance has to be established. Once it is established it is subject to a penalty of two years. I can well understand that when this comes clearly within the "nuisance" clause of the Criminal Code, the Minister of Justice would object to having a clause like this inserted under the broad heading of "disturbing religious services", and taking it from under the heading of "nuisance", where it should be.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: How would you put a company in jail for two years?


Walter Adam Tucker: There is a provision in the Criminal Code where, when a corporation is

found guilty of an indictable offence, it can be fined rather than imprisoned. And while I do not carry in my mind the exact amount of the fine, my recollection is that it is very substantial.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I interrupt to point out that the fine is unlimited.


Walter Adam Tucker: The minister says it is unlimited. I knew a provision of that kind was made.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is clause 623 in this bill.


Walter Adam Tucker: And there is another provision that where a corporation is guilty of an offence, the officials responsible, as well as the corporation, can be proceeded against. So that I submit the amendment of the hon. member for Prince Albert would inject into the Criminal Code under the broad heading of "disturbing religious services" another matter which would introduce a measure of confusion.
Obviously this matter should be dealt with under "nuisances". I say to the minister that if there is any doubt about this being covered under the "nuisance" clause that doubt should be cleared up. However I do not think there is any doubt in my own mind that it is covered. If there is any doubt, then there should be no question about its being covered; because surely it should be a criminal offence to pollute the waters of a great river like the Saskatchewan so that the people cannot use it for drinking purposes, and so that those unfortunate people in mental hospitals or the provincial hospital at Battleford, who have no means of defending themselves, have to drink water that is practically undrinkable.
That is something that would certainly be a crime; and if there is any doubt about it, it should be made a crime. It is an interference with the health, safety and rights of the public who will use the water of a great river like the Saskatchewan river. I suggest with all deference that if it is not definitely a crime today, then parliament should make it a crime, because there can be no doubt of our competence under the constitution to declare it a crime.
However if it is fully dealt with, as the minister and the law officers of the crown are satisfied, so that action can be taken under the Criminal Code, there should be no need for an amendment. But I repeat that if there is any doubt I would strongly urge the minister to consider an amendment to section 165 to make it very clear that people do not have to go to court and get an injunction before it could be declared a crime under this section. If it is not clearly a crime
Criminal Code
or an offence under the appropriate section of the Alberta statute-as I think it is- which would bring it under section 165, then I suggest consideration should be given to making it very clear that it is an offence.
I do suggest with all deference that we make crimes many acts that are not as harmful to the public as the pollution of this great river, and the damage it has done to the people who rely upon it for drinking water. If there is any doubt about its being a crime, that doubt should be cleared up without delay or hesitation. However, as I said before, I think it is already covered.
I know the minister has given this matter careful consideration, and he appears to be satisfied that the situation is covered so that the people of Saskatchewan can take action, if this matter is not properly looked after, by bringing it into the court and having the corporation punished. If there is any doubt about their right to take that action, then without question that right should be given to them by parliament. I submit that, with all deference.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Chairman, this is the first intimation we have had from the minister or the government that there might be some legislation that would cover this pollution. But what is the position of, let us say, the city council of Prince Albert? In addition to the distress they have suffered, up to March 23 they had to spend something more than $3,000 for the hauling of water. Incidentally they hang black crepe on the doors of the houses to which the water is hauled. Then, the town of Battleford has had a well machine at a charge of $100 a day, and they have had it for some considerable time- I do not know just how long-in an effort to find water.
Apart from the distress they have suffered, will the town of Battleford, that is not in a very good financial position anyway, have to go to the expense of taking action against this company in Edmonton? Or will the federal government, under this act through which it says it has power, take action? Will it be up to the cities to take action, when they might stand the chance of losing, and thereby become liable for additional loss of money? There can be no doubt that a crime has been committed-no doubt about it- that a dastardly crime has been committed against these people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The attorney general of Saskatchewan could do it; there would be no difficulty about that.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?
<3642

Crintinal Code


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question to ask, in an effort to get some light on the matter.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, in spite of some of the lighter exchanges that have taken place across the floor of the house I, for one, would not want to suggest that the Minister of Justice or other hon. members supporting him are not concerned about this problem. I think it is something which warrants our serious consideration. I come from the balmy slopes of the Pacific side where our water certainly will not be polluted by the North Saskatchewan. But even the hon. member who moved this amendment did indicate that he was more concerned about having something adequate done than having the amendment passed in this particular form.
The Minister of Justice made some reference to clause 165 which deals with nuisances, and possibly that may be a more appropriate place in the Criminal Code in which something could be done. But after looking at it carefully I am not convinced it is adequate to deal with the kind of situation that has been described at some considerable length; because it would seem to me, and I have been educated to a certain extent, after listening to the minister in his exposition of some of these clauses, that it is necessary under clause 165, before a matter is a nuisance which is an indictable offence, to prove that the life, safety or health of the public has been endangered.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will continue reading it, he will see that it also includes their comfort.


Mr.   Bameii@: It is not that; it is in the part which says:
For the purposes of this section, every one commits a common nuisance-
It defines what constitutes a nuisance. Is it not true that in addition to it being a nuisance it has to endanger the life, safety or health of an individual before it is an indictable offence?
Now, I cannot help but contrast the situation of having no effective action under such a section with the situation which exists in respect to the pollution of waters where fisheries are involved, and which are covered under the Fisheries Act. It would be worthwhile to contrast this clause with the section as it is set forth in the Fisheries Act, having to do with a similar offence. Section 33, subsection 2 of the Fisheries Act says:
No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs . . .
[The Chairman.]
And so on, into the water. Section 61 of the same act prescribes the penalties for committing that offence. The penalty is $20 a day for the first offence and additional penalties if the offence is persisted in of so many dollars per day. It seems to me that the way in which that type of offence is set forth and the manner in which the penalties are prescribed in the Fisheries Act clearly place the onus on the person who may put anything into the waters to establish their prior right to do so before they put anything in.
Not long ago I happened to pick up a publication in which I was interested because it described a very detailed survey of the waters of the Upper Alberni inlet and the river which runs into it, which was made several years ago at a time when it was proposed to establish a pulp mill at the head of that inlet, which would, in the course of its normal operation, discharge certain chemicals into those waters. While what the minister says with regard to the co-operation that many corporations might be willing to give may be true, at the same time we cannot help but feel the fact that what was set forth clearly in the Fisheries Act as a straightforward statement, and penalties are provided for putting chemicals into those waters, may have resulted in that particular firm being a little more cautious in building their plant and dumping the chemicals into the water, and then discovering afterwards that damage was caused.
It seems to me that in dealing with this general problem the same principle should be established in regard to the pollution of waters that are going to be used by human beings. The law should be so worded that the onus would be upon the chemical company to establish before they started constructing their plant or putting the discharges into the water that no harmful result would follow. It struck me that the illustration of what happened in the establishment of this pulp mill was in great contrast to the situation that is being discussed at the present time, where in fact the door was being locked after the horse had been stolen, or where it was necessary, after pollution had started, to go through that careful analysis by the scientists and officials described by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to establish just what was happening. In the one case all of these things were established long before the foundation of the plant was put in. In this case nothing definite was known about it until the pollution occurred miles down the river.
Perhaps there is some other body that could do something. The minister referred

to a board. I understood him to say that it was a voluntary and co-operative organization. Perhaps it could conduct the necessary scientific surveys and so on.
Nevertheless, I feel that if in the Criminal Code-if that is the place for it-or in some other act it could be clearly established that the onus is on the persons who contemplate putting chemicals or other substances in the water to show that no possible danger could arise from their action before they start to do so rather than after, and not have the onus placed upon, as the hon. member for The Battlefords said, the council of a city to take court action or seek an injunction or launch a suit for damages and pay the costs. We would thus accomplish the objective we have in mind. I am inclined to think that if clause 165 were given a proper going over with the situation that may exist in mind the principle which is set forth in the Fisheries Act could be incorporated in a clause in the Criminal Code to cover the situation.


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


Walter Adam Tucker: Before the question is put I should like to have the minister give an opinion in regard to what I put before him. The public health act of the province of Alberta, which of course is primarily interested in the matter, sets up a provincial board to deal with this very question of watching over the supply of water from springs, wells, ponds, lakes, streams and rivers used as a public water supply in the province of Alberta. It sets up a board to supervise that sort of thing, and if there are any complaints about the pollution of any stream the provincial board is empowered to inquire into the matter and it may make a report to the minister as to what remedial measures are required in respect to the matter.
Where the provincial board recommends a remedy, then an application may be made to a judge of the supreme court by any person interested for an order to abate the nuisance. It seems to me quite clear that that is the provision made in regard to interfering with the rights of people within the province of Alberta. They have laid down how the matter should be dealt with once an order is made by the judge in regard to the matter, that this pollution of the river shall cease, based upon the fact of preserving the purity of the water supply. Then, I suggest to the minister, a person who continued to pollute the water after that would be guilty of a common nuisance. A common nuisance is described as a person who does an unlawful act, and if an injunction had been obtained from a judge that would be an unlawful act which would endanger the comfort of the public.
Criminal Code
Then it goes on to say that anyone who commits a nuisance and who does endanger the health of the public-any court would hold that interfering with the purity of the drinking water would endanger the public- would be guilty of this offence. I believe that would be one method of putting the problem clearly within the terms of section 165. Then, without getting an order from the court in Alberta, it seems to me all that would be necessary to prove a charge under section 165 would be that a common nuisance had been committed. In order to prove that it would only be necessary to prove that a person had committed an act which endangered the comfort of the public. If it was proven thereby that that was a nuisance, all that would be necessary then would be to show that it endangered the safety or health of the public.
I do not think any court would have any difficulty in finding that an act which made the waters of a river upon which thousands of people depend for their drinking water supply unfit for use for that purpose had endangered the health of the public. If the minister, who has carefully considered this matter in consultation with his officers, and I have every confidence in the law officers of the dominion government, is satisfied that this situation is covered by section 165, then I submit no amendment is necessary. On the other hand I would, of course, feel that if he is in any doubt about the matter the section should be allowed to stand so the problem can be investigated. It is not a matter about which there should be any doubt. If the minister is ready to say he is satisfied the offence is covered, then so far as I am concerned I do not see any reason for the amendment.


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


Walter Adam Tucker: I want an answer to my question. I believe the minister can tell us whether he feels the matter is covered or is not covered.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In addition to the cases which the hon. member for Rosthern has cited, Mr. Chairman, which had to do with the health board in Alberta making certain orders, I find that regulation 1007 of the regulations restricting nuisances and general sanitation in Alberta provides:
The deposit of any dead animal, manure, excreta, refuse, garbage, liquid waste or other filth upon, on. or into any street, ditch, highway, byway, wharf, dock, lake, pond, river, stream, harbour, water, well or sewer or on to any land, except with the written consent of the local board of health or the provincial board of health, shall be deemed a nuisance.

Criminal Code
I would imagine that the contravention of that would be an unlawful act within the meaning of the Criminal Code.


William Alfred Robinson: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 58.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 165-Common nuisance.
Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The minister suggested that perhaps clause 165 would be a better clause to amend than clause 163, Mr. Chairman. I, therefore, move that:
Subclause (2) be renumbered as (3) and that the following be inserted as subclause (2):
(2) Every one who, by himself, his agent or employee, places or discharges, or causes to be placed or discharged or suffers to be placed or discharged, in, upon or near, springs, lakes, streams or rivers, any industrial waste or any other polluting material of any kind whatsoever, which either by itself or in connection with other matter may corrupt or impair the quality of the water thereof in another province or render such water in such other province unfit for accustomed or ordinary use is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years, or a fine of not less than two thousand dollars.


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


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is still on his feet and wants to speak. It is ten o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with this debate. When it is completed there will be a supply motion presented, and when it is carried we shall call whatever departments will be agreed upon in the meantime and then take public works.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the
minister would care to say what the plan is now as to which group of the remaining clauses will be taken first, group 4 or group 5?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The clauses, Mr. Speaker, will be group 4 dealing with treason, etc.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is after we complete clause 165.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 5, 1954