1954-03-11

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning an alleged combine in the distribution and sale of gasoline at retail in the Vancouver area. The usual consideration will be given to what further steps should be taken in this matter.



APPROVAL OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house, I move:
That the report of the civil service commission respecting the permanent appointment of certain employees of the House of Commons, laid upon the table on March 9, 1954, be now approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved:: That the petition of Hazel Irene McKay Puttee and of Albert Thornton for bills of divorce, presented on March 9, 1954, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on March 10, 1954, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	By provinces, how many market gardeners have received loans from the Canadian farm loan board during each of the past five years?
2.	What is (a) the lowest: (b) the highest; (c) the average amount of such loans?
3.	What is the total amount involved in such loans?


Mr. Benidickson:: I have spoken to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and 83276-183
explained that the record of loans made by the Canadian farm loan board is not classified by type of farm. Accordingly, it would be impossible to answer his question with any exactitude without an examination of more than 8,000 files. I understand it is not his desire that this work be undertaken. I assure him and the house, however, that market gardeners as such are not disqualified for loans under the farm loan act. Under the circumstances I understand that the hon. member is prepared to withdraw his question.


Mr. Knowles:: I guess I have to accept that as an answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


FEDERAL HEALTH GRANTS
Mr. Holowach:: 1.	What amount in grants have been made to each of the provinces of Canada for each of the years 1949 to 1953, in hospital construction, tuberculosis control, cancer control, mental health control, crippled children and other health services?
2.	What is the total amount of the above grants during this period?
3.	Were agreements made with the provincial governments in this connection?
4.	If so, with what provinces and on what basis of contribution?
5.	Were any of the above grants given outright and unconditionally?
6.	If so, to what provinces and in what amounts?


Mr. Robertson:: 1 and 2. See table below.
3 and 4. As a result of the announcement made by the prime minister on May 14, 1948, regarding the national health grants program various orders in council have been passed covering the details of the program.
Copies of these orders in council have been submitted to the provinces and each province has taken advantage of the provisions of the orders in council by submitting projects for financial assistance under the program, on the terms and conditions set down in the orders in council.
5.	No. All grants have been made under the terms and conditions laid down in the orders in council.
6.	See answer to No. 5 above.

bo

EXPENDITURES UNDER THE NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM By Grant and Province 1949-53
Province	Fiscal Year	Crippled Children	Pro- fessional Training	Hospital Construc- tion	Venereal Disease Control	Mental Health	Tuber- culosis Control	Public Health Research	Health Survey	General Public Health	Cancer ControlNewfoundland	1949-50	4,820	11,334	202,097	15,944	54,790	150.800	5,262	117,195	45,4151950-51	5; 849	13,983	272,921	16i255	92 876	147,379	6,984	111,696	54,3091951-52	5,320	23,903	148,083	16,234	105,775	196,767	6,855	191,086	41,7461952-53	1,696	13,687	228,344	16,286	110,146	201,816	924	210,157	40,730Prince Edward Island	1949-50	5,000	7,011	36,163	7,356	34,021	42,843	4,740	36,555	10,5821950-51	3,191	6,894	87,216	4,961	18,268	43,985	4,004	38i826	9,3651951-52	3,294	5,033	55,535	3,614	31,762	49,137	656	77,069	9,3061952-53	14	8,533	44,912	2,473	43.197	44,579	2,086	80,129	8,070Nova Scotia	1949-50	16,635	21,937	125,472	26,913	85,270	172,286	6,649	15,088	140,447	61,1581950-51	4,199	21,039	334,489	26,689	95,452	223.822	5,140	10,054	233,460	67,7331951-52	19,276	23,538	351,101	26,676	135,590	221,344	7,516	3,000	270,948	45,1651952-53	3,718	23,573	467,218	25,920	136,309	253,596	20,699	2,496	280,688	62,755New Brunswick	1949-50	22,147	21,780	64,813	16,987	34,720	122,425	6,373	13,824	131,657	29,9251950-51	22,171	21,353	53,752	16,237	103,846	99,609	6,894	11,168	200,100	82,8631951-52	36,976	32,668	276,879	20,029	143,862	273,868	5,832	1,454	224,858	75,8651952-53	31,182	24,108	469,179	18,345	157,836	142,884	3,146	212,941	100,949Quebec	1949-50	12,549	111,634	2,632,243	130.503	699,351	636,078	23,283	25,577	460,800	246,0691950-51	46,296	139,423	2,053,292	127,532	992,963	1,378,252	27,684	73,856	679,693	646,0831951-52	71,249	140,575	2,050,491	124,977	1,247,977	1.804,566	71,022	39,902	813,777	951,4041952-53	115,794	216,450	2,287,271	114,019	1,443,849	1,950,128	123,478	834,997	885,472Ontario	1949-50	48,070	87,814	2.057,853	157,677	468,031	568,734	78,254	51,858	417,332	174,3461950-51	72,448	120,049	2,163,874	150,819	525,269	472,236	151,570	38,641	591,367	206,8281951-52	116,968	166,989	3,788,924	146,068	1,075,707	654,547	183,502	16,119	676,656	242,7S01952-53	134,497	174,474	4,175,486	147,787	1,506.207	781,150	237,855	17,779	860,517	256,329
o
o



o

tfl
Questions
83276-183i
EXPENDITURES UNDER THE NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM By Grant and Province 1949-53
Province	Fiscal Year	Crippled Children	Pro- fessional Training	Hospital Construc- tion	Venereal Disease Control	Mental Health	Tuber- culosis Control	Public Health Research	Health Survey	General Public Health	Cancer ControlManitoba	1949-50	23,377	24,017	356,350	31,315	62,439	94,640	6 518	2,413	106,178	42,1111950-51	20,917	26,646	497,196	31,398	90,588	111,180	9,700	21,200	193,609	57,8861951-52	21,698	28,281	407,815	31,397	145,917	149,599	10,285	5,338	255,141	78,8611952-53	27,726	50,109	490,924	30,506	236,717	213,854	12,758	285,735	137,029Saskatchewan	1949-50	30,664	30,762	355,699	28,497	187,091	165,588	13,264	19,095	231,851	232,4441950-51	2S.549	31,589	352,940	32,779	272.142	182,040	16,467	9,207	282,512	228,7051951-52	32,803	28,894	297,295	33,132	319,622	194,819	18,925	550	385,529	227,1861952-53	32,815	29,997	776,645	29,258	339,275	216,002	25,788	3,150	313,250	214,785Alberta	1949-50	6,310	29,663	576,695	34,527	131,257	252,001	7,419	19,253	143,395	206,8211950-51	13,480	32,077	638,640	34,262	144,115	179,455	12,060	10,342	192,229	227,0961951-52	28,056	33,219	711,639	34,844	170,521	220,001	9,246	176,681	231,9421952-53	34,516	19,394	1,005,215	34,939	215,164	241,001	719	312,605	242,600British Columbia	1949-50	17,895	34,746	396,974	43,043	170,732	221,567	7,340	3,565	295,276	86,4661950-51	26,403	39,799	443,033	43,231	309,307	328,208	1,719	12,835	384,238	112,2381951-52	14,679	38,277	1,078,708	43,218	347,669	280,886	7,217	532,907	137,8371952-53	15,990	44,587	598,751	43,599	357,339	239,438	13,381	679	494,354	178,1591952-53	178	2,808	1,396	4001952-53	74	5,0-17	5,839	All	1949-50	187,467	380,698	6,804,359	492,762	1,927,702	2,426,962	149,100	160,675	2,080,686	1,135,3371950-51	243,503	452,852	6,897,353	484,163	2,644,826	3,166,166	231,234	198,291	2,907,730	1,693,1061951-52	350,319	521,375	9,166,470	480,1S9	3,724,402	4,045,534	313,545	73,874	3,604,652	2,042,0921952-53	398,126	604,912	10,543,945	463,206	4,546,039	4,292,303	437,105	27,833	3,892,608	2,127,278
(a) Grants commenced in the fiscal year 1952-53.

Questions

Questions



COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CLINICS

Mrs. Shipley:: What progress has been made in the establishment of community mental health clinics since the national health grants program was inaugurated?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: In 1948 there were 17 community mental health clinics in Canada. At the end of the first five years of the health grants program there were 77 such clinics most of which were supported wholly or in part by federal health grants funds.



MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL

Marie Ann Shipley: How many and what types of mental health personnel have been trained since the national health
grants program started?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Psychiatrists	 139
Psychologists	 137
Psychiatric nurses	 119
Psychiatric social workers ....	90
Other	 54
Total	 539



FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. Balcom:: What family allowance payments were paid in Nova Scotia, during the last fiscal or calendar year, whichever is convenient, showing (a) districts, if available; (b) number of families receiving this allowance?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: During the fiscal year 1952-53-$16,309,875.
(a)	A breakdown of this amount by districts is not available;
(b)	As at March 31, 1953-94.414.



WARM AIR FURNACES-SALES TAX REFUNDS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	In view of the decision of the tariff board on January 20, 1954 in the appeal launched by Furnace-Aire Limited, does the Department of National Revenue intend to refund the sales tax paid on warm air furnaces, including fuel burning devices and the necessary control, when sold or shipped by the manufacturer as a complete unit after September 26, 1951?
2.	If so, what is the estimate of the department as to the total amount of refund to which manufacturers will be entitled?
3.	What is the estimated number of consumers who would be entitled to the refund?
4.	What procedure is required on the part of a consumer to secure such refund?
5.	What regulations have been made requiring manufacturers to pass on the refund to the consumer?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The department has and is still refunding the sales tax paid on fuel burning and other devices forming a component part of

a "packaged unit" furnace from September 26, 1951, where applications have been made. Warm air furnaces themselves have been exempted since 1945 and no sales tax was collected on them nor on that portion of the "packaged unit" representing the furnace.
2.	No breakdown is kept according to commodities either for sales tax collected or refunds paid, so it is not possible to supply this information.
3.	No information.
4.	The customer applies to his supplier who in turn applies to the manufacturer or importer who supplied the equipment, the latter in turn makes application to the department for refund.
5.	None.



MARGARINE AND BUTTER


Mr. Pommer:: 1.	What amount of margarine was imported into Canada in 1953, and what was the value of same?
2.	What amount of margarine was manufactured in Canada in 1953, and what was the value of same?
3.	What was the butter production in each province in 1953?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Nil.
2.	Margarine manufactured in Canada, calendar year 1953, 106,083,000 pounds. Value (estimated), $31,825,000.
3.	Creamery butter production, calendar year 1953-
lbs. (000's omitted)
Prince Edward Island	 5,727
Nova Scotia	 6,079
New Brunswick	 7,988
Quebec	 112,179
Ontario	 82,622
Manitoba	 24,992
Saskatchewan	 27,660
Alberta	 29,993
British Columbia	 5,366
Canada	 302,606



SECURITY SCREENING


Mr. Fulton:: With reference to suggestions for an appeal procedure to be made available to government employees released or transferred on security grounds, as outlined at page 4004 of Hansard for 1950, and any other such suggestions, has the government worked out any appeal procedure, public or private, on these or other lines?


Mr. Dickey:: The government continually has its security measures under review and the appeal procedure set forth on page 4004 of Hansard for 1950, together with other possible measures, has from time to time been considered.

While such appeal procedures would have the appearance of equity and would seem to absolve ministers of some measure of unpleasant responsibility, the impossibility of disclosing to the persons concerned the evidence about them has so far prevented any really satisfactory appeal procedure being devised.
When difficult security cases arise departments may and do consult the security panel for advice on the evidence before making a decision. This consultation in a number of cases provides at an earlier stage the kind of safeguard envisaged by an appeal procedure.



WHALLEY, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. Hahn:: 1.	What annual rental is being paid for the post office at Whalley, British Columbia?
2.	What are the dimensions of the building?
3.	For how many years has it been leased?
4.	Who is the owner of the building?
5.	Did the owner of this building receive any payments over and above the rental?
6.	If so, in what amount and what are the details of such payment?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	$5,964.
2.	140 feet by 36 feet.
3.	Since May 1, 1951.
4.	Thomas Binnie.
5.	Yes.
6.	$375 for insulating the ceiling of the postal premises. $350 for installing cupboard, sink, hot water boiler and fixtures.



SECURITY SCREENING


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was the present Secretary of State a member of, or secretary of, or did he have any responsibility to or for, the security panel at any time while he was a civil servant?
2.	If so, is he now at liberty to answer officially any questions with relation to the work of the security panel, past or present?


John Horace Dickey: 1 and 2. It is the established and general practice to preserve the anonymity of civil servants serving on interdepartmental committees. It has already been indicated that this panel is made up of senior officers of those government departments and offices most concerned with security matters.




Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the government security panel have a secretariat?


John Horace Dickey: Yes.
Questions



UNION STATION, TORONTO, MAIL BOX

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is there a mail box of the size that will take parcels, etc., in or at the Union station, in Toronto?
2.	If not, for what reason?
3.	Will consideration be given to placing such a parcel post mail box in or at the Toronto Union station?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1.	No.
2.	No public demand, as complete mailing privileges and postal information available 250 feet east of station.
3.	Yes. Parcel box has now been installed experimentally to determine what public use will be made of it.



PRODUCTION AND SUBSIDIES

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How much coal is produced per man, per shift, in (a) Nova Scotia; (b) New Brunswick; (c) Alberta?
2.	What subsidies for coal are provided, or what assistance is given each province?
3.	What is the average production per man, per shift, in the mines of the United States?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	(a) Nova Scotia, 1952, 2-00 net tons;
(b)	New Brunswick, 1952, 3-04 net tons;
(c)	Alberta, 1952, 4-79 net tons.
2.	Assistance is provided in respect of the Canadian coal mining industry by transportation subventions under regulations established by various orders in council, by loans under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act and by payments under the Canadian Coal Equality Act. Details regarding these forms of assistance are given in the annual report of the dominion coal board for the fiscal year 1952-53.
3.	U.S. bituminous mines 1951, 7-04 net tons.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Pommer:: 1.	What amount of vegetable oils was Imported into Canada In 1953?
2.	What was the value of such imports?
3.	From what countries did such imports come, and in what amounts from each country?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Will residents of British Columbia
2882	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry be able to use receipts for hospital bills for income tax purposes now that they are to pay hospital insurance premiums by way of a 2 per cent increase in the provincial retail sales tax plus $1 a day co-insurance charge payable by the individual?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National Revenue):: I am not in a position to give a definite answer until such time as details of the bill are known to the department.



INQUIRY AS TO PROTESTS FROM WESTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister or his department received any protests from the farmers of western Canada about the methods employed or the attitudes taken by income tax inspectors? If so, is any action being taken?


James Joseph McCann: Well, Mr. Speaker, as might naturally be expected, we do receive protests from farmers with reference to the methods and attitudes of income tax inspectors.
I may say that these cases are looked into as they come along, and they are dealt with on their merits.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: In
the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Is the government going through with its plan to transfer the government operated telephone and telegraph system in British Columbia to private companies on April 1? If so, is the minister now able to comment on what provision is being made for those in the employ of the government at the present time?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: The minister is unavoidably absent from the city today on official business. I received a copy of my hon. friend's question only a few minutes before I entered the house, and did not have sufficient time to look into the matter. Therefore I shall take his question as notice.


Harold Edward Winch: May I just add that the question was filed at 9.30 this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to make a request of the parliamentary


assistant to the Minister of Transport, arising out of a question asked by the member for Vancouver East and the answer given. When the parliamentary assistant brings the matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport would he ask him at the same time to please make a full report on the present state of negotiations between the government and the private concerns, particularly the telephone company, with regard to the sale of the government-owned assets and the measures being taken to protect the employees of the government concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the parliamentary assistant. Will he ask the Minister of Transport to table in this house a copy of the survey report which the minister told us several weeks ago was being made by the British Columbia Telephone Company and the Canadian National Telegraphs into the matter of taking over the government-operated system in British Columbia?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: May I take that as notice, also?



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinfon):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the statement made by the minister on March 9 to a delegation from the textile workers' union of America to the effect that the Canadian textile industry is overexpanded, may I ask if the government is prepared to take any measures to deal with a situation under which so many textile plants are closing and others are operating on short time?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minisier of National
Revenue): The government has already taken such measures as it deems fit up to the present time to deal with the situation, and the matter is continuously under consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to take any steps toward the reduction of the sales tax on textile products with a view to assisting this industry in its difficulties and the workers employed in that industry?


James Joseph McCann: This is a matter of government policy, and I have no doubt any changes that are made will be announced by the Minister of Finance when he brings down his budget.



WHEAT AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supplementary to my question of Monday last. Can the minister say what quantity of grain is involved in the current negotiations with Japan? What assurances have been given that would safeguard our Japanese market for the next two years?
Righl Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, it has been well established that questions are not answered having to do with sales of wheat and negotiations for sales of wheat in the current crop year. Therefore I cannot answer the question.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Have any representations or any protests been made to the United States government with regard to the circumstances of the gift of 500,000 tons of wheat to Japan?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that it is intended to give 500,000 tons of wheat to Japan. In the second place, that would seem to be the business of the United States government regarding which that government would not welcome protests from other countries.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he, on behalf of the government, give consideration to having a debate on external affairs before having the estimates submitted to a committee of the house? Would he also say when it is expected that the house committee will begin to consider those estimates?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As the house knows, we have already had an opportunity to discuss external affairs. However, shortly after we get into supply on external affairs it is my intention to move that the estimates be referred to the committee and that will, as usual, provide an opportunity for debate.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give any indication when that might be expected, so plans can be made accordingly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope it will be shortly, but that depends on the progress made in the house on other business.


INQUIRY AS TO REASON FOR PRIME MINISTER NOT VISITING FORMOSA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lelhbridge):: I desire to ask a question of the government, through the minister of external affairs, notice of which I have not sent him. Was it the result of accident or deliberate planning that our Prime Minister's itinerary did not include vitally strategic Formosa and Canada's loyal world war II ally, Chiang Kai-shek?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No political significance of any kind should be read into the fact that the Prime Minister was not able to visit Formosa on this tour.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence with reference to a question answered yesterday. Are the regiments of the Canadian active army forces shown on page 2844 of Hansard for March 10, 1954, listed in order of precedence or seniority?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I have neither the list of units as I gave them yesterday nor the order of precedence. This is not a particularly urgent matter, so I could look it up and write the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question of the minister. I refer the minister to the question he answered yesterday. The answer to that question showed the most recently formed regiment in the Canadian active army, the Regiment of Canadian Guards-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -as being first in seniority.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will come to his question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have just asked it.


Brooke Claxton: I never heard a thing, Mr. Speaker.
2884	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Knowles: It was your own followers who were so noisy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall be glad to repeat it because I think it is a matter of some importance. I am asking the minister if, in the list of regiments shown in the answer given to me yesterday, the most recently formed regiment, the Regiment of Canadian Guards, is listed in order of seniority.


Brooke Claxton: I assured the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have with me, and I do not regularly carry, the list of regiments according to seniority.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it not normal practice, in giving a list of regiments in the army, to list them in order of seniority?


Brooke Claxton: I must say again that I could not hear the question. Does the hon. member ask me if we printed the list in Hansard in order of seniority? I have no information on that. He did not ask for the list in order of seniority, and I do not know whether or not they were printed in that order but I shall look into it.



ESKIMOS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of a press dispatch appearing in last night's Ottawa Journal concerning Alaskan Eskimos. Is it true that Alaskan Eskimos living in the Mackenzie river delta hold registered trap lines, while there are a number of Canadian Eskimos who are without trap lines? If so, is the minister's department giving consideration to the prior right of Canadian Eskimos in this regard?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I just came back in Ottawa a few minutes ago, and I should like to take the question as notice. I shall be in a position to give an answer tomorrow.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare say what has been found as a result of the tests to ascertain the causes of pollution of the North Saskatchewan river, 

that were made some miles east of Edmonton? What is the present position of the co-operative efforts between the provinces and the federal government in connection with this matter; and would the minister give a general report on the situation?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend will be pleased to learn that the government of Alberta and the technical officers of my own department have advised that the pollution concerning taste and odour in the North Saskatchewan river has been brought under control at the source. This was due to a diversion of wastes that was made effective on March 4. I must say, however, to my hon. friend-and he will not be pleased with this, although he will realize that this is not the fault of anyone-that his own city of Prince Albert will not get the benefit of this control for three weeks, until the waters will have passed that distinguished city.



FRED ROSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Is the government taking precautions or security measures regarding the re-entry of Fred Rose into Canada, if Fred Rose is not already in Montreal.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the government is at all times maintaining security measures in respect to matters such as that to which the hon. member has referred.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is no answer.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to have a definite statement regarding the re-entry of Fred Rose into Canada, y


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe it was the day before yesterday that the hon. member, without notice, asked me if I had heard of the rumours which he said were prevalent around Montreal with regard to the possible re-entry into Canada of Fred Rose. My answer was no. I still have not heard any such rumours. Therefore when my hon. friend asks me another question, again without notice, the only thing I can say to him is that no rumours of Fred Rose's re-entry into Canada have reached my ear, and that we are maintaining the customary security precautions.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose we were discussing clause 631. Shall the clause carry?
On clause 631-Costs to defendant in case of libel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to the discussion of clause 631, I wonder if it would not be useful and helpful to all members if the minister could outline his plans for the further consideration of the remaining clauses of the Criminal Code. As the minister is aware, I am asking this question on the basis of certain information of which two or three of us are in possession. However, it occurs to me that it might be well for the entire committee to have that information.
I believe it is understood that today we shall continue with the bill, dealing with the clauses remaining to be dealt with; but that so far as today's program is concerned, we will just make the first run-through. This would then leave quite a number of clauses, something of the order of 50 or 60, that have been stood over, some because they were highly contentious and some for other reasons.
As the minister is aware, there has been an unofficial meeting of the minister with representatives of the opposition parties; and as a result of that unofficial meeting the clauses allowed to stand have been placed in certain groups. I have that list, thanks to the minister who sent it to me; but it occurs to me that it might be helpful to the committee as a whole if the minister were to place that list on Hansard. The whole list might be put on, placing the various clauses in their respective groups. If this is done, then when we come to those days when we are to continue discussion of the Criminal Code, announcement could be made that on a certain day we would take the clauses in group 1, group 2, group 3, group 4 or group 5, as the case may be. Perhaps the minister would consider the suggestion I have made.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has already covered a lot of the ground he has asked me to cover. I wish to express my appreciation to him for having done so.
Criminal Code


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot hear a word the minister is saying; and it is not the minister's fault, either.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was saying, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already covered a good deal of the ground which-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I cannot hear what the minister is saying, and I must ask hon. members to maintain silence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, as I have already said on two occasions the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already covered a good deal of the ground that he has suggested I should cover. He is quite right when he says that a few days ago the hon. member himself, representing his party, the hon. member for Kamloops, representing the official opposition, and the hon. member for Red Deer, representing the Social Credit Party, met with me to discuss the manner in which we might expedite the consideration of those clauses in the bill which, in our preliminary consideration of it in this committee of the whole, we have set aside for further attention.
In order to do this we had thought we might continue with the consideration of those clauses in the bill which thus far we have not considered, and that when that was completed we would return to a consideration of those clauses set to one side, dealing first of all with those which seemed to us to be of a less contentious nature, reserving until the end those matters of major importance which we thought were worthy of arrangements as to time for debate, and perhaps also as to length of time to be taken in debate. Carrying out that idea, we divided into six groups the clauses set aside. Perhaps, for the convenience of hon. members I should place those groups on record.
Group No. 1 deals with unrelated clauses which are not considered of primary importance. In each instance I shall indicate the name of the hon. member who asked to have the matter stood aside. They are as follows: clause 16, subject matter insanity, the hon. member for Kamloops; clause 102, subject matter, frauds upon the government, the hon. member for Vancouver South; clause 116, subject matter, witness giving contradictory evidence, the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; clause 119, subject matter, obstructing justice, the hon. member for Vancouver East; clause 120, public mischief-in respect of which I understand an amendment will be offered-the hon. member for

Criminal Code
Winnipeg North Centre; clause 164, no apparent means of support, or vagrancy, the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and again, an amendment will be offered; clause 206, punishment for murder, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I might point out that I understand this is stood over as a matter of form in the hope that by some miracle the report of the special parliamentary committee on capital punishment might be received before we have completed dealing with the bill here.
Then, to continue: clause 221 (2), failing to stop at the scene of an accident, the hon. member for Kamloops-and I understand there is to be an amendment; clause 289, punishment by whipping, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and again this is just a formal standover; clause 374, dealing with arson, a matter concerning which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wished to discuss with me certain matters relating to the composition of cigarettes. I think we might pass that clause and he and I can deal with that subject for him outside of this bill altogether; clause 413, jurisdiction of the courts, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; clause 417-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister forgot clause 389.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understand that the request to stand had been withdrawn. The hon. gentleman who asked to have it stood over does not wish to press it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You still have to pass it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. Then we come to clause 417, trial without jury in Alberta, the hon. member for Kamloops. That was disposed of yesterday by the reply which I gave to the hon. member for Prince Albert. That comprises the whole of group 1.
Group 2 is made up of clauses of major but not primary importance. The first group of clauses is: clauses 222 to 225 inclusive, drunken and impaired driving, the hon. member for Kamloops; clauses 150 to 153 inclusive, crime comics and obscene literature, the hon. member for Kamloops; clauses 247, 248 and 253, defamatory libel, the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Oxford; clauses 163 and 165, nuisance, the hon. member for Prince Albert. That comprises group No. 2.
Group No. 3: clause 134, instruction to jury re sexual offences, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings; clause 141, indecent assault on female, the hon. member for

Prince Albert; clause 142, incest, the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. That comprises the whole of group No. 3.
We now come to those matters which we think are of major importance. Group No. 4: clauses 46 to 48 inclusive, treason, the hon. member for Prince Albert; clause 50, assisting the enemy, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; clause 57, offences in relation to Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; clauses 60 to 62 inclusive, sedition, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Next is group 5, which deals with a number of clauses all related to one another, in that they directly or indirectly deal with labour matters: clauses 32, 33, and 64 to 69, riots; clause 52, sabotage; clauses 372 and 373, mischief. In connection with all these clauses the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is given, and in connection with clauses 372 and 373 the name of the hon. member for Kamloops is also associated with that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; clauses 365 to 367, criminal breach of contract, the hon. member for Kamloops.
Group 6 is made up of clauses which have been stood over since March 9, 1954: clause 432, detention of things seized, the hon. members for Kamloops and Digby-Annapolis-Kings; clause 446 (2), procedure to procure attendance of prisoner, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; clauses 467 and 468, jurisdiction of magistrates, the hon. member for Kamloops; clause 499, count for murder to stand alone, the hon. member for Kamloops; clause 557, accused other than corporation to be present at the trial, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That comprises the entire list.
I think the idea is that we shall continue with our work this afternoon on the code itself, and if we are able to finish it we shall go back and start at the beginning of that list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point we were left in an indecisive position last night, but I discussed the matter by telephone today with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and he agreed to our request that if we finished the first run-through today, we should not try to go back to any of these clauses that have been stood over, but that they should be left until some other sitting of the house. My reason for asking the minister to do what he has now done is clear, I think. It means that from here on when an announcement is made as to what we shall deal with when we take up the Criminal Code, it can

be done by announcing that consideration will be given to the clauses in group 1, group 2 or one of the other groups recorded in today's Hansard.
While I am on my feet may I draw to the minister's attention the fact that two clauses which were allowed to stand over seem to have been omitted from this list. I did' this checking just before we came down at 2.30, and I did not have time to call them to the minister's attention. I refer to clause 88 and clause 289. I believe clause 88 was stood over at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver East, and clause 289 stood at my request. If I might presume to say so, I think both could be included in group 1.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I mentioned clause 289; it is on record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I was looking at an earlier list.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the first point raised by my hon. friend, I was suggesting only that we might go back to these matters of lesser importance which have been stood over in the rather improbable event that before six o'clock this afternoon we shall have finished all of the remaining sections of the code. I do not think we need to waste time debating that question, it is rather academic at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We can deal with it if and when it arises.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before we enter into consideration of the clauses before us, perhaps I can clear up this point as I go along.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I have listened with some interest to the suggestion as to procedure presented by the Minister of Justice, which appears to have been agreed to by the various groups; but of course I am in the hands of the committee. May I ask the committee whether the suggested procedure is agreeable to it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall we deal with clause 631?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether I might have unanimous consent to clear up a very simple matter as we go along, which does not come under the heading of clause 631 but under clause 626, which has been passed.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the minister leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Criminal Code
On clause 626-Fines and penalties go to provincial treasury.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Kootenay West asked me a question yesterday and perhaps I had better read it. It was as follows, as reported at page 2872 of Hansard:
I was informed by a person I consider to be quite responsible that when the R.C.M.P. lay a charge for an offence involving the operation of sweepstakes, particularly the Irish sweepstakes, the case is heard in Ottawa and the fine or any moneys seized are paid to the city of Ottawa rather than to the municipality in which the offence occurred.
I did not have the information on hand when he asked the question. I have since checked with the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who informs me as follows. The R.C.M.P. has not laid any charge in respect to sweepstakes in Ottawa, nor seized any money relating to that offence, as cases of this sort do not come within this jurisdiction. In the province of Ontario any information on cases of this nature which might come to the R.C.M.P. in any way would simply be passed on to the municipal or provincial force having jurisdiction at the point where the matter was reported.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow one question there? Is it a fact that in the city of Ottawa searches are made-


Harold Edward Winch: If I may rise on a question of privilege, we can never hear my hon. friend here on the back benches. Would he speak up?


Mr. Herridge:: On a question of privilege, the loud-speaker system is not working very well this afternoon. We have had difficulty with it ever since we commenced the sitting today.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the reason for the installation of this appliance was to permit an informal discussion to take place in committee, particularly, so each of us would not be yelling at the top of his voice in order to make himself heard. I thank my hon. friend very much, as I did not know I was speaking in such subdued tones. Is it not a fact that during the last year seizures have been made by municipal officials of money being forwarded by operators of lotteries, which seizures took place as trains were passing through the municipality in question? What right has a city to make such seizure? I understand that has been done.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry, but I cannot accommodate my hon. friend. The seizures to which he refers would be made by municipal police forces. I have no knowledge concerning them and therefore cannot answer

Criminal Code
his question. The individuals who made the seizures would be the ones who should answer for the authority under which they were made.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 631-Costs to defendant in case of libel.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yesterday at six o'clock we were debating this clause and the hon. member for Kamloops was contending, as I understood him, that while he had no objection to the successful defendant in a prosecution for defamatory libel being given his costs, he thought it was rather inconsistent that in the same bill we were proposing to delete the provision for the prosecutor getting costs in those cases in which the prosecutor was successful. The hon. member thought that was an anomaly which should be cured.
We always give careful consideration to worth-while suggestions made by members of the house. But we did not think it would be proper to restore the allowance of costs to a prosecutor for in the great majority of cases the prosecutor is the crown itself. While there have always been these clauses in the Criminal Code which permitted the awarding of costs, the crown has not claimed such costs but has charged them up to the administration of justice. I do not think any of us would regard it as desirable that the crown should collect these costs. Hence I think the hon. member for Kamloops will agree that in the great majority of cases it would not be desirable to restore this section.
But so far as the offence of defamatory libel is concerned, I think there is good warrant for allowing the prosecutor his costs if he succeeds, in the same manner we propose under the provisions of this clause as it now reads to allow costs to a successful defendant. I hope this will in part meet the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Kamloops, and I would therefore propose to amend the bill by striking out clause 631 as it is now in the bill and substituting the following:
631.	The person in whose favour judgment is given in proceedings by indictment for defamatory libel is entitled to recover from the opposite party costs in a reasonable amount to be fixed by order of the court.
I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move that amendment.


Walter Edward Harris: I move accordingly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would also suggest that clause 632 at it is now in the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
632.	Where costs that are fixed under section 631 are not paid forthwith the party in whose favour

judgment is given may enter judgment for the amount of the costs by filing the order in the superior court of the province in which the trial was held, and that judgment is enforceable against the opposite party in the same manner as if it were a judgment rendered against him in that court in civil proceedings.


Walter Edward Harris: I move accordingly.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that we deal with clauses 631 and 632 at the same time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to express to the minister my appreciation for the consideration which he and his department have given to the point I raised last evening, and to say that the amendment is perfectly satisfactory. The point I made last evening had relation to the whole field of costs for the prosecution or for the crown in criminal proceedings. As I pointed out, section 1044 gave the right to the crown to recover costs and expenses incidental to the proceedings if it desired to do so. I can see some reason for retaining that section because I can imagine that in particularly aggravating or irritating cases it might be desirable to take advantage of it. Yet I can appreciate what the minister has indicated to me privately and also in the house, that the section has never been used in past years, that the crown in the right of the provinces has tended to regard it as being incidental to the administration of justice that they have to bear the costs of criminal prosecutions. Therefore the section has never been used.
I understand it is felt, and I must say that it seems to be generally acceptable, that a section which is never used should not continue to be part of the law. While I have some minor reservations regarding the deletion of the general right on the part of the crown to recover its costs, I certainly could not insist with any vigour on its retention. Since the minister has met me with respect to the rights of a person launching a prosecution for defamatory libel, that is where an individual rather than the crown is concerned, I have no further objection to the dropping of section 1044. I thank the minister for having continued that particular right by virtue of the amendments which he has just suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 631 as amended agreed to.
Clause 632 as amended agreed to.
Clause 633 agreed to.

On clause 634-Imprisonment for life or more than two years.
Mr. Dinsdale:: I understand that when a
person is serving time for a specific charge and another province prefers a similar charge against him, it is necessary upon discharge for that man to go to that other province to stand trial. If that is so it seems to me that time and money might be saved if the province in which the prisoner was convicted could be given sole responsibility for trying that prisoner on charges of a similar nature, relating to other provinces.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has my hon. friend Bill No. 7 with him?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If he will look at clause 421 (3) he will see that is designed to cover the case he has in mind. I do not believe it goes quite as far as he wishes, but it does provide a means whereby the accused can have all his offences cleared up so he can start serving his sentence on them all. I think that is what my hon. friend has in mind.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, that is so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I believe he will find that covers the point.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But if it was discovered after conviction in one province that there were offences of a similar nature committed in another province, would the accused have to face charges in that other province?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I believe if my hon. friend reads that clause he will see that it is designed to cover that point.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then this is new?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 635-Sentence served according to regulations.
Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, this clause reads:
A sentence of Imprisonment shall be served in accordance with the enactments and rules that govern the institution to which the prisoner is sentenced, and a reference to hard labour in a conviction or sentence shall be deemed to be a reference to the employment of prisoners that is provided for in the enactments or rules.
From a practical point of view certain difficulties occasionally arise with regard to this matter of hard labour. I wonder if the minister would take into consideration the possibility under various parts of the code of having people sentenced to, say, labour instead of hard labour? The practical difficulty that arises is this, that we have people sentenced for traffic offences such as impaired driving,
Criminal Code
and they are sent to a county jail. It very often happens a prisoner in that position in a county jail would like to get out and work on the lawn or shovel snow or do something of that nature. But because the sentence does not call for hard labour they are not allowed to do so, and prison officials will not permit them to undertake such work on the ground that it would be breaking the law.
It is my belief there might well be two divisions in respect to sentences. For example, there might be hard labour, which involves heavy work such as on the old fashioned rock pile or something of that nature, and another division of labour which would enable prisoners in a county jail, not a penitentiary, serving sentences for some of these traffic offences, to be employed on lawns and so on. Very often these people would be glad to get out to do such work.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the time has arrived for the elimination of these words altogether.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They are eliminated.


Donald MacInnis: Perhaps the minister wishes to say something? If so I shall gladly give way to him.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The addition to the penalty of a provision for hard labour has been removed under the new code. The purpose of this present provision is to enact that a reference to hard labour in any conviction under this clause will always be used for the employment of prisoners provided for in the enactments or rules. As my hon. friend from Oxford knows, prisoners who are convicted of an offence under the code and sentenced to a prison term of less than two years do not go into a federal penitentiary. They go into certain provincial institutions, which are recognized as the proper places to incarcerate them under the provisions of the federal Prisons and Reformatories Act.
While a careful check is kept by the Department of Justice as to the practices which prevail there, each one of these prisons will have its own rules. Clause 635 (1) is for the purpose of making clear that when they go in there they will work in accordance with the rules, and it will be up to the provincial jail superintendent, if that is the proper term, who is in charge of that institution to regulate the conduct of the prisoners there.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, after taking a second look at this clause I see it is not quite what I thought it was, and I wish to thank the minister. I was not suggesting that prisoners who are sent to jail should remain in idleness. I believe that if reasonable work can be provided, then these men

Criminal Code
should be permitted to work. As far as British Columbia is concerned my information is that for a great many years the addition of the words "hard labour" simply meant that a man would have better medical attention while in jail.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wonder if the minister
would clarify what he said. When a person is sentenced to jail for an offence such as impaired driving and he goes to a county jail, not a penitentiary, can one draw the inference that under this clause he could not do simple work such as raking leaves or shovelling snow even if he wished to do so, unless the term "hard labour" was attached to his sentence? Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not correct to draw that inference.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 636 agreed to.
On clause 637-Binding over person convicted.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister
would care to comment on a point which strikes me under this clause. Clause 637 is in part a revision of section 1059 of the Criminal Code as it now stands, and I notice under that section it states that:
Whenever any person . . . has . . . remained imprisoned for two weeks, the sheriff, gaoler or warden shall give notice, in writing, of the facts to a fudge of a superior court, or to a judge of the county court of the county or district in which said gaol or prison is situate . . .
-and so on. That has been changed in the clause now before us to provide that the prisoner himself may apply to a judge for a review of the order of committal. There might be a very simple answer to this, but it strikes me that a prisoner in jail is in a rather helpless position in this regard. My colleague for Vancouver-Kingsway points out to me that a prisoner might not have a copy of the Criminal Code with him in his cell and he may not know of this right. It appears to me as a layman that there is something lost in the new clause. Formerly the sheriff, jailer or warden had to make a report, and now he is not required to make that report. In other words, the prisoner has a right of which he may not be aware. Can the minister explain?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: While I am not, thank goodness, familiar with the procedure inside a jail I would not think the fact that the report was made in a routine fashion would necessarily produce a review, and for that reason it seems to me that if the prisoner has the right to ask to be taken before a judge under

this clause to have his position reviewed, then that might well be more valuable to him than the previous provision was.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can see the point the minister is making, in that there is a deficiency in both wordings. He says that under the former wording the sheriff, jailer or warden might make a report and the judge do nothing about it. I agree with that criticism of the weakness in the former wording. However, under the present wording he has the right to apply but he may not know of it. Would it not be possible to include some wording to make sure that this information is communicated to the prisoner? The advantage of the former wording was that a report had to be made. Is the point not worth looking at?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, perhaps it is; but I think the prison officials, who are pretty humane and intelligent men nowadays, would in all likelihood bring this provision to the attention of the prisoner. Did my hon. friend have in mind putting a provision in the section that the warden of the prison should bring this to the attention of the prisoner? I think that could be achieved better by having an understanding among ourselves and the provincial authorities that this might be done, rather than writing it into the Criminal Code. The important thing here is that the prisoner is given the right to go before a judge and have his case reviewed. The next subclause, as my hon. friend can see, provides that the judge shall review it and shall make up his mind as to what disposition should be made of the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not quite that certain in the next subclause. However, that is not the point of the debate. The next subclause reads:
A judge who receives an application under subsection 3 may order the discharge of the person referred to . . .
The word "shall" does not appear. I do not like to take the time of the committee to pursue this point. It has been our experience on some of these other points that if the minister consents to the clause standing sometimes a change is the result. I wonder whether he would let this clause stand and take a look at it. If after he has done so he thinks it should go the way it is, I shall not take any time on the matter at a later stage.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend agree to pass it on my undertaking that I will look at it? I think it is in quite good shape the way it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not mind, if the undertaking also means that the minister will

introduce an amendment at this session if he thinks one should be made after looking at the clause.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, certainly. I do not think we have given any indication throughout the consideration of the bill that we were not prepared to amend where good cause was shown.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 638-Suspension of sentence.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Clause 638 deals with a case where an accused is convicted of an offence and there is no previous conviction against him. Reference is then made to having regard to the age, character and so on of the accused, and provision is made that sentence may be suspended. The special committee on reform institutions of the Ontario legislature has made a carefully prepared, revealing and detailed report on many matters, and I could not help noticing, as I have no doubt the minister has seen, that they recommended that sentence should be suspended in the case of persons who are first offenders unless it is felt by the court, in view of certain particular circumstances, that this should not be done.
Possibly I am speaking in a circle, but under this clause as it reads now the court may, if it sees fit, suspend sentence. I wonder whether the minister would agree to let the clause stand in order to permit members a chance to read the report made by this committee. It might be that it would then seem advisable to alter the clause so it would read that the court shall suspend sentence unless there are particular circumstances which make the court feel that sentence should not be suspended.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When a judge or magistrate is appointed to judge cases it seems to me to be of the first order of importance that you should not surround him with too many statutory directions which give him no scope to exercise his own judgment. I would think that in this clause we have an instrument by which a system of probation, which I think my hon. friend has in mind, could quite easily be made operative. But would my hon. friend not agree that a judge in dealing with a series of cases coming before him has to decide in each case upon the facts of the particular case whether or not he will grant what is popularly referred to as suspended sentence? If we provide that, if two or three conditions are met, the judge must grant suspended sentence, the judge may have before him a few exceptional cases in which it would not be proper for him to
Criminal Code
grant suspended sentence at all, even although these conditions had been met.
If he is a competent judge, as we must assume they all are, it seems to me to be far better to leave that discretion with him. I do not think there would be any purpose in standing the clause over until further consideration is given to the report to which the hon. member has referred. The only thing that can happen to that report is for it to be implemented or not implemented, and it is not until it is implemented that the point the hon. member now raises has any particular relevancy.
The whole question of probation comes under the heading of the administration of justice, which is entirely provincial in character. It is a part of the general administration of justice policy which depends for its success upon the co-operation of the crown prosecutors and the departments of the provincial attorneys general. I think the position is that in clause 638 there is ample provision for the implementation of a more extensive probation policy in any province in Canada if the province concerned wishes to put such a policy into effect.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I fear that possibly the minister may have misunderstood me. First of all, I realize full well that the report of this committee of the Ontario legislature is provincial in nature. However, it touches on many subjects dealt with in Bill No. 7, and I am quite sure those of us who are interested in commenting on the clauses as we go through the bill might be able to gain a great deal of valuable information if given a chance to study the report of this particular committee. One of the clauses of the bill now before us which would be involved is this one dealing with suspension of sentence and probation.
I quite agree with the minister that it is a very bad thing to hamper judges or magistrates with too many statutory rules. No one would be more ready to agree with that than I. But in the past, as I think the minister well knows, the imposition of what is popularly called suspended sentence has been the exception rather than the rule, although lately social thinking has possibly resulted in sentences being suspended more frequently.
What I really had in mind was that this clause might be rephrased to impress upon magistrates and judges the desirability of imposing suspended sentences. The emphasis could be shifted so that suspended sentences would be imposed more often, though there would have to be a saving clause so the judge would be at perfect liberty not to suspend

Criminal Code
sentence if the circumstances were such that he thought that should not be done. In the past suspended sentences have been the exception rather than the rule, and I think the emphasis might be shifted so that suspended sentences for first offenders would be the rule rather than the exception.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 639 and 640 agreed to.
On clause 641-Execution of sentence by whipping.
Harold Edward Winch: May I ask that this clause stand, because it deals with whipping.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, it could stand. Before we do so, in line 37 there is a typographical error. The word-if it is a word; I think it is just a jumble of letters-"practioner" should read "practitioner".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall be happy to move that amendment to correct my colleague's language.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that the clause stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It could be associated with clause 289 in group 1 for later consideration.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suppose we all realize that we will stand it now, but we shall likely have to pass it before receiving the report of the committee.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as amended stand?
Clause as amended stands.
On clause 642-Form of sentence.


Harold Edward Winch: Could we do the same with clauses 642 and 643?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you stand the entire group from clause 642 through to and including clause 653? They could be stood and considered later in association with clause 206 in group 1.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All right, but before we do that might I suggest another amendment in clause 643, lines 16 and 31? The expression "Secretary of State" should be deleted and the expression "Minister of Justice" substituted therefor. If my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare would move that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 642 to 648 inclusive stand.

On clause 649-Documents to be sent to Secretary of State.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: In clause 649 the words "Secretary of State" in line 45 should be deleted and the words "Minister of Justice" substituted therefor.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say why the change is made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. It has to do with certain functions in connection with the matter of capital punishment. Until the present time the practice has been that the advice and documents passed through the Secretary of State to the Minister of Justice. We have made arrangements to have them go to the Minister of Justice directly.


John George Diefenbaker: On that point, would the minister say where the Solicitor General comes in on the question of the procedure to be followed after a capital sentence has been imposed. Has he any function today?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, the Solicitor General is connected with the Department of Justice, and at the present time he actually discharges all of these functions relating to remissions and commutations, but he does so as a colleague in the Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice is the responsible official who answers for all these matters in the House of Commons and always has been.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that always in effect, or is that a recent innovation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that has been in effect.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought a change was made a couple of years ago.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, the situation has always been that the Minister of Justice was answerable in the Commons for the department, including the actions of the Solicitor General therein. Up until, as my hon. friend says, about two or three years ago the Solicitor General looked after all cases of remission except those involving commutation of the death sentence. At that time the Solicitor General took over all cases of remission, including the commutation of death sentences, and the Solicitor General is handling that work now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do I understand that when an official review is made by the cabinet of a death sentence, the preparation and presentation of that material is made by the Solicitor General rather than by the Minister of Justice?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out that since a request has been made for the clauses to stand, the amendment can only be made by leave. Does the committee grant leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lapointe:: I would move that line 45 of clause 649 be amended by deleting the words "Secretary of State" and substituting therefor "Minister of Justice."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause stands.
Clauses 650 to 653 inclusive stand.
Clause 654 agreed to.
On clause 655-To whom pardons may be granted.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister explain whether there is any significance in the distinction between mercy granted by Her Majesty and a pardon granted by the governor in council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is not any practical difference. The royal prerogative of mercy is a prerogative which has always been attached to the British crown, regardless of any statute. As my hon. friend can see, clause 658 reads:
Nothing in this act in any manner limits or affects Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
The exercise of that royal prerogative is carried on in accordance with the other provisions which are in the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then is subclause 1 of clause 655 really necessary in view of what is in clause 658?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I would think so; because if my hon. friend will look at clause 655 he will see that it spells out the different kinds of acts the governor in council may do in the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. I think it is desirable to have these things set out in the Canadian statutes rather than leave the subject to conduct a research in the law library to ascertain of what the royal prerogative of mercy consists.


Harold Edward Winch: The only question which comes to my mind is this. When, on Her Majesty's birthday or on the coronation, she announced remission of sentences for those in jail, is that carried through as a prerogative of the crown or do we in Canada then take the necessary steps to promulgate her announcement?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We pass an order in council which gives effect to Her Majesty's amnesty in Canada.
Criminal Code


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to ask a question of the minister for which no doubt there is a very simple explanation. Clause 655 (1) states:
Her Majesty may extend the royal mercy to a person who Is sentenced to imprisonment under the authority of an act of the parliament of Canada, even if the person is imprisoned for failure to pay money to another person.
Would the minister explain the necessity for the words "even if the person is imprisoned for failure to pay money to another person." Why is an exception made in that way?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It sounds in the same category as witchcraft.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, it is not witchcraft.


Harold Edward Winch: Is that the most serious crime that can happen?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The prisoner in question may be in prison because he has failed to pay penalties which have been levied against him, or moneys which he has been directed to pay. This subsection makes it clear that the royal prerogative of mercy may be extended to him even in cases of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 656-Commutation of sentence.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would ask my colleague to move an amendment to this clause.


Hugues Lapointe: I move:
That in clause 656 the words "Secretary of State or under-secretary of state" be deleted from line 19 and that the words "Minister of Justice or deputy minister of justice" be substituted therefor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the written provision by which these functions, which by law are assigned to the Minister of Justice, are actually handled by the Solicitor General?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That would be by order in council, under the Department of Justice Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 657 to 659 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 660-Application for preventive detention.
Harold Edward Winch: What I shall have to say on this clause may tie in, in part, with clause 666. It is a matter which has come to my attention as a result of being elected to the House of Commons and having had the opportunity to visit penitentiaries. According to my understanding of the law as set out in clauses 660 and 666, when a man is apprehended on a criminal charge he is first of all tried and

Criminal Code
sentenced on that charge. Under clause 660 he can then be charged as an habitual criminal. Any sentence on that charge does not become effective until he has served the sentence on the charge for which he was arrested. I believe I am correct in my understanding of the law in this respect.
I have in mind a case in point which I do not understand, and for which I am asking an explanation from the minister. When, before coming to this session, I visited the penitentiary in British Columbia I met two young men who, first of all, had been sentenced on the charge on which they had been arrested, and were then sentenced under this clause. In order to make my point clear, these men were arrested on a charge of robbery and received sentences of three years. Then they were further sentenced as habitual criminals. Under the existing act, and in the clause now before us, it is my understanding that the Minister of Justice must review every three years the case of a criminal sentenced under clause 660, to see whether or not there are circumstances under which he should receive parole. But the minister cannot do that until the prisoner has served three years under the second sentence.
To my mind it is strange that a man can serve his sentence of three years, six years or ten years, as the case may be, on a charge for which he has been arrested, subject to review under the program of rehabilitation, which I hope is to be continued-and I believe it is being carried out in the British Columbia penitentiary-but after serving his sentence of three, six or ten years, as the case may be, the Minister of Justice is not permitted to consider the case until three years have been served under the provisions of this clause. That is my reading of the law, and definitely my understanding from the authorities in the British Columbia penitentiary. My information is that the cases of these men cannot be considered by the minister until three years after they have served the sentences resulting from their convictions.
I believe this is a wrong procedure. I say the proper time to consider whether or not mercy should be exercised would be at the completion of the first term.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to compliment the hon. member upon his lucid explanation. Most of what he has said is quite correct. However, notwithstanding the impression he may have received from the prison authorities in British Columbia, I am afraid he is

mistaken on one point. I am sure my hon. friend himself can see that he is wrong by reading clause 666, which says:
Where a person is in custody under a sentence of preventive detention, the Minister of Justice shall-
"Shall"-I must do it.
-at least once in every three years, review the condition, history and circumstances of that person for the purpose of determining whether he should be permitted to be at large on licence, and if so, on what conditions.


Harold Edward Winch: That is the very point I have made. The minister must review the case when the prisoner has been under preventive detention. I am informed that he is not under preventive detention on that charge until he has fulfilled the sentence on the charge for which he was arrested.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend is right in that. But the fact that clause 666 says the minister shall at least once in every three years review the conditions, history and the like, does not mean that he cannot do it on other occasions, if he wishes. There is nothing in clause 666 which purports to abridge in any way the royal prerogative of mercy. And if it were not possible to do it in any other way it could be done by royal prerogative.
What this clause says is that whether the minister wishes to do it or not, he shall- he is specifically directed-do it once every three years. But it does not say that even during the determinate sentence of a prisoner, the initial sentence of three years, or during the indeterminate sentence, the Minister of Justice, in the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy under this part of the code, may not at any time commute or remit some portion of either of those sentences. That is not taken away. If my hon. friend has misunderstood the information which he got in British Columbia, or if it was given to him and he did not misunderstand it, then all I can say is that it was wrong. I agree entirely with my hon. friend that we should have that power. We do have it; we do not want to give it up.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 661-Evidence.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to request the minister to stand this clause over. I discussed it with my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops. In view of the same report of the Ontario legislature committee on reform institutions, the fact that a number of hon. members wish to go at some length into this matter, and that I have some comments and suggestions I wish to make to the minister with respect to a royal commission to go into this matter, I request that the clause stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite all right.


William Alfred Robinson: Clause 661 stands.
Clause stands.
On clause 662-Notice of application.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Clause 662 (2) reads:
An application under this part shall be heard and determined before sentence is passed for the offence of which the accused is convicted and shall be heard by the court without a jury.
Will the minister tell us why this paragraph is inserted and why there should be no jury? It would seem to me that when a person is liable to be put away for a long, indefinite period he should be entitled to trial by jury.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The logic of this clause is based upon the premise that the issue of whether an accused is a criminal sexual psychopath is one which the average judge will be more competent to try than the average jury. Perhaps we shall be better able to judge of the merits of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford after we have received a report on this subject from the royal commission.
I may say that we have discussed with Chief Justice McRuer the question of having this matter of the criminal sexual psychopath considered by the royal commission which has been set up to consider the subject matter of insanity as a defence to a charge of criminal responsibility. The chief justice is of the view, in which we concur, that it would be a mistake to combine these two subjects, both of which are technical and difficult, in the one inquiry. He thinks and we agree that it would be preferable to set up another smaller commission, of which the chief justice is prepared to accept the chairmanship, to deal with this question of criminal sexual psychopaths alone.
My suggestion would be that we pass the clause in its present form upon the understanding that it and the other clauses under this heading will be reviewed when we shall have received the report of that second commission.
I am sure my hon. friend, or anyone else who has had to do with this problem, will agree that it is an extremely difficult matter. We think that by far the best way to deal with it is to get a small body of really expert advisers to consider it, and then give the most careful consideration to the report they bring in. I should be glad to know from my hon. friend, with his long experience in this field, whether he does not agree with that view.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I most heartily agree with the minister's answer that a royal commission is to be set up to study this matter of criminal
Criminal Code
sexual psychopaths. I made the suggestion some time ago in the house, and I am delighted to hear that the minister has taken it up.
There is one other comment I should like to make in regard to this matter. Regardless of what the report of this commission may be,
I still think it is very dangerous to depart from the old, time-honoured principle of criminal law that a man should be tried by a jury, particularly when it may result in his being put away, possibly for life. While I agree with the minister that in certain circumstances a judge may be more competent to deal with the facts, particularly technical facts, nevertheless when a person's liberty for the rest of his life is endangered I cannot help feeling that a jury ought to have at least some say in the matter; otherwise it may be the thin edge of the wedge. If we do it in one case we are apt to start doing it in another; and before long trial by jury, which we have had for generations and generations, and which is one of the cornerstones of British justice, may begin to slip away from us. I just thought I should make those comments. I agree in principle with the minister's remarks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is a point that I should clear up as we go along. I am in complete agreement with my hon. friend as to the vital importance of maintaining the jury system in general. I am entirely in agreement with all the efforts that are made to protect those civil liberties and rights of the individual citizen, even of the worst criminal. But while still retaining a quite open mind on this subject and being quite prepared to review this matter in the light of any report upon it that might be brought in by a royal commission, I would be inclined to think that this type of prisoner would get at least as favourable a chance from a judge who having dealt with other cases of this nature might have perhaps a better understanding of the nature of the man's troubles and the disease that was afflicting him. The facts of these cases are not very pleasant as a rule. The judge could and likely would be at least as fair to the prisoner as a jury might be.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Will the minister permit one question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was not thinking particularly of criminal sexual psychopaths but of people who are habitual criminals, and who would come under this clause as well, I believe.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, that is right. Perhaps a distinction could be made. The ultimate

Criminal Code
decision might be to draw a distinction between the two groups; but in the meantime I cannot see any objection, and I do not think my hon. friend can either, to letting this section go through in its present form upon our undertaking, which I have given before now, to give the most careful consideration to the report when we receive it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I agree with the minister, but I would just like to illustrate what I mean, particularly with respect to the habitual criminal. Clause 660 (2) (a) reads:
He has previously, since attaining the age of 18 years, on at least three separate and independent occasions been convicted of an indictable offence for which he was liable to imprisonment for five years or more and is leading persistently a criminal life-
Then he is liable to this sentence of preventive detention. There might conceivably be a case where somebody made an application under this section, and there might very well be three separate convictions on indictable offences but they might not be serious. I think in that case a jury would be better, because we all know that some judges are more severe than others. Perhaps the minister would take into consideration some change in the future with respect to the habitual criminal part, having that done by a jury, whereas probably the other part could be done by a judge because in a sense we are dealing with an illness rather than crime.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 663-Evidence of character and repute.
Mr. Enfield:: The words "persistently leading a criminal life" appear in this clause, as they do in clause 660 which deals with habitual criminals. I should like to know the legal effect of those words. Do they not boil down to this. If a man is convicted of three offences he may be considered to be an habitual criminal, but I am wondering if it means something more than that. It seems to me that you should not be held to be leading a criminal life unless you have first been convicted of some sort of crime. It seems a little confusing the way it is worded and I should like to know the history of this particular wording and its legal effect.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To begin with, I think it should be emphasized that the purpose of this clause is to indicate that evidence as to character and repute may, where the court thinks fit, be admitted on the question whether the accused is or is not persistently leading a criminal life or is or is not a criminal sexual psychopath, as the case may be. That provision for evidence is made available both to the crown and to the accused. When an accused is charged under this section he may take the

position, "That is not so. I am going to bring evidence to indicate that this charge is unfounded." Clause 663 provides that either the accused or the crown may bring evidence on that point. But the charge that has to be proved is still the charge under clause 660. The crown has to bring the case within the provisions of clause 660 before it can establish a case against the accused.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 664-Commencement of sentence.
Harold Edward Winch: I should like to speak on this clause. When I was speaking on clause 660 I mentioned 666, but I deliberately left out any reference to 664 because I was afraid if I brought it in at that moment it might be confusing. Now that we are on clause 664 I hope that I can convey to the minister just what I have in mind.
Under this clause when a man is convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence and then following that is sentenced as an habitual criminal, the governor in council may commute the sentence for which the man was arrested and start the sentence on the habitual criminal charge from the day he goes to jail. That brings me to my first point.
The actual administration of justice comes under the provincial authorities, as do the jails. When a man is found guilty on a charge and then also found guilty under the habitual criminal section of the code, is the Minister of Justice notified immediately so he can consider the case and recommend as to whether or not the provisions of 664 should be applied and the preventive custody start from the commencement? If that is not done -I hope the minister will point that out, because I understand it is not-then this section does not mean anything.
Unless the man who is convicted has money, has a lawyer, or has friends who understand the Criminal Code and can make the necessary application, this provision means nothing. I would appreciate information as to how often this section has been used. At the end of three years the Minister of Justice shall review the situation. May I just follow up from that and say-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wants me to answer some of these questions he had better give me a chance or I will forget what they are. I take it that his question is whether we are advised when a prisoner goes to prison to serve a certain definite period with an indeterminate period thereafter. We are certainly advised if he goes into a penitentiary, because the penitentiaries are operated by the Department of Justice. So far as the provincial jails are concerned, when a prisoner goes into custody in them

we receive advice in due course, and are in a position to exercise the provisions. Moreover, in most cases, it there is any desire on the part ot the prisoner to apply tor that privilege or that commutation his counsel will see to it, or he himself will write and ask that his case be considered.


Harold Edward Winch: As the minister says, the penitentiaries come under the Department of Justice and the minister or his officials would automatically hear about it. Just suppose the officials hear that a man somewhere in Canada has been sentenced on an arresting charge and also under the habitual criminal section. Do you then automatically make that review to see whether you should exercise the provisions of section 664? It seems to me that ought to be done automatically. I think that information should be available.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: First I should like to make a correction. I said a moment ago that if the accused went to a provincial institution we would be informed. The fact is that he never does go to a provincial institution because all of these cases go only to the penitentiary. My information from my assistant, who is head of the remissions branch along with his many other duties, is that when the prisoner goes to a penitentiary we open a file at once. We get about ten thousand applications for pardon a year, and a file is opened in every case. The decisions reached in connection with these cases are based upon reports by the trial judges or magistrates, by the police, and by the wardens of the penitentiaries or jails.


Harold Edward Winch: I have one other question on this point, Mr. Chairman. When clemency -and I believe I use that term correctly- under clause 664 is not exercised, and the arresting sentence is served, does the justice department or the remission branch, to which I presume the application goes, automatically know that the sentence has been served and that the criminal is starting on a sentence as an habitual criminal, and therefore submit to the Minister of Justice that the prerogative as to clemency should now be exercised? Is that automatic, or does the person in jail have to rely upon his counsel or a friend to handle this matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The answer is yes, it is
automatic.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Harold Edward Winch: Before this clause is carried, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask through you-though I do not want to hold up the committee-if the Minister of Justice will
Criminal Code
check on his statement and investigate this question in regard to habitual criminals. I know in British Columbia-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I rather resent my hon. friend's suggestion. I told my hon. friend that I had with me the head of that department and I was able to check that statement. He assures me that it is automatic. Cases of this sort, and there are not very many, are dealt with automatically. I have no objection to checking, but I think my hon. friend in the meantime at least should take my word for it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 665 agreed to.
On clause 666-Review by Minister of Justice.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, this clause states that:
. . . the Minister of Justice shall, at least once in every three years, review the condition, history and circumstances of that person . . .
-and so on. That refers to the habitual criminal, and I would like to know what information and advice the minister receives in reviewing these cases. For example, is there a parole group within the penitentiary which supplies information on the progress made by an habitual criminal? In addition, what sort of remedial work takes place with regard to the habitual criminal?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no objection in the world to going into this question, but these really are matters which might more properly be raised on the estimates of the Department of Justice. This debate relates to the wording of Bill No. 7, to which we should be addressing our remarks. However, though I have no objection to answering any hon. friend's question, I might add that it would take me 15 to 20 minutes to cover the ground at all comprehensively and would involve an explanation of the whole of the rather elaborate system we have in our penitentiaries to take care of persons from the time they enter.
We have classification officers in our penitentiaries who are trained psychologists- university men. When the prisoner comes into a penitentiary a file is opened up for him and a card index folder is maintained. Full particulars of his background, family life and everything of that nature is filed in the same way quite a number of enlightened industries check upon their employees as to their aptitude, and so on. A classification officer is in constant contact with the prisoners who are under his care. When we come to consider the question of the

Criminal Code
prisoner's release these particulars which the classification officer has of the prisoner form some of the more important material which we consider.
We check as to how the reformation which we have tried to achieve in the penitentiary has progressed, and whether it would be safe in the prisoner's own interests to release him. We have on his file the report of the convicting judge, the police report, and a report from the superintendent of the penitentiary as to the record of this prisoner as a prisoner. In addition we have a report of the psychologist who is his classification officer as to developments in the prisoner's character in the penitentiary and the prospects of his making good if released. It is only after full consideration of all these factors that we reach our decision as to whether to remit any portion of the prisoner's sentence. It is also in relation to that record and to his aptitude or interest that he is permitted to take up various training courses within the penitentiary.
We have found that we have now reached the point where those who have taken training courses in the penitentiary have upon release established themselves, in 80 per cent of the cases, as good citizens. That is a very high rate indeed. My hon. friend can see when he asks a question of this sort that in order to give any adequate answer at all we would have to cover subjects which should not really be discussed while we are on this bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the minister was discussing remission in general terms, but I would like to know whether the habitual criminal constitutes a special case, and whether he is subjected to the program which the minister just outlined.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Those who go in as criminal sexual psychopaths or as habitual criminals are a most difficult type and obviously constitute special cases. They are given special attention, but their reformation is not any easy task. It is not always possible to achieve the results for which one would hope. But a really sincere effort is made.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I would like to ask the minister two questions. I will ask the first one and dependent upon the answer there may be no necessity for the second.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is nothing like being hopeful.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Under this clause the Minister of Justice shall at least once in every three years review the circumstances of the case. That might be suitable at the present time, but the Criminal Code may not be reviewed

again for many years, and looking into the future I can envisage a situation when this provision might not be quite so suitable. Is there a provision under the code under which a person who is in prison for a sexual offence might through his counsel make application to a judge of the supreme court for a review of his case?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He cannot make application to the supreme court.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Or to the minister of justice?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The foot of the throne is always accessible to any person who is seeking mercy. Any of these prisoners can at any time make application for a review. Of course if he made an application every two weeks then it would not receive a great deal of consideration. But this provision in this section of the code which we are discussing is mandatory. No matter how busy or preoccupied we may be we must make a review of the case every three years. But in addition to this mandatory consideration the prisoner can write a letter in longhand himself at reasonable intervals and say, "I feel I am making progress, and I would like you to consider letting me out." In this form of application he would get the same kind of consideration as if he had the most expensive lawyer available.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wonder if the minister would consider the very special circumstances which come under part XXI, and in addition to the normal review which takes place every two years under this clause introduce another form of application of which the prisoner could take advantage. In other words, the section might be widened. As it is now, there is a review once every three years, but in addition the section might be widened so that the person could make an application to a judge of a superior court. Then his case would be reviewed by a judge as well as by the minister of justice. It is just an extra precautionary method.


Mr. Ellis:: Can the minister give us some information with respect to the review provided for under this section? Can he tell us how many prisoners were permitted to go free as a result of the consideration given under this section? Has he any figures to indicate to what extent the section is used?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We have in the whole penal system of Canada twenty-seven habitual criminals and sixteen criminal sexual psychopaths. Therefore you can see that the volume of applications, from that comparatively small number of prisoners in a nation of some 14,500,000 or 15 million people, is not large. With respect to applications for remission

Criminal Code
that have been made in relation to this small group, we have not seen fit so far to release any of them.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 667 to 679 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule to clause 679 agreed to.
Clauses 680 and 681 agreed to.
On clause 682-Where conviction or order not review able.
Stanley Howard Knowles: When one compares clause 682 with the corresponding part of section 1129 one sees that there seems to have been a slight change. That change turns up in these words in subclause (a) -"whether or not the appeal has been carried to a conclusion". What is the significance of those words, and does that addition subtract anything from the rights of a convicted person?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The effect of the words to which my hon. friend refers is that where an accused has taken an appeal and the appeal is pending he may not apply for certiorari. In other words, if he chooses the appeal method and launches his appeal, then clause 682 provides that the appeal must be completed before he can apply for certiorari. To that limited extent it deprives him of the privilege of making an application for a writ of certiorari while his appeal is still pending.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact it goes further than that. I know the case upon which this amendment must be based. It is the case of Rex v. Irons. In that case counsel for the accused launched an appeal. The appeal was to the wrong court and therefore was withdrawn. Certiorari proceedings were taken which resulted in the quashing of the conviction. The court in that case expressed the view that once notice of intention had been shown by the appellant that he wished to proceed by way of appeal he could not afterwards have a second bite at the apple and determine that he might be more successful if he went ahead by certiorari. It covers not only the case the minister mentions but also the case of an appellant who launches an appeal and then decides that he might be better off not to have the case reviewed by the court of appeal and that he might very well rely on some technical objection. He then decides to take a second chance.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite right. His supplementary answer is very helpful.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 683 to 689 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 690-Successive applications for habeas corpus not to be made.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say a word on this clause which has to do with habeas corpus. If I may be pardoned for making a personal reference, every time habeas corpus is mentioned I am reminded of a discussion we had on the matter in the house one time when the late Humphrey Mitchell was with us. He greatly enjoyed making the suggestion that I was the best example of habeas corpus he had ever seen. Of course all of us who remember Humphrey Mitchell will know that he said it in a very kindly way.
I note that clause 690 is new. As I understand the situation, formerly it was possible under the common law for a person to go from one judge to another making successive applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Am I correct in understanding that the purpose of the new clause is to do away with that? If so, why has it been changed?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is right in saying that there was a practice in some of the provinces of Canada and in Great Britain whereby an applicant for a writ of habeas corpus could apply to one judge and if he did not succeed he could, upon the same set of facts and law, apply to another judge. If he was again refused he could apply to a third judge and so on until he had applied to every judge of the court. However, this privilege was not uniform in all the provinces. In the province of British Columbia they had what I think is a more rational system, and the one that we are proposing to adopt here. In British Columbia they had a provision for an appeal from the decision of the judge refusing a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoner could take an appeal to the court of appeal in that province, and there the appeal would be heard in the same way that appeals from other judgments of the trial court are heard.


John George Diefenbaker: Most provinces do not have any right of appeal with respect to habeas corpus. That is why you can go from one court to another, is it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right. I thank my hon. friend for his interjection. The privilege of going from one judge to another was not confined only to provinces of Canada but applied to Great Britain as well. In those jurisdictions where persons could go from one trial judge to another they did not have the right of appeal. In British Columbia, where they had the right of appeal, that was the remedy they had to pursue. The case of In re Fred Storgoff (1945) S.C.R. 526 was decided in 1945. The Supreme Court of Canada held in that case that where a writ

Criminal Code
of habeas corpus is applied for, as a civil remedy which the British Columbia statute purported to regulate, but applied for in connection with a criminal proceeding, the fact that it was applied for as a step in criminal proceedings gave the application for the writ of habeas corpus a criminal character. Since such a habeas corpus was of a criminal character, only the parliament of Canada could legislate with regard to it under its power to deal with matters relating to the criminal law. Therefore this right of appeal which the British Columbia statutes purported to give in relation to a habeas corpus judgment in a criminal matter was beyond the power of the British Columbia legislature to give, and the right of appeal was inoperative and void.
Now the Storgoff judgment put British Columbia back in the same position as those provinces of Canada in which there was no appeal from the judgment of a trial court judge in a habeas corpus application. The thought behind the present section is that it is wiser to provide for the prisoner the right to apply to a trial judge, and if he is refused a writ of habeas corpus then he can take his appeal to the appeal court where a panel of appeal court judges will consider his appeal on its merits. It was felt this procedure was preferable to having the prisoner apply to trial judge A, then to judge B, then to judge C, then to judge D, all equal in status as trial judges, and perhaps arriving at the conclusion that after three or four judges have rejected his application for habeas corpus, the last one will grant it and thereby in effect overrule the majority of his colleagues who had refused the application.


John George Diefenbaker: Not to overrule them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not to overrule them perhaps in a strict sense, but he grants an application on the same material upon which his brother judges have rejected it. From the standpoint of creating respect for the administration of justice, this present clause provides for a much more orderly procedure. For if what in effect are appeals are going to be taken, it is more orderly and proper to have those appeals considered by the court of appeal which is set up for that purpose and in which they are considered by a group of judges, than it is to have them considered by a succession of brother trial judges of the judge of the trial court who turned the habeas corpus application down in the first place. That is the reason for this new provision. We think it is a better provision in the interests of everyone, including the accused, than the present system.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This clause 690 is rather related to clause 691, in view of the minister's explanation. It seems to me that throughout the latter part of the code there has been an increasing tendency on the part of the framers to use expediency rather than some of the older principles of the code. I go along with what the minister has said about an appeal going to the court of appeal; that is fine. But writ of habeas corpus proceedings under this clause are very unusual and extraordinary remedies. Usually the time element is one of the most important factors in considering this remedy. It is all very well to give the right of appeal to the court of appeal, but by the time the appeal is heard the importance of the time element may have been completely sacrificed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at clause 691 (3) he will see that the point he now raises is fully covered.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, there is mention of it being heard in seven days. Even seven days sometimes is too long when it is a matter of urgency; two or three days might be of importance. I agree with the minister that the old practice of going from judge to judge might be embarrassing to some of the judges who had been visited and who had not granted the relief, but this is an extraordinary remedy that is only used in unusual cases where the time element may be of the utmost importance. I feel that no useful purpose would be served by eliminating the right of a person to go from one judge to another if it is necessary. If the circumstances did not merit the writ of habeas corpus being issued, the judges would keep on refusing. In these borderline cases, one or two judges may refuse and the third one might say yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does my hon. friend, as a crown prosecutor, think it is a good plan to give the last of five judges the power, in effect, to overrule the decision of the four judges who have preceded him in refusing the application?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My experience as a crown prosecutor was limited to a period of about two years some little time ago. I agree with the minister that in some cases it might not be a very good policy to have to go to the fifth judge, who would be the one to grant the writ. It may very well be that it would not be the fifth judge but it might be the

second judge who would grant the writ. It is an unusual and extraordinary situation, and one judge can say yes or no. The time element is an important factor in these cases, and I doubt very much if seven days would be of much help. These applications are not so usual that any real harm is going to be done by leaving the Criminal Code as it was so that you could go from judge to judge. I do not feel I can agree with this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one point which might be mentioned before we leave this clause. I am sorry, the point I want to comment upon deals with clause 691. Perhaps I should wait.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 691-Appeal in habeas corpus, etc.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The point I want to make is that I think a bouquet should be extended to our own House of Commons committee at the last session for having added subclause 3. I believe it was not there when the bill came from the Senate. The minister a moment ago cited subclause 3 as making the change more palatable than it otherwise was. I am sure he is glad to have the credit given where it is due.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is entirely correct. The difficulty of the time element mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford was threshed out in the committee and the seven days inserted in this clause. It provides summary justice.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 692 and 693 agreed to.
On clause 694-General penalty.
John George Diefenbaker: I want to speak on clause 694, to which I made reference the other day. This clause provides in part:
Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every one who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
I am rather surprised that a considerable change was not made in this clause to follow the practice in other jurisdictions and also to follow the recommendations that were made by the Archambault commission. In other words, we have still retained in our law, in effect, imprisonment for debt. It is on that matter I wish to speak at some length and to refer to the report of the Archambault commission as well as the practice of the United Kingdom. I brought this matter up 83276-184
Criminal Code
some years ago, I think it was in 1947, and referred to the same question again two or three weeks ago.
In various newspapers in the country on those occasions widespread support was given to the argument I advanced that, where an offence has been committed that merits only the imposition of a fine, no one should be imprisoned because of his inability to pay that fine, and that the onus should be upon the crown not to stigmatize that person by an alternative in jail simply because of the fact that his financial condition denied him what was available to those in a better financial position, namely the payment of the fine and by this means avoiding imprisonment.
This clause is one that has been with us for many years. It used to be regarded as normal that if a person could not pay a fine he should be imprisoned. But for many years that has not been the view either in Great Britain or in most jurisdictions in the United States.
In other words, in my opinion it is an essential part of our system of justice that every person, regardless of his financial capacity, shall have equality before the law. And I feel that this clause, which makes provision for an alternative of imprisonment in lieu of payment of a fine, is simply a relic of the past, and denies that humane administration of the law that is characteristic of all legal systems today that follow the British doctrine of punishment and reformation.
In 1914 the parliament of the United Kingdom in effect abolished this practice. If anyone reads the debates of that time-and it is now forty years ago-he will find that the law lords, the legal authorities in the House of Lords, as well as some of the outstanding lawyers in Britain, pointed out how unjust and unfair a continuance of that relic of the past actually was, whereby inability to pay a fine had as its consequence an unfortunate period of imprisonment for the individual.
Chapter 58 of the British statutes of 1914 made provision whereby any person against whom a fine was imposed was permitted, in the event of his inability to pay such fine at the moment, to pay it by instalments.
This was the law until 1934-35, when a further change was made. I am not going to read the sections. I shall merely designate their numbers so that hon. members may be able to find them. In 1935 this further provision was made:
Where a court of summary jurisdiction adjudges a person to pay a sum by a conviction and allows time for payment, the court shall not on that

Criminal Code
occasion impose on the defendant a period of imprisonment in default of payment of that sum: Provided that this subsection shall not have effect where the court on that occasion and in the presence of the defendant determines that for special reason, whether having regard to the gravity of the offence, to the character of the defendant or to other special circumstances, it is expedient that he should be imprisoned without further inquiry in default of payment.
In other words, anyone who was in the position of having the ability to pay, or belonged to that parasitical class who endeavour to live by their wits and at the expense of others, must pay; but, with the exception of those classes, imprisonment should not be imposed in default of payment of the fine, unless upon inquiry it is shown and proof is provided that the person in question is able to pay his fine.
I am sure all of us who have read Dickens' story about Little Dorrit will realize that, actually, what we are doing in this twentieth century, by imposing imprisonment in default of payment of a fine, is in effect a continuation of that to which Dickens had reference when he dealt with the deplorable situation then prevailing in the prisons.


Mr. Macdonnell:: And from which his own family had suffered.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member says, there was a personal feeling in what he wrote. It was based on experience.
The result of the changes that have taken place in the United Kingdom has been to reduce the prison population of Britain, as compared to ours, to an extent almost beyond comprehension. While I have not the exact figures here, I believe I am speaking with reasonable certainty when I say that the number imprisoned in Canada today is almost three times that in Britain, despite the fact that our population is only one-third of Britain's.
It is most interesting to see what happened after the British parliament abolished this practice, iniquitous in its results and detrimental to good citizenship in that many a person whose only offence was that of poverty suffered the indignity of imprisonment.
What happened in Britain was this. In 1913 the number imprisoned for default in payment of fines was 79,583. By 1923 that had fallen to 15,261. Then came the amendments of 1935, as a result of which the number in prison in 1938 stood at 7,936.
One of the briefs presented to the special committee was to the following effect:
We believe that it is time a similar provision were made in Canada for payment of fines on time. Everyone in Canada is supposed to enjoy equal rights under the law. It can hardly be said that this is so when people have to serve jail sentences because they are not financially able to pay fines, except on instalments.

The Archambault commission in 1938 went into this matter in detail. I shall quote from page 167, so that the record will be reasonably complete. It states:
The attention of your commissioners has frequently been drawn to the large number of persons who are annually committed to jail for non-payment of fines. The number shown by the Canadian criminal statistics for 1936, to have been sentenced to jail with the option of a fine was 9,593, but statistics are not available to show how many of these served sentences in jail.
Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Administration Act passed in England in 1914, the court is obliged to allow time for payment of fines and for investigation of inability to pay.
Farther on, we get this quotation:
The matter was the subject of an extensive investigation and report by a departmental committee in England in 1934. The report resulted in the enactment of the Money Payments Act (Justices Procedure Act) of 1935.
I made reference to that act a moment ago. I continue:
The act makes further provision for the investigation of the means of the defaulter before imprisonment . . . The statute provides that no one is to be sent to jail for non-payment of a fine unless it can be shown that he might reasonably be expected to pay such fine. This act came into force on January 1, 1936, and the results of its first year of operation are shown by a substantial reduction in imprisonments for non-payment.
Then it sets forth the statement that was placed on the records of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom by the then home secretary, Sir John Simon, afterwards Lord Chancellor. He pointed out that the number of persons imprisoned in 1935 in default of payment of fines was 16,567. In 1936 it fell to 11,623. This change would bring about some of the penological advances that have been made in other countries. It is no encouragement to crime. I am speaking of the person who is fined $5 and costs. May I give an example. Many years ago I happened to go into a police court where a number of men who had no work were charged with an offence. They were each fined $5 and costs or in default thirty days. They were respectable men, unable to work because no work was available. They were willing to work. In addition to the thirty days, they were fingerprinted, and because of the social attitude of all of us toward those who have been convicted for offences and sentenced, the futures of these men were undermined. Their only offence was that they could not pay a picayune $5 fine. What did the Archambault commissioners recommend? This is what they recommended:
Your commissioners recommend that the principle embodied in these English statutes should be introduced into Canada.
Imprisonment for non-payment, when the convicted person has not the means or ability to pay, is, in fact, imprisonment for poverty. The injustice of such a law is patent. The poverty-stricken man is

punished more severely for the commission of the same offence than the man with means. Your commissioners are of the opinion that many recidivist criminals often receive their first education in crime upon being committed to prison for nonpayment of fines.
Mr. Chairman, that conclusion of a commission composed of learned and able men is a terrible indictment of our system of imposing imprisonment because of inability to pay fines. Let me repeat it:
Your commissioners are of the opinion that many recidivist criminals often receive their first education in crime upon being committed to prison for non-payment of fines.
I simply place that before the minister. 1 feel that many of the recommendations and changes made in the Criminal Code are worthy and necessary, but I do believe that this is one responsibility that the commissioners could not accept; for in reality they were not to establish substantive law. That is the manner in which they interpreted the commission that they had. In large measure the changes that they made neither create nor diminish responsibility.
The committee should give most earnest consideration to this matter. I know there are some magistrates who, when an accused comes before them, on occasion grant time to pay, but they have no authority to do that. They are but the few compared to the many. The reductions in the numbers of those who were imprisoned in the United Kingdom, when this provision came into effect, have not only had a beneficial effect on the individual but they have also had a material effect in reducing the prison population and the expense of maintaining prisons.
That is another argument I advance. By permitting people to pay fines on time the population of our prisons would be considerably reduced. By "prisons" I mean "jails"; and public funds would be saved in the process. With all the power I possess I place this matter before the committee and ask support on behalf of the proposition I advance, that we bring our criminal law up to date and that in this country we do not imprison individuals, against whom a fine of $5 or $10 would be sufficient, simply because they are unable to pay that fine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to support wholeheartedly the plea that the hon. member for Prince Albert has made. He has stated the case so well that one does not need to repeat his arguments. He himself indicated that perhaps the strongest argument is the one contained in the report of the Archambault commission, and I hope that the minister will yet give consideration to altering the 83276-1841
Criminal Code
law so that we do not in fact send people to jail because they cannot afford to pay a debt-in this case the debt being a fine.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the case which the hon. member for Prince Albert has made is strengthened by a change which is included in subclause 1 of clause 694, which is now before us. I had something to say yesterday about the apparent effects of inflation, Liberal inflation, on the Criminal Code. Yesterday we had an instance where, because of inflation, the monetary figure had been doubled, but in this instance the former ceiling of $50 has been increased to $500. In other words, Mr. Chairman, under clause 694, subclause 1, there is even more chance that a person may be unable to pay a fine levied against him on summary conviction than was the case before. Previously such a fine could not exceed $50, but now this type of fine may go as high as $500. Thus I can see an even greater possibility of people being in the situation of not being able to pay the fine and having to go to jail.
Yesterday afternoon when we were discussing clause 623 I complained because a limitation was being imposed with regard to fines levied against corporations in respect to summary conviction offences. In defence of the limitation of $1,000 the minister suggested that summary conviction offences might in some cases be trifling and therefore it was proper to fix that limit. We are dealing now with cases that come under summary conviction having to do with individuals rather than corporations, and yet here the ceiling is being raised from $50 to $500 with the additional phrase, or six months' imprisonment, or both.
I support as strongly as I can the plea made by the hon. member for Prince Albert and I suggest that this tremendous increase in the amount of fine that may be levied under summary conviction strengthens the case made by the hon. member. I think that there is something to be said for the point that this would be a substantive change and therefore the commissioners can be pardoned for not having implemented the Archambault recommendation in this respect. But it does seem to me that the responsibility rests with the government, and in turn with parliament, to give more serious consideration to that recommendation.


Mr. Shaw:: My colleagues are united in their request to the minister to give serious consideration to this matter. We feel that the hon. member for Prince Albert has put the case clearly and forcibly and therefore it is unnecessary to add to the arguments he has advanced. I repeat that we are absolutely

Criminal Code
united in our view that the minister should grant this matter favourable consideration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be a case where it is not necessary to have any experience in the administration of criminal law in order to feel entitled to express an opinion. I have listened to what has been said by the hon. member for Prince Albert and it does seem to me that the case he has made is really inescapable on the grounds of humanity and decency.


Donald MacInnis: I can only say here what I said in the parliamentary committee when we were dealing with this matter, that it seems to me wrong that a person should be penalized with a term in jail if he has not the money to pay a fine. It really means that he is not going to jail for his crime; he is going to jail for not having the money to pay his fine. Surely this parliament ought to make a decision that the time has arrived when we will not allow a thing of that kind to exist.


Mr. Cannon:: The hon. member for Prince Albert may have mentioned in his speech the point I have in mind, since I heard only the end of it. If subsection 2 is amended to take away the sanction for not paying a fine, judges may be more likely to condemn to jail immediately under subsection 1 rather than impose a fine.


John George Diefenbaker: I would not think that those charged with the administration of justice would be imprisoning when a fine would be sufficient.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: If there is no sanction for not paying a fine?


Mr. Barneil:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say at the outset that I agree with the views which have been expressed in regard to sending people to jail simply because they are not able through poverty to pay a fine, but after listening to the various speakers who have dealt with this subject I feel that there are one or two other aspects which have to be considered. To me at least that is where the conundrum exists in drafting a section of this kind.
I feel that in dealing with cases under summary conviction you have to consider, not only the class of people who through poverty are unable to pay a fine but those who are obstinate or careless or shiftless and who, unless there is some compulsion, will simply refuse to pay a fine. I think we have to consider the position of the magistrate dealing with that kind of person.
In respect to the raising of the maximum fine which a magistrate can impose, I have had some conversations with people who have experience in this sort of thing. I believe that we have to acknowledge that

the inflation my colleague referred to does exist and also that the total in effect may prevent a magistrate from sending a man to jail. I know that there was a tendency when the ceiling was set at $50 for magistrates to feel that the maximum was merely a trifle to the person convicted, that he would simply pull a roll out of his pocket, hand over $50 and go out and commit the same offence again the following Saturday night.
Personally I feel that the raising of the ceiling under present conditions will tend to reduce the number of jail sentences which magistrates will impose. I do not profess to have a solution to this conundrum but I do feel we must consider the obdurate individual who without some proper form of compulsion may get around the paying of the fine.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat says that there would have to be some compulsion. I would point out that there is provision for compulsion in the act in the United Kingdom. There is an immediate investigation for the purpose of determining ability to pay, the circumstances as to the enormity of the offence, the seriousness of it and evidence of repetition such as the hon. gentleman mentioned. In other words, the jail sentence is not mandatory upon failure to pay the fine. An investigation takes place immediately into the ability to pay and into the other circumstances referred to by the hon. member.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I should like to compliment the hon. member for Comox-Alberni upon his short but excellent contribution to this debate. We are dealing here with a matter in which the reforms we are introducing if they are going to be of any value must be realistic. As the hon. member pointed out, unless we have some method whereby some form of discipline can be imposed upon those who, not having too much in the way of worldly goods, break the law, the result would be that we would have no sanctions with which to compel observance of the law by that kind of person. My hon. friend from Prince Albert has painted a very interesting picture of the condition of Canadian law, and of the experience under, and condition of, the English law. I am sure that as far as he went it was most accurate. It was the truth, but it was not the whole truth by any manner of means-


John George Diefenbaker: Was the Archambault commission untruthful?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I listened with interest to my hon. friend's speech. Will the hon. member now please listen to mine.


John George Diefenbaker: Do not make the suggestion that the Archambault commission recommended that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am referring to the
comparisons my hon. friend made between Canada and Great Britain. It is quite true that in Great Britain they have reduced their prison population by a very substantial percentage over the last 40 or 50 years. But I am sure my hon. friend from Prince Albert, upon reflection, would not wish to leave the impression with this committee that that reduction was in any sense solely attributable to the payment of fines by instalment in that country. I am quite sure he knows, though I regret he did not tell us, that the main contributing factor to the reduction of the prison population in Great Britain is a very thoroughgoing probation system under which they have the facilities to supervise, as he indicated a few moments ago, the arrangement and collection of these fine instalments. My hon. friend was then speaking in reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The British probation officers must examine the ability of persons to pay a fine. The only alternative to that is to say that if a man's income is below a certain figure he need not bother observing the law at all. He cannot pay a fine, you do not want to put him in jail, and so you allow him to be a privileged person.
The point I wish to make so far as Canada is concerned is that we propose under this present bill to continue the provision in our existing law under which magistrates are given wide latitude and can give time for the payment of a fine. One of the main reasons why that practice is not followed in this country is that we have no elaborate probation system such as exists in Great Britain and which provides the supervision necessary to administer the payment of fines by instalment.


John George Diefenbaker: The magistrate does it there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They do it there upon the basis of information supplied by probation officers of whom there are large numbers, but we do not have anything even remotely approaching the same number here. One of the difficulties we have in this country to which my hon. friend pays no apparent attention at all is that under the unitary government of England the legislative body which passes the law largely enforces it, with the assistance of municipal law officers. In Canada the law we pass in this parliament has to be enforced by ten provincial administrations over a widely scattered area under conditions which
Criminal Code
are totally dissimilar to those of Great Britain. Comparisons between the two are not fairly drawn, especially when all the facts on each side are not placed before the members of this committee who are asked to make that comparison.


John George Diefenbaker: You should have read that lecture upon the findings of the Archambault commission.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Clause 625, paragraph 1, reads:
Where a term of imprisonment is imposed in default of payment of a penalty, the term shall, upon payment of a part of the penalty, be reduced by the number of days that bears the same proportion to the number of days in the term as the part paid bears to the total penalty.
This clause should be examined in relation to clause 694, paragraph 3, which we are now discussing which provides that "a summary conviction court may direct that any fine, pecuniary penalty or sum of money adjudged to be paid shall be paid forthwith or at a time to be fixed by the summary conviction court".
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in any cases in which a fine or penalty has been adjudged to be paid by a magistrate under this summary conviction clause there is nothing in law which prevents him saying that the total amount of this fine shall be paid by the prisoner, "at a time which I hereby fix for a certain date in future." The accused then may pay part on account if he wishes, and if he has not paid the whole amount in full then he will be entitled to credit under clause 625, paragraph 1, which I quoted a moment ago, and for the amount that has been paid on account and there will be a corresponding reduction in the imprisonment that would otherwise have been served.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the
minister a question. Suppose a person is fined $10 and he is able to pay only $5 and the failure to pay the initial $10 carried the alternative of 20 days in jail. Would he then serve 10 days in jail because of his inability to pay the remaining $5?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


John George Diefenbaker: That is still imprisonment for debt.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If it is a fine of $10 will my hon. friend say that under this clause time may not be fixed which will enable the accused to pay that fine? The clause reads in part:
. . . shall be paid forthwith or at a time to be fixed by the summary conviction court.
I know that the corresponding section of the present law is not invoked very often, and I suggest one of the reasons for that is that summary conviction courts do not like to

Criminal Code
take the trouble to make an order under this section. I see my hon. friend nodding his head in agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it not a very good argument to have the clause say that, so they will not be able to evade the issue?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would like to remind my hon. friend that, as I have stated on previous occasions in this house, where you have jurisdiction over the criminal law divided between a legislature which enacts that law and other authorities which administer it, all we can do here is to provide them with a law under which they will have a discretion. It is up to them to exercise that discretion. Not only is it true that the time can be extended and any money paid applied in reduction of the penalty of imprisonment, but under the heading of suspended sentence-this has no reference to fines-payment of costs or compensation, where those are applicable, can be made by instalments as a condition to the suspended sentence. In other words, in the absence of a thoroughgoing probation system in the provincial administration of justice in Canada, I think we have provided in this section all of the discretion which summary conviction courts are prepared to exercise with the facilities they now have at hand. If there is a real desire to give some time for payment, I think they could certainly do so under the law as it stands and as we propose to continue it in the new act.
That being so, it seems to me, under Canadian conditions and in view of our divided jurisdiction, that we have gone as far as practical conditions make possible. When it is represented to us by those who are responsible for the enforcement of the law that they want greater discretion than they now have we will certainly be very glad to consider it. But until that is done we have no reason to suppose, on the basis of the manner in which the present law is invoked, that any further discretion would be exercised to any extent.


John George Diefenbaker: Am I not right that the Canadian Bar Association, representative of the bar of every province in Canada, has recommended this change?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, if my hon. friend is right, that proves that the Canadian Bar Association is in favour of it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Prince Albert gave a very interesting example of a convicted person paying part of a fine and in lieu of payment of the balance serving a portion of the jail term. To my mind this brings out a very important principle, the question of the maximum fine of $500 or

maximum imprisonment of six months. This implies that $500 cash is equal to spending six months in jail. If we believe in the principle of equality before the law, I think it is the height of absurdity, when a man is accused of an offence and convicted, to offer him the choice of paying $500 or spending six months in jail. Many a man can walk into a courtroom, be tried and convicted, take out a cheque book and write a cheque for $500 and walk out of court a free man. Other men who lack money go to jail for six months. In view of the quotation read by the minister a few moments ago, I should like him to tell the committee whether in his opinion the payment of $500 in cash bears any fair relationship to spending six months in jail.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Personally I do not think that it does. I certainly would not want to trade the one for the other. But I would point out to my hon. friend that his question has no element of reality to it. If he will read the section carefully he will see that it says:
. . . every one who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both.
There is no suggestion in that section that, as the hon. member would have us believe, $500 is balanced against six months' imprisonment. All that the section says is that the top limit of the monetary penalty is $500 and the top limit of imprisonment is six months. But if a well-to-do person is in the dock and is convicted and the magistrate takes a dark view of the crime he has committed and the circumstances connected with it, it does not by any means necessarily follow that the magistrate is going to impose a penalty of $500 on him. He knows that would be no penalty at all, and under this section he can quite readily send him to jail for six months and on top of a $500 fine, which will be a very different thing.


John George Diefenbaker: They certainly would not be exercising very much discretion if they followed that system.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the other hand, if the circumstances of the offence had elements about them which seemed to entitle the accused to some consideration and the accused did not appear to be well off the magistrate could impose a money penalty of anything from $500 down to $5 or less and not a prison term at all. After having imposed that penalty he could under this law give the accused time in which to pay it. If during that time the accused pays something on account of the penalty another section of the code says

that any penalty of imprisonment imposed in lieu of payment of the balance of the fine will be reduced proportionately.
What I wish to emphasize is that until we instal a system of probation in this country under which a provision of this sort will be administered in the way in which I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert that they do it successfully in Great Britain, the idea that we are going to accomplish a great reform by amending the existing provision for the giving of time to pay is quite illusory for the cogent reasons which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has stated.
So far as we in the department are concerned, we have an entirely open mind on the matter and are quite prepared to consider any amendment that will actually produce a real reform. But I suggest that if the law-enforcing authorities are going to keep track of a large number of people making payments of instalments on account of fines it is a very different thing to do it in the city of Manchester than it is, for example, in the town of Russell in my constituency, surrounded by a large rural area. Who are going to collect these instalments? If we can answer that question satisfactorily, have we not in the law as it is now a practical provision for time payment that can be applied in a practical manner? Can we not apply the law that we have now in a much greater number of cases if we really want to do it?


Alfred Claude Ellis: The minister says that the magistrate may take certain factors into consideration, but that depends on the interpretation of the law by the particular magistrate sitting on a particular case. So far as Bill No. 7 is concerned, the law with which this parliament is concerned, irrespective of the various difficulties the minister has suggested would arise in collecting fines on the instalment plan, I suggest that much more serious consequences are involved on the other side of the picture in people going to jail. I suggest that for a great many Canadian citizens to be sent to jail under such circumstances in the next few years will be a far more serious matter than any difficulties that might arise in the collection of fines. I suggest that what the minister has said in no way upsets the validity of the statement I made previously, that while it is true a magistrate may impose a jail sentence and a fine-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Or both.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes-"a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for six months or to both." In other words, it is left wide open.
Criminal Code
The fact remains that under the law as it is proposed now persons in Canada will be brought before magistrates and tried and if convicted will be faced with the alternative of either paying a certain sum of money or going to jail.
I believe the comparison made with Great Britain might be all very well, but even if the question of what is being done in Great Britain had not been brought up at all, the validity of the argument presented here this afternoon would not be any less. When a man is tried and convicted of an offence he may be given the alternative of paying a definite sum of money or going to jail for a definite amount of time. If he goes to jail, he is going to jail not because he has committed the offence in the first place but because he was unable to pay the fine imposed by the court.


Mr. Mclvor:: The prisoner is not given any choice in the matter, Mr. Chairman.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In relation to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Regina City, I would point out that if he would examine the British legislation I am sure he would find that the court is given a discretion in those cases to decide whether the accused is able to pay, and should therefore pay forthwith, or whether he is not able to pay and, as the hon. member for Prince Albert said, should pay by instalments over a period of time. We have the same discretion in Canada. He can pay forthwith or he can pay at a time to be fixed by the summary conviction court. The only difference is that it is not spelled out that it can be paid by instalments. If the time is fixed far enough ahead, there is nothing in the world to prevent the accused from accumulating, at the same rate he would pay the instalments, the moneys that are necessary to meet that fine. Therefore I say that, while I respect the motives for the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, I do not think they take sufficiently into account that under our present Canadian law the courts can give time to pay the fine. Not only that, but after they have given the time, if the accused quite honestly has not paid up the full amount, then he gets full credit for everything he has paid on that amount.
I am not saying that this is perfect. If the administrative authority wanted to go to the trouble of collecting instalments and that sort of thing and had the officers to do it, I am not saying it might not be better to so provide; but the time to provide that will be when much greater advantage shall have been taken of the present provision than has been taken so far by the administrative authorities.

Criminal Code


Alfred Claude Ellis: Would the minister assure the committee, then, that the practice to be followed in the future will be that in summary convictions, in all cases magistrates will give the convicted person time to pay his fine.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am very greatly indebted to my hon. friend for having asked that question because he has illuminated this whole matter with a great light. The reason, sir, I cannot give that assurance, and the reason for much of the difficulty that we have in connection with this matter, is that all we can do here is to enact the criminal law and make provision for the payment of these fines on time. But these magistrates are not appointed by this government; the prosecutors who act in these courts are not appointed by this government; we have nothing whatever to do with the administration of justice in these courts. We have no influence whatever over them. We can pass laws here until we are black in the face about the desirability of the instalment plan, but we could not, by the mere fact of passing these laws, give a guarantee that the objectives my hon. friends think are so desirable would be reached; that is the point.


John George Diefenbaker: That is no point at all.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Then, this parliament can change the law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be most delighted if I could give an assurance to my hon. friend that these acts would be done by those over whom I have no authority whatever. Constitutionally it is beyond my power to give such an undertaking.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It is not beyond the power of this parliament to enact a section of the Criminal Code which will take away from magistrates the power to send a man to jail because he cannot pay a fine. That is within the power of this parliament. The arguments that the minister has used in the last couple of minutes are the best arguments given this afternoon for changing this code in the manner pointed out by hon. members on this side.


Mr. Croll:: I was going to ask the minister a constitutional question, and one which he is able to deal with. It does lie within the minister's authority to set up a system of probation. Would he give us the approximate date when that might be set up?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I dislike disagreeing with the hon. member for Spadina, but I think he is confusing the system of probation with the system of parole. The system of probation is a system under which, when the accused

is before the magistrate, the magistrate, instead of sentencing him to any penalty whatever, releases him on probation. Now, at that point in the accused's appearance before the court he has not come within any of our federal fields of authority at all. He is the subject of the administration of justice, a purely provincial function. It is only when he has had a sentence imposed upon him and he becomes either an inmate of the federal penitentiary system, which of course is under our authority, or the object of the royal mercy in the matter of the remission of his sentence, that he comes under federal jurisdiction.
At the present time, we have in our penitentiaries something which my hon. friend from Toronto Spadina seems to think of as a probation system. But our federal system is not a probation system; it is a parole system. We have had it in effect for some considerable time. Under a ticket-of-leave we release prisoners from our penitentiaries on the recommendation of the parole board to the John Howard Society, the Salvation Army, and other similar organizations. But these are prisoners who have been sentenced to prison and have thus come under our federal constitutional authority. They are released by us under that same authority.
But so far as the probation system is concerned, as I am sure the hon. member for Prince Albert would agree, it is a system under which instead of having a conviction registered or a sentence imposed upon the accused the magistrate binds him over under the probation officers to behave himself from that time on. All of this happens as part of the provincial administration of justice. Such a provincial probation system in Canada is the analogous body to that which in England has been responsible, as the member for Prince Albert has rightly said, for the great reduction in the prison population of Great Britain, and the great reduction in cost to the taxpayer. That is the body that looks after the collection of these fines on instalments and so on. I suggest that in order to make effective a law that we pass here for the payment of fines by instalments, it will be necessary to provide for it some such type of administration set-up.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was wondering if the minister would care to comment on the suggestion I should like to make with regard to subclause 3. The whole discussion might be obviated if subclause 3 were amended somewhat along the following lines:
A summary conviction court may direct that any fine, pecuniary penalty or sum of money adjudged to be paid shall be paid forthwith or if the accused

is unable to pay forthwith, at such time and on such terms as may be fixed by the summary conviction court.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would be quite willing to
accept that suggestion. I doubt whether it will make much difference in practice, but in the light of what I have said this afternoon, there is no reason why we should not extend the discretion of the summary conviction court in the manner which has been suggested. And we can see what effect that will have.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Chairman,
mention was made by the minister that the system in effect in the United Kingdom could not be applied here because they had probation officers, and the like. The system of probation officers was not established in its present form until after the original statute passed in 1914. The British act reads as follows:
(1)	A warrant committing a person to prison in respect of non-payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of a court of summary jurisdiction shall not be issued forthwith unless the court which passed the sentence is satisfied that he is possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the sum forthwith, or unless, upon being asked by the court whether he desires that time should be allowed for payment, he does not express any such desire, or fails to satisfy the court that he has a fixed abode within its jurisdiction, or unless the court for any other special reason expressly directs that no time shall be allowed.
(2)	Where any such person desires to be allowed time for payment the court in deciding what time shall be allowed shall consider any representation made by him, but the time allowed shall not be less than seven clear days.
That is the 1914 act. I had the 1935 act here, but I lent it to Hansard. I suggest that this clause be allowed to stand so that consideration might be given to the drafting of an amendment, as a first step toward a very necessary reform in our country. The long discussion regarding the distribution of authority between the dominion and the provinces was, to say the least, quite inappropriate, and inapplicable to the arguments I have advanced.
The discussion this afternoon has at least brought about a review of the situation. I suggest this is one of the most important clauses to come before us. The clauses dealing with murder and other serious offences will not have such general application. In other words, comparatively there will be very few of those serious offences. The large body of offences in this country is that body in respect of which a fine is regarded as sufficient penalty.
In so far as the criminal law is concerned, when a fine is sufficient, I was glad to hear
Criminal Code
the minister say that imprisonment should not be enforced. He referred to the subclause as it now stands:
A summary conviction court may direct that any fine, pecuniary penalty or sum of money adjudged to be paid shall be paid forthwith or at a time to be fixed by the summary conviction court.
That clause as it now stands is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, simply because it is general and is not given ad hoc application, and in its present general form it has no actual mandatory application. Under the law in England, and particularly the 1935 amendment, the mandatory principle is applied. The minister has said that if a person were fined $10 with an alternative of twenty days, and could pay only $5, he would have to serve only ten days. Well, I do not think there is anybody in our country who wants to serve a jail term on instalments, or that the minister's suggestion helps the situation at all.
I cannot understand why my observations engendered such heat on the part of the minister because, after all, the generation of heat does not always bring light. I was glad the hon. member to my left, by his references, gave some illumination to the minister. I have tried to discuss the matter objectively. What I have placed before the committee represents a general demand with which I am sure the minister is in agreement. For this reason I suggest that this very important clause, applying as it does each year to more than 10,000 people in our dominion, deserves to be stood aside for the time being, to the end that, through a community of counsel, we may be able to arrive at some arrangement that would be satisfactory to the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Did the hon. member hear the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not considered it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Does my hon. friend agree with it?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know, because I cannot say how far it went. I suggest that the terms of the English act be made applicable, to the extent that our conditions permit. The amendments in the United Kingdom were brought about through a committee of parliament with the assistance of Sir John Simon, one of the jurists of his time, who was at the time Home Secretary and who subsequently became Lord Chancellor. And with that community of effort in the British

Criminal Code
House of Commons, with outstanding members of the department of the Home Secretary and of the British parliament, amendments were made that, after the experience of nineteen years, have been found to be effective and to have greatly reduced the prison population in the United Kingdom.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. At six
o'clock the committee was considering clause 694. Shall the clause carry?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that the suggested amendment I gave to the minister for consideration might stand more careful study, I request that this clause stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What I suggest we might do is to take my hon. friend's clause and perhaps revise it slightly without changing its principle and bring it in when we meet on the next occasion.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does clause 694 stand?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Just before the clause is allowed to stand I should like to say a few words on two points. Perhaps the points I have in mind could be considered by the minister while the clause is standing. Earlier in the discussion, I believe, the minister himself suggested that one of the difficulties in regard to clauses such as this was that while this parliament can enact certain things we have no jurisdiction in enforcing the procedure. However, the point I should like to make revolves around the idea that by power of our suggestion, if by nothing more, we may have a certain effect on how these clauses are carried out and administered.
The first suggestion I have in mind is in relation to this matter of allowing payments to be made over an extended period, or to be delayed. It does seem to me that one reason which might deter a magistrate from entering into any arrangement for delayed payments is the trouble and the difficulty involved in making the necessary collections. What I am wondering is whether under subclause 3 of clause 694 there could be included some specific plan whereby the person on whom the fine had been imposed could assign more or less in the way garnishee orders are made for the deduction from wages or by an assignment that would be collectible from his bank account, or some such

arrangement as that. If a plan of action were suggested in the subclause, a magistrate on reading it might be more disposed to follow through with that idea. I think he would be influenced in that regard if the clause contained a concrete suggestion that the magistrate could arrange with a person who had been fined to assign a portion of his wages, if he were regularly employed, or a deduction from his bank account, if he were selfemployed, or something along that line. Could something like that be considered in any drafting that is done on this clause?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I question very much whether we would be warranted, in a law of general application of this character, in going into details of that sort. After all, that is part of the magisterial discretion. A magistrate is quite at liberty to make arrangements of this sort; that is a sensible arrangement. If he wishes to he can enter into those arrangements. But it is not customary to give direction of that sort in a law of general application such as this Bill No. 7.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have another point that I feel I should bring up here on behalf of one irate citizen of this country. I will explain it, and the minister can say whether or not this could be worked. This has to do with the fact that under this clause, when the person pays his fine, no provision is made for him to get a receipt for the money that he has paid in. As I say, I know of an. instance where a certain irate citizen went so far as to go to the attorney general of the province about this, and he was informed that there was no provision. I believe it was something on the theory that his freedom was his receipt; but this particular citizen was not satisfied with that provision. He felt that if any agent of the crown was collecting money, no matter what he might be collecting it for, he should give the person who had paid that money a receipt. My question to the minister is: Could that be included, and if not, why not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it should be included, and the reason is this. Both of these matters that my hon. friend has raised are pretty largely questions of administration. If the province concerned does not see fit to have a system under which its magistrates or clerks of court, and the like, give official receipts for all the moneys that they receive officially in the discharge of their duties, then it would be most unusual for us to direct in the criminal law of Canada that they should give receipts and the like. That is purely a matter of provincial administration.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In other words, the minister thinks that it comes within the province of the attorney general?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite, and that distinction goes all through the piece.


Mr. Boisvert:: Before this clause stands I should like to say a few words about it. I listened this afternoon to the many good suggestions from the other side of the house. I have been studying these suggestions, and in my humble opinion they will not help the administration of justice in this country. I have been practising law in the province of Quebec for twenty-five years and I have always found that the judges and magistrates had quite a lot of discretion in cases such as we were dealing with this afternoon. I have also found that in the exercise of their discretionary power the judges and magistrates have postponed their sentences to give the poor people a chance to pay their fines. Sometimes they have postponed them for one month, for two months or three months so that the poor people were able to pay their fines and had not to go to jail. Therefore I do not think that the suggestions made this afternoon would improve the administration of justice in this country, as I said before. I say that from the bottom of my heart because I have always been on the side of the poor people, the weak and the miserable. But when we are dealing with justice in a country like Canada I think we should respect the discretion of the judges and magistrates and retain the system we have been enjoying up to date and which after all has not destroyed the framework of our community.


Frank A. Enfield: Mr. Chairman, there is something I should like to get clear regarding this procedure of allowing clauses to stand. I was under the impression that if we came to a clause on which it was expected there would be a great deal of discussion it was to stand in order that we might make progress with what we are doing. We spent a great part of this afternoon discussing clause 694 only to find when we returned this evening that it is going to stand anyway. My own view is that hon. members have had the utmost opportunity to express themselves concerning clause 694 and if it is allowed to stand we will only be repeating the process all over again at a later date. I would move that clause 694 pass as it stands.
The Depuiy Chairman: My understanding is that the committee agreed that this clause should stand although not on exactly the
83276-185i
Criminal Code
same terms as those which have stood up to date. The Minister of Justice suggested that this clause stand until next time in order that a change in the wording might be considered and submitted to the committee.


Frank A. Enfield: I think it was at the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford that it stood, and I as a member of the committee certainly did not consent.
Clause stands.
Clauses 695 to 709 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 710-Adjournment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I read this clause correctly it has the effect of doing away with a change which was made in 1948. Subparagraph (a) of subclause 3 of this clause provides that in certain circumstances:
-the summary conviction court
(a) may proceed ex parte to hear and determine the proceedings in the absence of the defendant as fully and effectually as if the defendant had appeared.
Section 718 of the former code was amended by section 20 of chapter 39 of the statutes of 1948 which provided in part:
-as if the defendant had personally appeared in obedience to such summons and had pleaded "not guilty".
Can the minister tell us the significance of those words "and had pleaded not guilty". Will he tell us why they were put in in 1948 and why they are being taken out now?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Both the existing section in
the code and the proposed clause in the bill provide for summary conviction hearings proceeding in the absence of the defendant. When it so proceeds the crown will have to prove a case against the defendant and the provision that it should proceed as if he had pleaded not guilty is surplusage; for the crown certainly could not proceed as if he had pleaded guilty. The onus is always upon the crown to prove the case when it proceeds in the absence of the defendant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that the minister was not here in 1948 when those words were put in. Does he know why they were inserted, in view of the comment he has now made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I do not.


Donald MacInnis: The sense is pretty much the same, whether they use the one set of words or the other.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 711 to 716 inclusive agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
On clause 717-Where injury or damage feared.
Mr.   Nesbill@: This clause is not greatly different from what it used to be but I cannot help feeling that this clause and the similar section in the code have omitted to correct a situation which has arisen not infrequently. Perhaps I could illustrate my point by giving an example. On one occasion the children's aid society in the city in which I live received a telephone call around midnight from a man who told them they had better come to get his children as he was going to shoot his wife and then commit suicide. There were several young children who had to be looked after.
The police were informed quickly and when they arrived there they found that fortunately the man's wife had not arrived home so he had not had a chance to shoot her, nor had he shot himself. But he appeared to have every intention of doing this, for a loaded gun was standing by the door. Apparently the wife was out committing some indiscretion. They were unable to do very much about it as the man in question had not threatened his wife directly. He had simply told somebody else that he was going to shoot her and they could not do anything about it.
He was held for a few days and I suppose actually the magistrate had no authority to do that. However, he was afraid to let the man out for fear he would carry out his threat. There have been several similar situations that have occurred and with which I have been confronted. This question of putting up a surety of $100, $200 or $500 to keep the peace means nothing to a person who has every intention of carrying out a serious offence like that.
In Ontario the administration of justice is helped somewhat by the provisions of the Ontario mental hospitals act, under which a person may be held for observation for sixty days when there is suggestion of mental illness. It rather cools them off. But where there is no question of mental illness and a person threatens to commit a crime, the situation is quite different. Another example would be line fence disputes out in the country where sometimes people get quite acrimonious.
I should like to see this clause stand and possibly the minister might consider an amendment which would permit a magistrate or a justice, upon evidence being presented that a person was likely to commit an indictable offence, to hold such person in jail

for from seven to ten days, a sort of cooling-off period. It is quite difficult to administer the law as it stands, because a magistrate does not feel he can hold a man, while on the other hand he hates to let him go if he may possibly kill someone.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest we let the clause stand and we will consider the matter.
Clause stands.
Clauses 718 to 742 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 743-On question of law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 743 be amended by adding thereto subclause 5, reading as follows:
The attorney-general of Canada has the same rights of appeal in proceedings instituted at the instance of the government of Canada and conducted by and on behalf of that government as the attorney-general of a province has under this part.


Mr. Winters:: I so move.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The committee has heard the amendment proposed by Mr. Garson. Is it agreed by the committee that the amendment be carried?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 744-Fees and allowances.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, on the matter of fees and allowances there are a few observations I would like to make. These are matters which previous committees have possibly considered, but I believe they are worthy of further consideration.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I wonder if the hon. member would agree to the committee carrying clause 744? That clause and the schedule thereto are treated as two separate items and if we carried clause 744 the hon. member could then perhaps address his remarks to the schedule.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That is agreeable to me, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On the schedule.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be easier if we referred to this in terms of page numbers, since that would enable members to find more easily the items to which I wish to refer. On page 260 of Bill No. 7 item 25 deals with fees and allowances payable to witnesses. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a $4 fee per day for a witness is not commensurate with the present cost of

living. If a person is a witness at a trial then it is my feeling that such a person should receive no fee at all, or they should be paid a fee which is commensurate with the loss of wages they would incur through their attendance at such a trial. I would like to suggest that that figure be doubled or set at the amount of, say, $7.50. Personally I would like to see it doubled.
Item 26 on this page deals with the mileage travelled to attend a trial and the fee covers the distance travelled each way. For each mile travelled there is an allowance of 10 cents. It strikes me there might be an additional provision there covering the full train fare of people who travel by rail.
Item 27 on the same page deals with interpreters and schedules an allowance of $2.50 for each half day attendance at a trial. That amount is ridiculous. This problem of interpreters is becoming increasingly grave all over Canada at the present time owing to the great number of new Canadians, particularly those who seem to be involved frequently in traffic accidents. Perhaps it is because they are not accustomed to driving according to our highway rules, or possibly it is because they are not accustomed to driving or having a car at all. However, that can be brought up at some other time. The fact remains that even in parts of Canada where interpreters were hardly ever necessary before they have now become necessary and in order to get an interpreter who can properly interpret the questions usually put at such trials we require people of some considerable education who are usually possessed of a fairly good job. They come into a court room and have to sit around for half the day before the case is called and-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is the hon. member aware that he is discussing a summary conviction trial and not a trial in a high court?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, but nevertheless these people have to wait around and $2.50 for half a day of their services is I think ridiculously low. I believe an interpreter should certainly be paid a rate of $10 per day at the very least for attending these trials. I would suggest that item 27 be increased from $2.50 to $5.00 per half day.
These are the only items to which I wish to refer but I would like to say that before making these suggestions I did take the opportunity of discussing these fees with a number of people who are responsible for enforcing the law in the province of Ontario and the suggestions I have made met very largely with their approval.
Criminal Code


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, supposing a man who is a mechanic is called as a witness or for jury duty and he is earning $2.17 an hour. Is it fair to ask such a person to attend court for eight hours for $4 per day when he could earn in the same time $16? I do not believe the hon. member's suggestion goes far enough and if it is to be raised at all [DOT] a witness should get as much as he would earn if he were following his normal occupation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I quite agree with the hon. member for Fort William. I did not expect the minister would consider a suggestion quite as generous as that put forward by the hon. member, and in the belief that half a loaf was better than no loaf at all I suggested the lower figure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would like to address a few remarks now to those hon. members who this afternoon were so concerned about the position of a needy accused in a summary conviction court. These fees we are discussing here relate to summary conviction proceedings where the matters being adjudicated upon are often pretty trivial and no large' amounts of money or very serious crimes are involved. These fees we are throwing around in our discussion are fees which will have to be paid by the accused if he is found guilty-the same man the payment of whose fine by instalments we were discussing for some time this afternoon. The fees which are set out in this list were not arrived at by accident or carelessly. They received lengthy and very careful discussion before the special House of Commons committee on the Criminal Code last year. This committee took into account the fact that in very many cases it would be quite poor people who will have to pay these fees on top of any fine which may be levied. It was fully realized that the allowance to a witness would not be as high as he himself could otherwise earn in his ordinary work, as my hon. friend from Fort William has pointed out. But in view of the fact that most of these summary conviction cases concerned humble and needy people, we thought it was not unreasonable to expect these citizens who come in as witnesses to make their attendance part of their contribution as citizens to the administration of justice at this level. Unless the provincial authorities are prepared to shoulder the great bulk of these costs rather than the parties to these summary conviction matters, it means that the parties to summary conviction trials, who for the most part are people in pretty humble circumstances, will have to pay a burden of court costs altogether out

Criminal Code
ol proportion to the issues in these summary conviction cases. To discuss the matter of the interpreter, for example, if this interpreter appears in a rural district he certainly will not be a person who is imported from any great distance for I agree that the fee that is indicated is certainly not exorbitant. On the other hand, if the costs are to be kept down that is about the amount that the traffic will bear. If he is in a city this amount can be charged in a case and there may be quite a number of cases in the police court in which he will appear as an interpreter in one day.
It was only after the most careful consideration by the committee that these fees were arrived at and although they do represent disadvantages in some respects, we think that upon balance it is better to leave them as they are. As a matter of fact, there is a typographical error in the amount at the bottom 'of page 260. I refer to item No. 29, "mileage travelled to attend trial, each way, for each trial, 20 cents". That should be 10 cents. I was going to move that the "20" be reduced to "10" in order to correct that typographical error. I would ask my colleague to so move.


Walter Edward Harris: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to make one brief observation. I would be quite willing to go along with the minister on the matter of witnesses because, as I have mentioned before, there has always been a fairly strong feeling that to appear as a witness is in the same category as jury duty. It is a matter of public duty. I can see the minister's point very well there, but with respect to the interpreter I feel that the amount for interpreters should be raised somewhat.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Some of the remarks made by the minister may change slightly some of the things I had it in mind to say about this schedule. Like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I am quite concerned about the fee of $4 a day for a witness. It would not even cover his out-of-pocket expenses if he had to be away from home, let alone reimburse him for his loss of pay. When I looked at the schedule I actually wondered whether or not it had been considered carefully by the committee. It struck me that the schedule was something that had been carried over from a different form of society than the one in which we live today, a rural type of society where to be absent for a day from one's normal activity on the farm., or whatever it might be, did not matter very much.

Bu+ I do know that there is a different attitude today, particularly in industrial centres. Wherever possible a man is going to try to avoid becoming a witness or being placed in the position where he will have to be a witness because he knows if he is called he is going to have to forfeit his normal income for that day. His pay cheque is going to be that much smaller at the end of the week. I know from my own observation that in a good many instances citizens will take pains to avoid having to be a witness. Whether that is because of a lack of appreciation of the responsibilities of citizenship, and is something to be frowned upon, I do not know, but at the same time we have to be concerned with the effective administration of the law. That leads me to refer to the first part of the schedule. I am not very familiar with all the phrasing and I hope the minister will correct me if I am on the wrong track, but I take it that the fees and allowances that may be charged by summary conviction courts under the first part of the schedule are the type of fees and allowances which accrue to the magistrate.
Here again it strikes me that the concept is a carryover from the days when the magistrate was the country squire and a man of independent means. I think that is not altogether true today. I think the discussion we had earlier today on summary conviction revealed how important it is that the offices of magistrates and justices throughout the country be filled by men of high calibre. Let me refer to items 9 and 10 in the schedule. Item 9 is "hearing and determining proceeding, $1." Item 10 is "where hearing lasts more than two hours, $2." I take it from that that the magistrate is being paid at the rate of 50 cents an hour for the time he spends on a preliminary hearing in determining whether or not the man should be committed for trial.
People have observed to me that there are cases where the magistrate has received the allowance of $1 and at the same time the accused is paying his lawyer $100 to defend him and get him off. Perhaps there are two lawyers each getting $100, and the magistrate who has to determine between the arguments of this high-paid talent is in the position where his take-home pay is $1.
In view of the importance of attracting men of experience and judgment to these positions,
I think there is a very strong case for establishing a more suitable scale of reward for these men for the time they spend on these matters. Perhaps I am on the wrong track. If I am, the minister will correct me, but I think he will recognize the importance of what I am trying to get at.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Whether my hon. friend is on the wrong track depends upon the attitude that society takes towards the administration of justice in a local community. In England they have excellent justices of the peace, first-rate men in every way, who serve year in and year out for nothing at all and count it a great honour to do so. No person pretends that the fees allowed to magistrates of that type in any way compensate them in a manner which would appeal to a more mercenary man. But if the magistrate is appointed by a government that uses good discretion in its appointments, I have not the slightest doubt that in most communities it will be quite possible to find first-class men and women who will count it an honour to discharge with great competence the important function of the administration of justice in their community even if their fees are only nominal.
When it comes to magistrates who are professional, those, for example, who sit in the larger cities, and who, try indictable offences without a jury with the consent of the accused, they of course handle a large volume of that type of work, and in all the cases I know of are paid quite substantial salaries because that is their only source of livelihood. But so far as these summary conviction matters are concerned, the whole philosophy of their disposition is that the people who act as judges will be substantial citizens in the community who will count it an honour, as they do in England and as they do in many places in Canada, to have the privilege of administering justice amongst people who in many cases cannot afford to pay high court fees. So far as my hon. friend's suggestion that the parties in cases of that sort are paying $100 a day to opposing lawyers is concerned, I am sure he will not resent my saying that his remarks disclose an unfamiliarity with the practice of law at that level.
The problem that we have here is a very difficult one. Everybody knows that these witness' fees and magistrates' fees are not adequate compensation for the time lost or work done. If they are made adequate, then it simply means that the disputes of humble people cannot be determined at all except at a cost which would be completely exorbitant for them to pay. This afternoon we discussed for an hour and a half how much time we are going to give a man to pay a $10 fine, yet we could easily enough run up to $40 or $50 in costs in connection with the same matters if we adopt an attitude that anyone who has anything to do with it has to get paid for the full amount of the time spent at his union wages.
Criminal Code
There is no way of handling this matter, except by the method I have suggested or by the provincial governments, if they choose to do so, coming forward with a plan to pay fees to witnesses and magistrates that are two or three times as great as these we are discussing and make up the difference by a provincial subsidy. This would leave the parties in summary conviction matters with about one-third of the costs actually incurred that they would have to pay.


Mr. Lusby:: On that question of witness fees, I wonder if the minister or some member of the bar of Ontario could tell me what the witness fees are in the superior courts of Ontario in criminal matters? They are only $3 per day in Nova Scotia, and it would be rather an anomaly to pay $8 in summary conviction matters.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On clause 745-Repeal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it the reference to the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, would include all the amendments made to it from that time down to the present?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: By the Interpretation Act; it includes that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 746 and 747 agreed to.
On clause 748-Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I suggest an amendment to clause 748. The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act should be amended by deleting lines 39, 40 and 41 on page 261 and lines 1, 2 and 3 on page 262, and substituting the following therefor-the sidenote will read:
Except in cases tried before two justices no appeals in cases taken under section 4 (1) or (2).
The body of the section will read as follows:
25. Except in cases tried before two justices of the peace sections 719 to 732, inclusive, and subsection (2) of section 742 of the Criminal Code do not apply to any conviction, order, or proceedings in respect of any offence under subsection (1) or (2) of section 4 of this act.


Robert Henry Winters: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 749-Canada Evidence Act.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is a typographical error here I should like to clear up if I may. I would move:
that the figure 159 in line 10 on page 262 should be deleted and the figure 158 substituted therefor.
This is to correct a typographical error.

Criminal Code


Robert Henry Winters: I so move.	Mr. Knowles: No; film board.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 750-Combines Investigation Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister state by what process the information as to the changes being made with respect to these other acts will be appended to these other acts? In the case of clause 749 which we have just passed, I can see that an office consolidation of the Canada Evidence Act would, of course, include the amendment that will be made to that act by clause 749 of this bill. In the case of clause 750 the wording there does not seem to call for an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act, but rather we have here an interpretation with respect to that act. Could the minister state how this is handled so as to make the reference available?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is aware of the purpose of these, and that they are consequential amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Quite.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think, in connection with the Combines Investigation Act, those could be picked up in the office consolidation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Either that or as footnotes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My assistant tells me that the amendment will be seen in the index of the annual statutes; it will be noted there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There will be a note there in relation to the Combines Investigation Act.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, in the index of the annual statutes under the heading of the Combines Investigation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 751 and 752 agreed to.
On clause 753-Forms.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am advised that the forty-five forms in part XXVI, and which follow clause 753, are to be considered as coming under clause 753.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am now in the
hands of the committee as to what further procedure the committee wishes to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest we move on to the film board.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that is a good suggestion. We have made good progress today.


Mr. Philpotl:: Could we take clause 102 now?


Elmore Philpott: I am sure we have one or two non-contentious clauses that we could certainly dispose of tonight, whereas the other thing will take a good deal of time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I should like to suggest to the committee that, perhaps not too formally at the moment, we might come to a decision as to what we are going to do with the Criminal Code in the immediate future. I do not feel it would be fair to hon. members present or absent for me to call haphazardly chosen clauses. Perhaps the Minister of Justice or the leader of the house has a word to say.


Walter Edward Harris: I have only this to say, Mr. Chairman. I believe it was clearly understood that when we had come to the end of the Criminal Code we would stop there and go on with the film board. While I appreciate that there are probably sections on which hon. members feel there might be complete agreement, with all respect I think we ought to go through with the arrangements as we made them last night.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 368. Quebec, $10,890,000.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I think the ministers who have spoken in the debate established the fact that parliament had been given a fair warning. However, when an hon. member who attends as regularly as the hon. member for Ottawa West, and who was then parliamentary assistant to the Acting Prime Minister, was not aware of what was happening, there is some excuse for other members of parliament being unaware that this very important change was taking place. I do not wish to accuse either the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Public Works of bad faith, but I think they are displaying very bad judgment. I think their remarks indicate, too, that the government is not likely to change its mind.
I believe the indication given by the Prime Minister earlier in the session, that this matter should stand until members in all sections of the house had a chance to discuss it in committee and decide whether the arguments in favour of moving to Montreal overweighed the very serious objections to the

proposals, should be kept in mind. The hon. member tor Ottawa West made a very careful speech, at the beginning of which he said, as reported at page 2578 of Hansard:
May I preface my remarks with the statement that in a general way I approve of the work of the national film board. I think it is very good, and has been well conducted.
I go a good deal further in my enthusiasm about the work of the national film board. Then on the following page the hon. member said:
In the main it has been very good work.
And then on the next page he said:
My criticism centres on the one point. I do not think sufficient preliminary matters were decided to warrant any decision as to whether or not the film board should be moved.
That point should be carefully considered.
I am sure all hon. members have read the submission to the Prime Minister by the mayor and controllers of Ottawa. While normally I am not greatly impressed by the opinions of people who have tax revenue to consider, I think that the Ottawa city council, who have offered the taxpayers of Canada the equivalent of a quarter of a million dollars, have made a gesture which should not be ignored. When so many people in the country are complaining about the burden of taxation I believe this gesture should receive favourable consideration.
As I suggested earlier, I think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Works have had some bad advice in the matter, and that this evening it would be appropriate for me to say a few words with respect to the departure of this particular institution from the city of Ottawa.
I feel somewhat as if I were present at a funeral. I had a great deal of hope for the child, not yet fifteen years old. During the child's life the country was at war, and I think all hon. members will agree that the national film board did an outstanding job in helping Canadians at home and abroad to understand better the tremendous contributions being made by our Canadians in the army, the air force and the navy, as well as those on the home front-the factories, the mines and the farms. Without that contribution the Canadian war effort would have been less effective.
I realize that during that time the government received criticism for using this department to build up the prestige of the government. However, those criticisms were not taken too seriously; and the general effect was that Canadians were able to understand better what we were able to do collectively.
Supply-National Film Board
Speaking in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I intimated that at a later date I would say something about what it means to the people I represent to have this branch of government. I would like to tell hon. members that my constituency extends nearly 600 miles north and south and 100 miles east and west. In it there are only seven communities large enough to support banks. And if a community is not large enough to warrant a bank, the prospects for having a theatre are not too bright. Had it not been for the films produced and distributed by the national film board there are many people in that area who would not have had the pleasure of knowing what modern films are like.
I am afraid this move is going to make it more difficult for the people on our frontiers to have access to films, both as to the quality and the quantity, that they had in the past.
I was interested in seeing what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce had to say about the national film board. I find the chamber endorses the minority report with respect to the national film board presented by the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences. The chamber of commerce-
-recommends that the government instruct the national film board to place a larger proportion of federal government film production with outside film producers, and appoint to the board of the national film board two or three members as moderators with the duty of examining objectively the operations of the board and all plans for expansion.
The chamber recommends that the national film board should not extend its operations into fields adequately served by private enterprise.
The film act should be amended so that it is no longer necessary for departments of the federal government to secure their films through the national film board.
I cannot prove it, but I venture to say succeeding events will show that the movement of the national film board from Ottawa to Montreal will result in a much larger volume of government business being channelled through private film companies, rather than through our own national film board.
This reference by the chamber of commerce prompted me to see just what had been said by the commission. The membership of this commission would command the respect of all Canadians, and consisted of His Excellency the Governor General, Mr. Arthur Surveyer of Montreal, Norman A. M. MacKenzie, president of the University of British Columbia, the Most Reverend Georges-Henri Levesque, dean of the faculty of social

Supply-National Film Board sciences, Laval University, and Dr. Hilda Neatby, professor of history at the University of Saskatchewan.
I find that four of these very outstanding Canadians were able to agree on a report on the film board, while the fifth, Mr. Surveyer, who was not known to me, brought in a minority report. Before looking at the minority report it might be well to read what was said about films in Canada:
About 120 organizations in briefs and evidence discussed the work of the national film board, some at considerable length. Most of them approved of its work, and asked that this work be extended. They went further. Many Canadians expressed pride in the work of the film board considering that, like our national radio service, it is a valuable and distinctive Canadian achievement. We have heard much of the film board's Canadianism.
And further on:
The board is also praised for its services to distant communities: its films reach ". . . in a dramatic way many who would not otherwise come into touch with the culture of the nation". There is a corresponding regret and even resentment at the reduction of the board's estimates. "The present policy of restricting (the) budget can only lead to a cultural impoverishment of the people of this country".
In their recommendations they say:
We therefore recommend:
That the national film board be granted funds adequate for the necessary expansion of its field staff and of its distribution activities, and that the present policy of stimulating and complementing voluntary effort be continued.
And further on:
That the national film board continue its present functions as defined in the Film Act and that it continue to produce such documentary films as will serve the public interest. That the national film board continue its policy of commissioning films from private producers when this is in the public interest; that it continue and increase its efforts to co-operate with private producers and to encourage private film production in Canada.
And then finally:
We have observed with anxious concern that the various premises in which the film board conducts its operations are cramped, scattered, inconvenient and hazardous. In the interests of economy and efficiency, and in justice to film board employees, this deplorable situation should be changed.
That safe and efficient premises be provided without delay for the operations of the national film board.
That brings me to the so-called minority report, the reservations and observations made by Mr. Arthur Surveyer. His section on radio broadcasting that I am going to mention bears a great similarity to the briefs which come to hon. members from time to time regarding the plight of the privately owned radio stations in the country. But there is a section here on the national film board, and in view of the very moderate opinions expressed by the other four distinguished members of the commission I think

it significant that the fifth member should find it necessary to present a minority report. He does not call it a minority report; he calls it reservations and observations, but the Canadian Chamber of Commerce describes it as a minority report. He sums up his suggestions in this way:
I recommend, therefore, that the national film board should be required to give, each year, to outside film producers or to outside photographers, work to the value of half its yearly sales or of half the value of its annual production of films or of photographs.
This is the line that we have heard, ever since the national film board was started, from those who have argued that the government had no business getting into the field of film production; that they should leave it to the private producers.
When the first act was passed in 1939 one of the well-known members of the Conservative party, as it was then, Mr. Earl Lawson, expressed his objection. He of course made his position quite clear. He said:
I have in my legal activities represented many phases of the motion picture industry.
I am quoting from "Food for Thought" of March, 1950:
Having thus presented his credentials, Mr. Lawson advised the government to have its films "produced by Associated Screen News (of Montreal), or the other film concern, the name of which I don't remember."


An hon. Member:: Crawley Films.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, that was before Crawley Films came into being.
I was quoting Mr. Lawson, who suggested that instead of the government going into film production they should employ Associated Screen News of Montreal or some other film corporation whose name he could not remember at the moment. And ever since that time the people with large investments in the film industry have been jealous of the job that is being done by our national film board. I have the list of films produced-


Elmore Philpott: On a point of order, we are discussing an amendment to the construction of a new building for the national film board in Montreal. The hon. member is discussing now the whole policy of the national film board.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am glad that the hon. member has raised this point of order. This debate has covered a very wide field, and in view of the nature of the debate that took place previously I do not feel that I can call the hon. member's remarks irrelevant. Since the debate has now proceeded at some length, I do think however that we

should try to devote ourselves more particularly to the item under discussion, namely, the proposed move to Montreal.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall try to act on your suggestion, but I think it is quite relevant. I suggest that if the opinions expressed by Mr. Surveyer are acted on by the government, and the national film board is moved to Montreal and at least half of the production is to go to firms outside the film board, that will be a matter that will affect very directly the taxpayers of the country.


Walter Edward Harris: On a point of order, has anybody on behalf of the government ever said that they were going to do what my hon. friend has just suggested? I do not recall any statement of that kind having been made, and he should not assume that because there is a minority report about the national film board we are going to follow it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The earlier implication was that the national film board was being moved to Montreal at the suggestion of the Massey commission.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It was not said directly.


Robert Henry Winters: It was never suggested.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The implication was that the government was acting on very good advice, on the advice of the Massey commission.


Robert Henry Winters: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They did recommend new quarters.


Walter Edward Harris: Nobody ever said that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I know that no minister has said it, but the implication is there.


Robert Henry Winters: It was made clear that that was not the case.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But the film board is being moved, and when the national film board headquarters are in Montreal and Crawley Films are in Ottawa and a minister wants to get production immediately, it will be much easier to contact Crawley Films and to get action at once than it will be to get in touch with the national film board first in Ottawa and then send to Montreal and have people come up by plane or train. I want to suggest that ever since the film board started, organizations in Canada have been constantly sniping and trying to discredit the national film board.
The last annual report that I have lists some of the achievements for the previous
Supply-National Film Board years. It mentions that the national film board has won thirty honours in Canada and international competitions; the board produced "Royal Journey", its full-length feature film, using a new colour process. The board's technicians perfected a new dual-language sound-track process. The non-theatrical audiences for the national film board films in Canada totalled 11 million and some odd, an increase of 14-8 per cent; the non-theatrical audiences for the national film board films in foreign countries totalled 11 million odd also, an increase of 15 per cent. With this enviable record, in the face of very serious handicaps, the national film board has done great things for the Canadian people and it is unfortunate that the government is insisting on this move.
An hon. member for one of the York ridings referred to Crawley Films. It is well known that the national film board has been very generous to Crawley Films. F. R. Crawley started on a shoestring and was able to-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I think the hon. member will agree that I have been more than generous. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South was well taken. I do not wish to limit the discussion in view of the debate that has taken place previously. But at the same time I really think the hon. member should limit his remarks more particularly to the resolution.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall conclude my remarks with that, but I think it is quite in order, in view of the remarkable growth of Crawley Films in this city, largely at government expense, to know that if the national film board is moved and five years from now we find a privately-operated film-producing organization in the city of Ottawa continuing to grow, it will be a matter of public concern. I shall not press it any more since you have objected.


Mr. Rouleau:: Mr. Chairman, during this debate we have heard many speeches, some in favour and some against moving the national film board to Ville St. Laurent on the island of Montreal. So far we have not heard any speaker in the opposition give any good reason why the national film board should not be moved to Ville St. Laurent. I think all have evaded the question. I have noticed with pleasure that all those who have spoken have been unanimous in commending the work of the national film board. So did the special committee formed in 1952 to study the work of the national film board.
As has been said during this debate, under the National Film Act of 1950 the purposes of

Supply-National Film Board the board are defined as the initiation, promotion and distribution of films in the national interest, and in particular films designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations. I notice that it is designated as the representative of the government and of government departments in their relations with persons engaged in the commercial motion picture field.
Since we all realize the necessity of the national film board for Canada and Canadians, the question is how and where the national film board can best achieve its purposes. From what I have heard during this debate I gather that we agree with the report of the special committee on the national film board that the headquarters work of the board be centralized in one building designed and constructed especially to meet the production, technical and distribution needs of the board. The only point where there seems to be disagreement is the location of the building.
As we have seen, the purposes of the film board are to initiate, produce and distribute films showing the image of Canada to Canadians and foreign countries. To achieve these purposes, not only do we need a suitable building, but also we need the film board to be located where it can accomplish more.
During the committee proceedings in May, 1952, the location was discussed and the committee members of all parties were aware then that Montreal was the intended location.
To my mind, the national film board has to be located in a large cultural city, not too far from the capital city, where transportation facilities are available either by plane, train, truck or car and, having in mind the bilingual status of Canada, in a place where cultural and creative talent is easily available in the two official languages of Canada.
Even if Ottawa, our capital city, is a beautiful place, unfortunately it does not have the size to suit an institution of the character of the film board.
As to the very progressive city of Toronto, it surely has much to offer. It is a large city where talent is available, it is a cultural centre, but it has not the strictly bilingual characteristics that Montreal has. Montreal is a centre of both French and English culture. At the same time it is near Ottawa. It is a large city which attracts talent, artists, musicians, technicians of both cultures, because there they find more opportunities than they could find elsewhere.
With its seven radio stations in operation and another one coming in a few weeks; with its two television stations, one French, one English; with the C.B.C. international services, Montreal attracts both English and

French-speaking artists, musicians, actors, script writers, technicians, translators, narrators and so forth.
Montreal also has almost 500 schools both English and French. It has two large universities, McGill University and l'Universite de Montreal, 20 liberal arts colleges and many high schools. It has the benefit of 25 large libraries, 35 university and college libraries and 39 others. It has seven large museums. Eight newspapers, French and English, are published daily as well as many hundreds of weekly newspapers and magazines. There are also approximately 200 clubs where entertainment is found and which attract comedians as well as artists. There are 83 theatres, at least 20 cine-clubs.
Besides that there are about 300 active cultural and artistic societies among which are the Montreal repertory theatre, the Montreal women's symphony orchestra, les concerts symphoniques de Montreal, the Montreal festivals, the Montreal summer theatre, les varietes lyriques, the Canadian concerts and artists, les amis de l'art, the opera guild, the composers, authors and publishers association of Canada, etc.
Also you will find in Montreal many motion picture producers and studios such as the Associated Screen News, the M.C.R. Historia Film Production, the Quebec Productions Corporation, the Crawley Films Limited, and so forth.
These are only examples of how the board's creative workers would be in contact with people interested in the same field in both English and French. It would stimulate and facilitate their work in the initiation and promotion of films of truly national interest.
Since Montreal is not only the air-line capital of Canada, but also an important seaport as well as an important railway centre in Canada, distribution of films would be well taken care of.
Montreal has all that is required to help the national film board achieve well its purposes and it has been the one and only reason why it has been suggested to move it there. There were no other reasons. Much less the one mentioned in October, 1953, by the mayor of Ottawa, Miss Charlotte Whitton, who happens to be a good friend of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Conservative party. As a matter of fact she stated, as reported in the Evening Citizen of October 22, 1953, that the moving of the national film board to Montreal was:
All too high a price for Canada, the capital, and these families to pay for assuring the election, as the member from Ville St. Laurent, of Mr. Guy Rouleau, president of the National Young Liberal Federation."

Well, if Miss Whitton has the right to defend the interests of the city of Ottawa, she should do it as some other members in this house did it, on fair grounds. If her sources of information are always as good, I am not surprised at some of her statements against each and all, and I do not think that the people can take them at their face value.
Like the people of Ville St. Laurent, as well as the constituency of Dollard, I was shocked to learn of such unfair and untrue remarks made by a person holding public office. Nothing is farther from the truth. The people from my riding do not sell their votes; they are good and honest people who, when the time comes, vote according to their conscience for the party and the man they consider best fitted to administer the affairs of the country, and they have shown by their vote that they do not have much trust in Miss Whitton's best friends, the Conservatives.
Furthermore, I do not think that the Prime Minister of Canada and the members of his cabinet can be accused of having tried to buy the votes of my constituents. Their integrity is high above reproach, and that is why, even if only one national film board building should be built, 171 Liberal candidates, including the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers, were elected on August 10 last.
And speaking of Miss Charlotte Whitton, I find it strange that the official opposition to the construction of the national film board building in Montreal started after the mayor of Ottawa spoke about the matter. Much stranger is the fact that during this debate they used many of her arguments. For example, one Conservative member, after hearing Mayor Whitton hint at bribery, said, and I quote:
The only talent that seems to exist in abundance in the city of Montreal is a superabundance of Liberal members.
Later, it was amazing to hear another Conservative member echo a statement made the previous day by the mayor of Ottawa to the effect that the moving of the film board, and I quote:
. . . would be the largest forced migration of persons in this part of the world since the expulsion of the Acadians.
But to be fair to the hon. member I must add that he realized that his political friend, Mayor Whitton, went a little too far and he was careful to add, "I think that is putting it rather strongly".
For a while during the debate, Mr. Chairman, I wondered who was the real leader of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition sitting in this house, or the "never-stop-talking" mayor of Ottawa. If the matter were not so serious it would be very funny.
11,	1954	2921
Supply-National Film Board
However, these irresponsible declarations have misled some people in regard to the real question at stake, and troubled others such as the person who sent a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen under the signature "A film board wife", stating that it must be awful to live in the slums of Ville St. Laurent, in a place where there was no culture, art and so forth.
The moving in itself must not trouble that person very much because she and her husband have moved many times. Besides, the majority of those now working for the national film board have moved to Ottawa from places as far away as British Columbia. Furthermore, is it not part of the job of a producer of films to travel from place to place?
All that discussion is nonsense. The only reason for the moving of the national film board from Ottawa to Montreal is that Montreal is the best location in which that national institution can work in the best interests of the Canadian people and of Canada.
As to Ville St. Laurent, it does not take a back seat to any other city. The town of St. Laurent is very progressive and is now enjoying the most prosperous year in its existence. The town is divided into three distinct sections, industrial, commercial and residential, each completely independent of the others. This is an important factor which contributes to the satisfaction of all. The health-giving air, the easy means of transportation, such as buses, street cars and trains, the different schools, primary and secondary, and the low taxes all help the town of St. Laurent to expand continuously.
The Canadian National Railways line goes through the town, as do also two highways known as the Laurentian, and the Ottawa and Toronto, all of which run very close to the Montreal business centre, which is about three miles from Dorval airport.
The town of St. Laurent is also an up-to-date centre for recreation, and the new air-conditioned theatre, the auditorium with its capacity of 1,000 seats, the artificial ice arena, and its many public parks, all add to the enjoyment of the people residing there.
St. Laurent has a population of 30,000. About 75 per cent of the people are Englishspeaking, and 90 per cent of the Frenchspeaking people are bilingual. St. Laurent has beautiful residential districts with beautiful homes, and thanks to a good administration and to the efforts of this government through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation there are no slums in St. Laurent. It has modern schools and churches of all
2922	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board denominations. The understanding which exists between Canadians of all religions in St. Laurent is the best possible example of Canadian unity. There are many nice social clubs, and there is friendliness among the people. It is a really nice city.
In that environment the film board will do a good job and I shall be glad to welcome all those who will be moving there. I am sure they will not only enjoy the surroundings but also the spirit of St. Laurent because of the fact that we do not have a mayor like Charlotte Whitton. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the minister and the government most heartily on undertaking this move.


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


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, we have all followed with a great deal of interest the present and past debate on this important matter. I believe it would have been helpful if we had received from the minister his interpretation of the purpose, policy and production objectives of the national film board, as well as his views on the desirable features of the proposed location of the administrative offices of the film board.
I believe most of us are basically in agreement that the national film board should be maintained, encouraged and assisted financially to achieve greater and improved production. But it does seem strange that so much significance has been attached to the location of the film board, and with other hon. members I fail to realize what remarkable features can be attached to the proposed location. The location of the administration body of the national film board is relatively incidental, because most films made by the board are made on location in various parts of Canada, and when interior shooting is required that is usually done in rented studios.
Personally I am very interested in the activities of the national film board, as I am in its big brother, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I believe that this agency, supervised by the government, is perhaps the most important one for the reason that it carries with it an extraordinary means of influencing men's minds and, together with radio, constitutes perhaps the most effective medium of mass communications.
To substantiate that statement there appears a very interesting index on page 16 of the annual report of the national film board for 1951-52. That index contains the non-theatrical distribution figures for 1951-52 as regards domestic showings, and gives the total audience which saw the productions


of the national film board. It is pointed out that during 1951-52 there were 151,196 shows seen by a total audience of 11,610,232. A little further on in the same page we have the information that national film board productions are distributed abroad theatrically, non-theatrically, through television, and through the sale of prints.
On page 17 we have a further tabulation of the distribution of national film board films abroad which indicates that there were 123,485 showings with an audience of 11,111,976 persons. In other words, if the last figures are used and added to the domestic audience during the year 1951-52 over 22 million persons received the message of the national film board.
Technically speaking, I believe that the national film board was initiated for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing informative and educational pictures, but I believe that there were other noble purposes in the minds of those people who initiated the founding of the national film board. I believe that the national film board was designed not only to help to unify the two ethnic groups that have been repeatedly mentioned in the house but all the ethnic segments of our Canadian people into one family, with each segment proud of the others. I believe it was founded to help Canadians of all racial origins adjust themselves to our society with the ultimate aim of making each of them believe that we value their contribution and that they as individuals are important in our democratic way of life.
I think that the national film board was also originated to quicken the appreciation of the Canadian people of the fine things of life, of the arts, music, drama, literature, in order to bring those things in greater abundance to our people. Surely these things are desirable when we consider the rapid pace of our everyday life where we seem to find so much accent on material things and sadly neglect our own cultural development. Fundamentally, certainly, it must have been the intent and purpose of those who initiated the national film board to use it to awaken the Canadian people to the great possibilities that exist to create a truly dynamic and individualistic Canadian culture. I do not think there is another place on this earth that has the ingredients to do so that exist in Canada.
Where else is there the deposit of human materials which exist here, the various racial and ethnic groups with their rich heritage of music, songs and customs, their various characteristics and emotional features which are indispensable if we are to have creative work? Where else is there the natural

beauty, and the landscapes which are also essential if we are to have inspiration and background material for significant works? But more important than this, Canada is one land that has freedom which is an indispensable ingredient if we are to achieve a new insight in the field of aesthetics and of culture, a word which is often used rather glibly and without caution. I know of no great work that was ever created unless it was a product of a free mind.
We Social Crediters are very interested in these things I have mentioned and in the activities of the national film board. We are more than just a monetary reform movement. We attach a great deal of significance to the film board because the ultimate aim of our philosophy of life and government is to create those very conditions which are conducive to gracious living, when men and women shall have the leisure to enjoy and partake of cultural pursuits and other worth-while human accomplishments.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member will recall that I was forced to interrupt the hon. member for Dauphin when he wandered a little from the item under discussion. I hope the hon. member who has the floor will devote himself to the item under discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is no farther away than the hon. member for Dollard was.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I certainly appreciate your adjudication, Mr. Chairman, but may I point out that it is very difficult to talk about such a matter without also involving its implications. It is hardly fair for me to talk of the Stradivarius, for example, unless I am also allowed to say something about its tonal qualities. Therefore the question arises whether the move that is contemplated will bring about the objectives which we all consider as very desirable and possible. But in considering these things, I think we should remember that it was never the intent or purpose of those who initiated the national film board that it should ever become a political plum or a football. If that is to happen, I think irreparable damage will be done.
I mention these things because I have received many letters and questions with respect to whether this move by the government is intended to erase the indifference which our government seems to show toward all things "cultural" in our land. Is it a move that will correct that situation? I think these things should be considered because we are not dealing merely with pennies but with $5J million of the taxpayers' money. I think we should remember this when we are considering this appropriation. We should also
Supply-National Film Board remember that as one travels from one end of the country to the other one finds a deplorable lack of auditoriums and recital halls. Those that do exist, with few exceptions, are of the stock pavilion variety where one is often obliged to listen to a beautiful piece of music, Beethoven, let us say, and is constantly reminded that just a few days before it was the scene of the exhibiting of a prize bull.
I think we should also remember when we are considering spending $20,000 per acre for a new site for the board that there are hundreds of amateur drama groups throughout the country-I say "amateur drama groups" because the professionals cannot afford to remain here-and symphony orchestras, which were mentioned a few moments ago, that perform significant works of art. Yet I do not know of one of them that is not financially embarrassed and few can afford to acquire new scores or materials.
At this time we should also remember that while we consider it manly to visit art exhibits and fashionable to listen to opera, this wealthy country cannot point with pride to one national theatre or opera. At this time, we should also remember the very sensible and valuable recommendations made by the royal commission on the development of the arts in this country. Its recommendations have not been heeded. In considering this terrific amount of money that we are contemplating spending on the construction of a film board, I think we should also remember that hundreds of our young people are in exodus from this land to other places in order to find fame and recognition and, more important, appreciation of their talents. These young people are leaving our country to enrich the culture of other places because we show so much indifference to them. Therefore I ask in good faith whether it might not be advisable for the government to use this money to implement the production of the national film board or for scholarships and those things which are very necessary if we are to have worth-while cultural activity.
It seems to me that from the very beginning there has been a smokescreen about this whole issue. It would appear from private conversation with the various members that the government is intent on moving the national film board. I was just wondering, sir, whether it would not be advisable for the government, if they have decided on moving the national film board, to move it to a place which would be, for all time, an appropriate centre. I am quite objective about this. I do not refer to my own constituency, as other members have done in the past.
2924	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Film Board
I believe that the government would be doing a good stroke of business if they moved the national film board to a site which is associated with visual beauty, and is symbolic of Canada. I refer to Jasper national park or Banff national park. When the giants of the cinema industry decide to make a colourful picture or when Hollywood intends to make a top-notch picture, those are the places to which they go and not to some city. At this time I also believe we should consider the point of view of the various responsible bodies in our community, which are not interested in political motives but the best interests of the country.
In this respect I have in my hand a letter from the Edmonton chamber of commerce, which is affiliated with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I understand that this letter has been forwarded to the other members, in common with whom I have the honour of representing the city of Edmonton. I quote:
. . . the Edmonton chamber of commerce deplores the action of the federal government in extending the activities of the national film board in competition with private enterprise; and, further, that it is opposed to this large expenditure of public moneys, creating more jobs for civil servants which could be absorbed in private industry; and, further, that this opinion be conveyed to the Ottawa board of trade, the three Edmonton members of parliament and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
I have received other communications which point out that, at a time when the people of Canada are requested to continue carrying the heavy burden of taxation, and at a time when the veterans, the disabled and the aged citizens of this land have little hope of having their allowances increased, this government move is neither prudent nor an example of frugality. The national film board, as the name implies, is a national body that was designed to serve the best interests of all the people of Canada. Since we have to believe the move is made from political considerations, I think every member in this house would be wise to vote against this particular expenditure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall not detain the house for more than a moment or two, but there is one point I want to make in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Dollard. We had a somewhat unusual and I thought unnecessary experience in listening to those remarks. It seemed to me he went out of his way to drag into his speech and to criticize the mayor of Ottawa, whose name we all know and whose activities we all know. I feel that as a friend of hers, and a graduate of the same university, I should make some comment upon that.
I doubt very much if the member would have ventured to make those comments if Miss Whitton had a seat in this house. In any


event, I know I would not, and I doubt if any other member in this house would have the courage either. I say, therefore, that I regret very much that it was done. It seemed to me in very doubtful taste and judgment. I should like to say that I feel we should all remember that in whatever the lady did or said, it was pursuant to her duties as mayor of this city. I think, as such, they might have been kept out of this committee.


Mr. Dupuis:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the mayor of Ottawa keep out of this debate by attacking the member for Dollard?
Amendment (Mr. Thatcher) negatived: Yeas, 33; nays, 80.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps it would only be fair to remind the committee that item 368 which is now before the committee contains the whole of the expenditure for this branch in the province of Quebec. Shall item 368 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
360. Departmental administration, $820,821,732.
Howard Charles Green: Is the minister making a statement? This is his first session as Minister of Public Works, and I think it would be very helpful if he would make a statement on his department.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to make a statement. I think we can convey all the information hon. members require in the course of answering their questions.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The first thing I had intended doing, Mr. Chairman, was to ask the minister if he was prepared to make a statement concerning policy and administrative changes in the Department of Public Works since he assumed the position of Minister of Public Works. From time to time during the past several months we have learned from the newspapers of certain rather important changes in the field of policy and also in the field of administration. I was hoping that the minister would at this time confirm, and probably elaborate upon, those reports. Such a statement would have assisted, I am sure, in giving us a clear and probably concise picture of the proposed method of operation of his department during the years ahead. Now, there has been one very important change in policy, apparently. It is about that change in policy that I desire to make a few comments tonight.
However, I am going to have to ask a question first; and if the minister's answer to that question is satisfactory, then, so far as I am concerned, it may not be necessary

for me to say all I had intended to say. My question is this: Do the proposed changes in policy which have taken place within the minister's department involve the abandonment of certain projects which have already been approved by the parliament of Canada?
Possibly before asking the minister if he would care to answer that question, I might be permitted to elaborate. I recall that last year the estimates of the Department of Public Works contained provisions for certain projects. Perhaps I should be even more explicit and say that such proposals were contained in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954. Today we find no mention of a number of those projects.


An hon. Member:: Politics.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I would like to keep politics out of it-and I am saying that in answer to an interjection. I realize that, according to a press report, one change of policy the minister has brought into being, or intends to introduce, is that of asking for a lump-sum appropriation to be used for the purpose of acquiring sites and preparing plans and blueprints for certain projects.
Upon examination of the estimates of his department I find what I believe may be a figure designed for that purpose. However, I cannot be sure of this; and I am not prepared to wait until we get to that point, because if I do I may be ruled out of order and have no opportunity whatsoever to go into further detail with respect to matters of vital concern to so many people in Canada.
My question is this: Does the change in policy in the Department of Public Works involve the complete abandonment of certain projects for which provision was made in the main estimates last year, or in the supplementary estimates? Does it involve the complete abandonment of those projects?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, obviously the hon. member refers to the policy, to which reference has been made, of carrying in the estimates for a particular fiscal year amounts to cover the volume of work that it is expected can be carried out with respect to various projects in that fiscal year.
I do not think there is any great departure in that respect from the policy followed in the past. But, in reviewing the estimates, I did find that there were a great many votes that had been carried from year to year as revotes, without sites being acquired, or planning going forward, or any work being done. I thought it would make for more orderly presentation of the estimates and allow for a better scheduling of work if we included in the estimates and asked
Supply-Public Works parliament to vote funds only for those projects the department thought it could implement during the coming year, and to the extent that the work could be carried out. In order to enable the department to acquire sites, particularly in the smaller communities, and to advance planning, we are now carrying an item of $500,000 for the oncoming fiscal year, in vote 401.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, I think I shall have to be more explicit in what I have to say. In an examination of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954, I find in connection with the province of Alberta that five projects are listed. These projects were approved by parliament on May 9, to be exact. Then, upon examination of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955, I find no reference whatsoever to those five projects.
I am concerned as a matter of principle and, secondly, I am vitally concerned in another sense, because one of those projects was for my own home town. At page 26 of the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1954, we find this: Acquisition of sites and preparation of plans for public buildings at Claresholm, Coleman-
I understand those two are in the constituency of the hon. member for Macleod.
-Innisfail-
Which is in my own constituency, and happens to be my own home town.
-Lac la Biche-
Which is in the constituency 'of Athabaska, represented by a Liberal member.
-and Vermilion.
Which is located in the constituency of Battle River-Camrose.
I should like to stress this fact, and I am speaking specifically of my home town, that the town council and board of trade, realizing the situation prevailing in that town with respect to postal facilities-this is no reflection upon the staff, for we have an excellent staff there, and I want to pay tribute to them-in view of the lack of facilities in the nature of a building, believe it their duty on behalf of the people in that community to take appropriate steps in pressing for favourable consideration for a new public building in that town.
I had the privilege of working with the board of trade and the town council and of accompanying their delegation to Calgary to confer with the postal authorities in the district office. I believe it is safe for me to conclude that post office officials at Calgary felt that a new building for that community

Supply-Public Works was essential, if the patrons of that office were to enjoy the high type of service to which they are entitled.
Representations were made to the Post Office Department in Ottawa by officials of the Calgary office. Obviously the Post Office Department in Ottawa came to the conclusion that if adequate postal facilities are to be made available to our people, consideration would have to be given to suitable quarters in that town. In fact, I am informed by the Post Office Department here that the project was put in "A" category. I am also convinced-and this is just normal procedure as between departments-that the Post Office Department must have been able to convince the Department of Public Works that the building was necessary for that community.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I would not wish to interrupt the hon. member if he could finish his remarks in perhaps thirty or sixty seconds. I am sure that would be agreeable to hon. members. Otherwise I would have to call it ten o'clock.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, it would be physically impossible to finish in sixty seconds what I am going to say.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend does not need to prompt me to do what I consider to be my duty this evening. Tomorrow we shall continue with this and, when it is concluded, take agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
368. Quebec. $10,890,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 12, 1954