1954-01-19

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it was with deep regret that we learned just a few hours ago that another member of this house had quite unexpectedly passed away. I refer to Mr. Charles Delmar Coyle, the hon. member for Elgin, who was with us last week and whom I think most of us regarded as enjoying good health.
Mr. Coyle was born in Kinglake, Ontario, in 1887, and educated there. He was a farmer and tobacco grower, and he also found time to render outstanding service to his fellow citizens in his community. This service included that of occupying the positions of reeve of Bayham township and warden of Elgin county.
He was first elected to the House of Commons for the constituency of Elgin in 1945, and successfully contested that seat in both elections since that date.
He took a keen interest in the work of parliament and made a real contribution to the work of the committees of which he was a member. In fact, I understand he expected as recently as yesterday to be with us today, and to attend meetings with officials of the government. He always worked hard and conscientiously to serve the best possible interests of his constituency and of the country. That his efforts were appreciated is well indicated by the fact that he was returned at the last election with a substantial majority. During his lifetime he established a fine reputation for his industry and publicspiritedness and for his personal integrity.
I should like to extend to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and to members of his party our sincere sympathy in the loss of a valuable member; and to Mrs. Coyle and her family our very sincere condolences in her and their bereavement.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the Conservative party will appreciate very much the expression of sympathy extended by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent); and that Mrs. Coyle and her two sons and her daughter will greatly appreciate
the sympathy expressed by the Prime Minister on behalf of all the members of the House of Commons.
It does come as a great shock to all of us who were closely associated with him, as I know it does to every member, to see a man suddenly leave us in this way when he was in apparently the very best of health, even until last night. He was here in the house last Friday until the house adjourned at ten o'clock. There are members here who walked down with him from the house on that occasion just prior to his departure for home where he stayed over last night to attend a meeting of a service club in his own riding in order to be associated, as he has been for so many years, with those who have served that community.
Like many others in this house, as the Prime Minister has already mentioned, Charlie Coyle, as we all knew him and shall continue to know him, had served his own community in many capacities and for many years. He had that ground work of public service that comes through association with municipal council. He was a councillor for years, then he was reeve of his own township, and then he received the highest honour that can be conferred in the local municipalities in the rural areas when he became warden of his own county. He was highly respected and greatly loved by all who knew him.
One of the things that make it so difficult to realize even yet that he has left us is that with his lovable and friendly qualities he had made a wide circle of friends, which I know embraced every member of this house.
I do hope there will be some very real measure of comfort for his family in their tragic and sudden loss in the knowledge that his associates are thinking of his family at this time and sharing, at least in some measure, their sorrow in the loss of a devoted public servant.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself and all members of the C.C.F. group in the expressions of sympathy and appreciation that have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in regard to the death of Mr. Coyle.
During the last parliament Mr. Coyle sat over here on this side very close to us.

The late C. D. Coyle
Generally speaking, I have found that when you get fairly close to people and get more or less to know their intimate thoughts, you find that there is a great deal of humour and, if I may say so, a great many lovable qualities about them. That is how we felt about Mr. Coyle. When we see members from back here, we just glare at one another; but when we get as close to members as we are to our friends here, we find that they are really a good bunch of fellows; and Mr. Coyle was one of the best.
We wish to extend our sympathy to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and his party, and to Mr. Coyle's relatives.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to associate this group for which I speak with the tributes which have been paid to the late hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle) and to extend to his family and to his party in the house our sincere sympathy in the loss of a very fine man and follower.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, it is on an occasion such as this that we probably get to appreciate one another better when we lay aside for a moment or two the cares of the country and of parliament and consider our friend who has passed on. It has been my privilege to know him through three parliaments. He has been my roommate for some five years. I came to know Mr. Coyle very intimately; and I agree with the words of other members who have spoken previously. I know that he was a man of integrity. He was a man of good judgment. I greatly respected his opinion on the various matters that came up from day to day. I can only join with those who have already spoken in paying my tribute to him and in conveying my condolences and sorrow to the bereaved family.



APPROVAL OF REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RESPECTING CERTAIN EMPLOYEES

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), that the report of the civil service commission respecting certain employees tabled January 18, 1954, be now approved. By way of explanation, may I say that this report refers to two members of the staff whose names were omitted from the list of those who were granted increases before Christmas.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase the authorized capital stock of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation from five million dollars to fifteen million dollars; also to require the corporation to continue the underwriting reserve to cover future losses under contracts of insurance; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce measures to amend
(a)	the Senate and House of Commons Act to increase the salaries of the Speakers and the Deputy Speaker, the sessional allowances of members of the Senate and of the House of Commons and the annual allowances of the members occupying the recognized positions of leader of the government in the Senate, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons;
(b)	the Salaries Act to increase the salaries of ministers mentioned in sections i and 5 thereof, substituting for the Minister of Resources and Development, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and adding thereto the Associate Minister of National Defence.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there any truth in

the reports that have appeared in the press over the last couple of days to the effect that the federal government will deny to the taxpayers of the province of Quebec permission to deduct from their federal income tax the portion paid in income tax to the provincial government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There is no truth in that report. The federal government has not had any official information of the intentions of the Quebec government with respect to local income tax in the province of Quebec. Until we have something more precise and of a more official character than what we have read in the newspapers, we shall not feel it necessary to give consideration to that matter.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a letter from the mayor or acting mayor of Vancouver asking for a financial contribution to a plan for the building of homes for persons on old age security and old age assistance pension? I think he said "senior citizens" in the letter. Has the minister replied to this communication? If so, what was the nature of the reply?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The minister has received a letter from the acting mayor of the city of Vancouver, and the minister has answered that letter. In his answer he has pointed out that the subject matter referred to the minister was one that should have been referred to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). The letter from the acting mayor of Vancouver has been referred to my colleague, the Minister of Public Works. The question was whether the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be prepared to extend to the city of Vancouver credits to assist in a housing scheme for aged citizens. While the Department of National Health and Welfare is naturally vitally interested in this problem, the authority if it exists is vested in another minister.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Did not the writer of the letter also ask or suggest that the federal government itself might contribute the amount of $200,000?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: That might have been the
thought that was in the mind of the acting mayor, but he has not communicated it to me.


Angus MacInnis: I thought it was in the letter. [Later:!


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to say to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that since making a reply to his question one of my officials has sent in the letter and I find that the hon. member was correct when he said that the figure of $200,000 had been mentioned in the letter. However, that does not alter the reply I gave.



COMMONWEALTH FINANCE CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
should like to address to the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him notice. Is the Prime Minister able to give the house any information with regard to the results achieved at the recent commonwealth conference in Australia which ended a few days ago?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has not made any direct report to the government as yet about that conference. The only information we have is the information that the hon. member himself probably has, namely the press reports of the statements made by the participants at the end of the conference.



REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT OF PROPOSED SURVEY BY THERMO EXPERT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys? It arises out of a press dispatch in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 15, 1954. The caption of the article was "Top Thermo Power Expert engaged to undertake Survey". Has the minister seen this press dispatch? If so, would he care to make an official statement to the house, as the subject matter is one of great importance to the maritime provinces?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I have not seen the press dispatch to which he refers

Inquiries of the Ministry and I have no comment to make on it today, members could make to the chairman of the but I hope to be in a position to make a committee, and if he deems it proper he will statement in the near future.	call the committee together to discuss it. .



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on an Associated Press dispatch of January 16 which states that a subcommittee of the United States Senate foreign relations committee has recommended an economic feasibility survey of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project by the United States army engineers in conjunction with the international joint commission. Is it the intention of the Canadian government to join with the United States and assist with this survey?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question about which inquiries have also been addressed to me by the hon. member for Charlotte. I have seen the press dispatch to which reference has been made and we have made inquiries concerning it but have not yet received an official report from the Senate subcommittee in question through our embassy in Washington. However, I have no reason to believe that the press report is not accurate. The suggestion that is said to have been made by the subcommittee for a full-scale investigation of this project costing approximately $3 million is not a new one, and I can assure hon. members that if and when the United States government makes a specific proposal for investigation of the possibilities of this tidal project it will be examined most carefully by the government.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Oliver White: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the standing committee on agriculture be called to hear representations of the dairy industry regarding the importation of foreign oils?


Mr. Robert MoCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: I feel that this is a request that any group of



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the disclosures by the British government, as reported yesterday in the press, of the advances made in Britain in the field of developing atomic energy for industrial uses, can the minister tell the house if similar developments are taking place in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Work on atomic energy in Canada has for several years been devoted to domestic development. We have not carried on our work at Chalk River with the intention of developing war uses for atomic energy. The experimental work for peace has been proceeding actively for some years. Considerable progress is being made, and I think that Canada will not be behind other countries in bringing atomic energy into practical use.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would he say what his department has done since I brought to the attention of the department some three weeks ago the pollution of the waters of the North Saskatchewan river caused, it is said, by the dumping of certain chemicals into the river at Edmonton resulting in the water being almost totally unfit for use in Prince Albert and also latterly in the city of North Battleford? Would the minister also say what attitude the federal government intends to take to preserve from pollution the waters of rivers that flow through two or more provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his question. He asks first of all what, pursuant to the inquiry made of my officers in my absence, was the situation resulting from communications made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to the appropriate departments of health of the provinces of

Saskatchewan and Alberta. Contact has been made with the officers in the two departments of the two provinces. The facts of the matter have been ascertained. The responsibility for remedying the situation is recognized by both provinces as not coming within the competence of the federal government. Indeed, whether or not there was that acknowledgment I would have to submit that would have to be the situation as far as the federal government is concerned, for this is clearly a matter that does not come within the competence of the federal government.
My hon. friend asks a supplementary question as to what the effect would be of polluted waters flowing from one province into another, and what steps the federal government would be prepared to take in that eventuality. I have to say that again the judgment of the department would be that that was not a matter within the competence of the federal government. My hon. friend will find that this matter-I do not mean this particular situation but the principles involved-was fully discussed in the house in 1949, and the discussion can be found at page 571 of Hansard of October 6. However, the supplementary question raised now has some new aspects, and I have suggested to the departmental solicitors that they might care to discuss the matter with the law officers of the crown.


John George Diefenbaker: During the past seven weeks it has been human beings who have suffered, but now I understand that the condition of the water is dangerous to the fish. Will that result in some action by the federal government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to say that my hon. friend was perhaps fishing for a further answer, but I think what he has said does not really contribute anything more than what I have said about the matter. If there is any further problem involved it will be discussed.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether press reports appearing during the last twenty-four hours respecting the national film board are correct and if the government does intend to reconsider its decision to move the national film board from Ottawa?
Inquiries of the Ministry At the same time I would ask whether there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter if this is so.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no decision reached in that matter. What is under consideration at the present time is the tenders that were submitted for the construction of a building in Montreal. They are all of a very substantial amount, and the matter that is now under consideration is as to whether or not the government will recommend the appropriations required for that large expenditure at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Do I understand from what the Prime Minister has said that, having regard to the amount involved, the government may actually be reconsidering whether it will or will not move the national film board from Ottawa?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No decision has been reached in that regard, but until the government comes to parliament with a definite recommendation for a definite amount to be expended for a building at a definite place there is always a possibility that changes in the recommendation may be made.


George Alexander Drew: There is always a possibility that reason may prevail.



VANCOUVER PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to the views of the parks board of the city of Vancouver and the editorials in the Vancouver papers relative to the decision of the department to cease, after February 28, allowing the sum of $1,000 a year for the supply of powder for the firing of the 137-year-old traditional nine o'clock gun in Vancouver? If so, why is there discrimination against Vancouver, and will the minister reconsider?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I do not know that there is any urgency with respect to this question. I think it is the kind of question which should be placed on the order paper, and if my hon. friend will do that I shall see that he gets an answer.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say that it is a matter of urgency.


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: May I say that the date for cessation has already been set.


Some hon. Members:: Order.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of immigration. On January 11, 1954, in an address delivered before the members of Knox Presbyterian church at St. Thomas, Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I shall start over again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask hon. members to remain silent so I can decide whether or not the question is in order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In an address delivered before the members of Knox Presbyterian church at St. Thomas, Ontario, the minister discussed the government's policy concerning immigration into Canada. Was the minister on that occasion outlining the official policy of the government? Must one conclude that the government intends to maintain the demographic balance between Canadians of French origin and those of British origin to the proportions which existed in 1867?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will agree his question is not the type of oral question which is allowed before the orders of the day. There will be a time when a debate will be conducted on immigration affairs and the hon. member can then discuss that statement or obtain further information concerning the purpose of the government in pursuing its policy.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: May I add that I gave notice of my question to the minister yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member gave notice of a question which is not in order, that does not mean the hon. member has a right to an answer.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY REPORTS OF ALLEGED FRAUD    INQUIRY AS TO ACTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: In the absence of the Minister of
Public Works, perhaps the parliamentary assistant could take my question as notice and bring an answer tomorrow. Has the attention of the government been drawn to
(Mr. Winch.]
recent newspaper reports of alleged fraud involving federal government expenditures on the Ontario portion of the trans-Canada highway? If so, has the government considered naming any independent firm to investigate the charges?


Mr. Maurice Bourgei (Parliameniary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: I shall be glad to take notice of this question and get the information as soon as possible.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 77, to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories is divided into two parts. As I explained at the resolution stage, it is necessary to amend both the existing Northwest Territories Act and the new Northwest Territories Act which will not be proclaimed until after the new Criminal Code is enacted. The amendments to the existing act are contained in part I of the bill, and the amendments to the new act are contained in part II.
When we were at the resolution stage, Mr. Speaker, I explained some of the purposes of the bill as they are mentioned in the explanatory notes in the bill. The purposes which I have already discussed are as follows:
(a) to provide that the governor in council may, after the expiration of two years from the return of the writs of election of elected members of the council, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed;
(c)	to add provisions relating to reindeer and penalties similar to those already included in chapter 331;
(e) to provide that the governor in council may appoint a member of the council in place of an elected member who resigns.
Other amendments will increase the time within which copies of ordinances enacted by the territorial council are to be transmitted to the governor in council from 10 days to 30 days, and raise the living allowance payable to members of council from $15 to $25 per day. Both these provisions are already contained in the new Northwest Territories Act, chapter 331 of the Revised Statutes of 1952.
Both the existing act and the new act are to be amended to clarify the provision relating to indemnity and living allowances, and to include provisions relating to the holding of land similar to those added to the Yukon Act by chapter 53 of the Statutes of 1952-53. This amendment is necessary in order that

the territorial government may hold title to public buildings constructed with territorial funds.
Another amendment to both acts provides for authority being given to the territorial government to enter into agreements with the government of Canada under and for the purposes of any act which authorizes the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces. This will enable the territorial government to receive assistance under any such acts in the same manner as the provinces are now receiving it. As an example, I might mention that negotiations are now under way for assistance being given under the Vocational Training Coordination Act, which will be made possible when the bill is passed.
In the course of the debate on December 10 on the resolution for introduction of the present bill, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that it would be desirable to take advantage of this amendment to increase the elected representation on the council of the Northwest Territories. The council legislates for the territories, in the manner of a provincial legislature, and also advises the commissioner on questions referred to it. At the present time the council consists of 8 members, of whom 3 are elected and 5 are appointed by the governor in council. The Leader of the Opposition proposed that the number of elected representatives should be raised so that "they will balance the appointed representatives and give greater opportunity for representation, consistent with the same contact with the government."
Following the hon. member's suggestion I undertook to discuss the matter with the members of the Northwest Territories council who were meeting in Ottawa at that time.
The question of the size of the council and of its composition is, of course, not one that comes within the jurisdiction of the council itself. However, the matter was discussed informally with its members. I may say to the Leader of the Opposition that the general feeling of the members, both elected and appointed, was that there is a great deal of merit in his suggestion. They were unanimously of the opinion that, if the government were disposed to recommend such a change, they would be in favour of an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act that would provide for some increase in elected representation.
With regard to the extent of any increase in representation that might be made at this time, the feeling of the members was that account had to be taken of the varying degree of development of the different parts of the Northwest Territories. At the present time
Northwest Territories
much the largest proportion of the population of the territories is concentrated in the western part of the district of Mackenzie- particularly in the basin of the Mackenzie river itself. The 3 constituencies that send elected members to the council are all in the district of Mackenzie. There are no elected representatives from any part of the districts of Keewatin or Franklin, which make up the eastern part of the mainland and the Arctic islands. The view of the members of the council was that the population and state of development of the districts of Keewatin and Franklin is not such at the present time that it would be desirable, or even feasible, to have an elected member from a constituency that covered those areas, or any part of them. They consider, however, that the objective should be to have a member from that part of the territories as soon as the development and the growth of population justifies it.
In the circumstances, the members of the council were of the opinion that the best course at this time would be to amend the Northwest Territories Act to increase the elected representation from three to four. The fourth constituency would be inserted in the district of Mackenzie. The definition of the boundaries of the constituencies is done by ordinance of the council of the Northwest Territories. It is not a matter for this parliament.
The necessary changes would be made before the next election in the territories, which will probably take place in September, 1954. Provision for the fifth elected member, which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had in mind, would be held in reserve for a further amendment at a later date when the growth and development of the territories has made it clear that the addition is desirable and has shown more clearly just what the area should be that the additional representative would cover.
That is the advice of the members of the council of the Northwest Territories. Since they themselves feel that the fifth elected position ought to be held in reserve, I think that is the best course to follow. Up until 1951 there was no elected representation on the council at all. The proposed increase of one will be an indication of the kind and direction of the progress in self-government that is desirable. Further development will come as circumstances justify it.
In view of the importance of this proposal to the people of the Northwest Territories, I have discussed it with my colleagues and I am glad to advise the Leader of the Opposition that, at the appropriate stage in the

Northwest Territories
consideration of the present bill, I shall ask one of my colleagues to move an additional amendment which will increase the size of the council of the Northwest Territories from eight members to nine, and the number of elected members from three to four.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement by the minister that the government has decided to make this increase from three to four, and welcome, too, the manner in which the statement has been made. It is encouraging to feel that, out of a discussion of this kind, we can find a substantial measure of agreement in matters of great importance for the years ahead.
I accept without any criticism or objection the suggestion by the minister that the decision to designate a fifth area in which there would be an elected member for the time being should stand in abeyance. I would have welcomed a decision to do this at the present time; but I think there is a great deal of merit in the view he has expressed.
The important thing is that a decision to increase the number of elected representatives is positive evidence to the people in northern Canada, as well as the people in other parts of this country whose interest we wish to arouse in the north, that there is a steady movement toward elected representation for that area.
By the standards of representation in the southern areas of Canada, the numbers in those northern parts are small. It is not likely that at any time there will be a great concentration of population in the north. Nevertheless within a comparatively few years we have seen enormous changes taking place. It is only a few years ago that there was practically no mineral area of importance in the north, with the exception of the romantic Yukon. Since then we have seen the discovery of increasing quantities of rich ore of different kinds. The Northwest Territories have played a vitally important part in the development of atomic energy. In many ways the north beckons to the young and the vigorous, to people of all ages, who look for the rewards that come with adventure and with new developments such as we have seen in that part of Canada.
I appreciate the words in which the minister announced the decision of the government. I should hope the fact that we can find such a substantial measure of agreement as to the desirability of dramatizing in some measure the move toward greater representation in the northern area would be a happy augury of the approach to be made to the broad problems of that great internal empire. Numbers
[Mr. Lesage.I
of population are small. I agree with the minister that in the Keewatin and Franklin areas it would be so small that it would be difficult to have separate representation there at the moment, with any sense of reality. Nevertheless we recall that the Franklin area is one of the historic sections of Canada. Who can tell that any part of that great northland will not provide new opportunities in the years ahead.
All Canadians should regard the north as an important area for development. There are reasons why the government and parliament should seek in every way to encourage increased population in that area.
We speak often about our neighbours to the south, but not nearly so often in friendly terms about our neighbours to the west and north. Yet, the fact is that only a little more than 50 miles of open water separates this continent from the mainland of Russia. Our great northland is of vital importance in many ways. I do not often speak of Russia as offering us examples of desirable things, but I must say it is worth noting that Russia has been devoting a great deal of attention to the development of its northland, and to the opening of new possibilities for supporting population in that area. We will hope that those developments will be for peace rather than for war-peace that will provide opportunities for us and for other people.
I would hope that in every way possible we would direct our attention to that distant area so as to encourage young Canadians and others who have not yet come to Canada to seek opportunity there. I welcome the minister's statement today respecting the proposed change and accept it as a gesture on the part of the government which will be welcomed by parliament, and as an indication that we are interested in the expansion and development of the north.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Jean Lesage: The act respecting the Northwest Territories, chapter 195, reads as follows:
2. In this act,
(h) "Minister" means the Minister of Resources and Development;
When Bill No. 77 was printed, after the resolution was passed, the name of the Department of Resources and Development had not been changed. Now that it has been changed we might as well profit by the occasion and move that paragraph (h) of section 2 of the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 195 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, be amended to change the

words "Resources and Development" to "Northern Affairs and National Resources". I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration kindly to move that amendment.


Walter Edward Harris: I move:
That Bill No. 77, an act to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories, be amended by adding the following as clause 1 thereof:
1.	Paragraph (h) of section 2 of the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 195, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, is amended by deleting the words "Resources and Development" and substituting therefor the words "Northern Affairs and National Resources". And that the remaining clauses of part 1 of the bill be renumbered accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Section 1 now
becomes section 2.
On section 2-Tenure of elected members.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, when I made my statement on second reading I said that at this time I would ask one of my colleagues to move an amendment following the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition regarding an increase in the number of elected representatives on the Northwest Territories council. This is the time to move the amendment, and I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration kindly to do so.


Walter Edward Harris: I move:
That clause 2, as renumbered, of Bill No. 77, an act to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
2.	(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the said act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"8. (1) There shall be a council of the territories consisting of nine members, four of whom shall be elected to represent such electoral districts in the territories as are named and described by the commissioner in council, and five of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council."
(2)	Subsection (4) of section 8 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (4) Unless otherwise provided in this section, an elected member of the council holds office for three years from the date of the return of the writ after his election."
(3)	Subsection (6) of section 8 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) Where an elected member resigns or dies while in office, the governor in council may appoint a member in his stead for the balance of his term of office.
(7) The governor in council may, at any time after the expiration of two years from the date of the return of the writs of election of elected members of the council, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed".
(4)	Subsection (1) shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council.


Mr. Hardie:: Are we dealing with the subsections having to do with the death or resignation of a council member?


Jean Lesage: Yes.
Northwest Territories


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: A few moments ago the minister said that in 1951 the Northwest Territories Act provided for the first elected representatives to sit on that council. Prior to that time, in 1946, I think it was, the act provided for the appointment of a resident of the territory to sit on the council. In the case in question, if a member dies or resigns, provision should be made for a by-election to permit the people to tell us whom they want to send down here. It has been said, and I agree, that in the Northwest Territories it is very difficult to hold an election at certain times of the year. For the first eighteen months after an election of those members, a by-election should be held to fill a vacancy. It would be the only democratic thing for us to do to replace, by means of a by-election within the first eighteen months after the election, a member who dies or resigns. In the case of an appointment after eighteen months the act should provide-and I hope the minister will agree-for the appointment of a resident of the constituency that was represented by the man who died or resigned.
I feel strongly on this. If we are going to act in a democratic way we should make the appointment from residents of the constituency of the man who died or resigned. That is all I have to say.


Jean Lesage: There is a great deal in the
representations and suggestions which have just been made by the hon. member for Mackenzie River and we have considered the suggestions.
May I point out first of all that in 1946 the act did not provide-as a matter of fact no act ever provided-for the appointment of a resident of the territory. That was a matter of policy which was followed in the appointments, but the act never provided for it.
The hon. member himself has mentioned one of the difficulties of having by-elections in the north. We can have effective byelections or elections in the north in a period of only three or four months, at the most, in the year. We feel that every constituency should be represented as far as possible at every session of the council. At the last session of the council, following the resignation of the then member of the council who has since taken his seat here, the constituency could not be represented because the act did not provide for the replacement of a member who resigned; it provided only for the replacement of a member who died. Provision for the replacement of a member who died was by appointment because of the very high cost of holding elections in the territories.

Northwest Territories
Second, the government wanted to be sure that every constituency would be represented at meetings of the council. It would not have been possible to hold a by-election in the Northwest Territories following the resignation of the then member, Mr. Hardie, who is now the hon. member for Mackenzie River in this house, before the meeting of the session of the council last December.
May I give a few figures on the cost of elections in the Northwest Territories. I might mention that appropriation for expenditures of $1,236.73 was made in connection with the plenary conference held between representatives of the chief electoral office and the three returning officers. This was the only item of expenditure made by this administration in connection with these territorial elections. The other expenditures were made by the chief electoral officer out of his own funds. I have obtained from him details of expenditure broken down by electoral districts and these are as follows: Mackenzie West-a little over $7,000; Mackenzie South-$2,677; Mackenzie North- $3,664.96. That is a total of over $13,000, and that is apart from the appropriation made by the territorial council itself under [DOT]ordinance No. 1, dated February 15, 1951, providing for the sum of $11,000 for the cost of elections.
As to the suggested inclusion in the act of a condition that an appointment be conferred only upon a resident of a constituency, it seems to me that is more a matter of policy than one of legislation. No member of this house has to reside in his constituency in order to be elected. I feel that is a matter for the electors themselves to decide. I believe we should not create a precedent by requiring the appointed representative to reside in the district. On the other hand, I wish to assure hon. members that, unless there is something very exceptional, this government will see to it that any appointment that has to be made in accordance with that section of the act will be conferred upon a resident of the constituency wherein the vacancy occurs.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I am happy to see that the policy will be to appoint the man in the constituency, but I feel, considering what the minister said concerning members of this house, that such a person will not have to reside in the constituency he represents. I am sure any member of this house who went to another constituency would receive his nomination from that constituency. In other words, the people would have some say as to whether he was to run. We are speaking
[Mr. Lesage.l
now of an appointment and I feel this provision should be incorporated in the act. The person appointed should come from the constituency represented by the man who died or resigned.
As to the cost of elections, you will notice that in Mackenzie West the cost was over double the cost of the election in Mackenzie South or Mackenzie North. According to what the minister said a few minutes ago, an additional member will be representing the constituency where the cost of election is so high, and I would venture to suggest that the cost of running a by-election in any one of the four constituencies would be $3,500 at the most. I still feel there should be a by-election over the 18-month period. In the district of Mackenzie South there are only two periods during the year when an election cannot be held. One is at the break-up between the months of May and June, and the other is at the freeze-up during the months of October and possibly part of November. In the other constituencies on the Arctic coast the holding of a by-election may be a little more troublesome but even then the election could be held in August or September or any of the months from December to April.


Jean Lesage: I am sure my hon. friend knows much more about the north than I do, but I have read quite a lot about it and I am informed by my advisers that it would be impossible to hold an election in wintertime unless we wished to disfranchise the Eskimos who are then living their nomadic life.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: During the federal election there was in the electoral district of Mackenzie West, at Stanton and Paulatuk, a total, I think, of 70 votes, and in the constituency of Mackenzie North, at Coppermine and Bathurst Inlet, there was a total vote of, I think, around 70. I still believe that as long as these people are in the forts at Stanton, Paulatuk, Coppermine or Bathurst, elections could be held in the winter just as easily, or possibly more so, than in summer, as the returning officer can travel in a plane equipped with skis during the winter. People come into these forts at various times during the year, and for instance at Coppermine last winter there were more people in the fort than during the summer months.


Mr. Adamson:: I can see the point raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie River in regard to the cost of a by-election in a territory as sparsely populated as the Northwest Territories, but my fear is that if a member of the council dies or resigns, then the residents of the Northwest Territories will be

at the mercy of Ottawa. They feel that somebody in Ottawa will appoint someone they do not know. I do not say that will happen but that is the feeling. Would it not be at least a step halfway in the direction of meeting the wishes of the member for Mackenzie River if the territories council appointed a member rather than the governor in council?


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Jean Lesage: That suggestion has been considered but the trouble is that the appointed member would be sitting with the members who have done him the favour of appointing him. On the other hand, following the policy I propose, a member is appointed by the governor in council and he will sit on the Northwest Territories council. The policy I would follow is to appoint a resident of the district which he would represent. Such a person would then feel much freer vis-a-vis his colleagues than if he had been appointed by them.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think the minister's argument is rather tenuous because I feel the point is that he would be sitting amongst his electors.


Jean Lesage: Those who have appointed him.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, those who have
appointed or chosen him. And he would be responsible to those who form the council. But I think the argument is tenuous in that regard.


Mr. Green:: If this legislation is passed will the position be this, that if a member of the territories council dies or resigns then there cannot possibly be a by-election?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, that is the position now if a member dies. I would refer the hon. member to section 8, paragraph 6 of the present act, which now reads as follows:
Where an elected member dies while in office, the governor in council may appoint a member in his stead for the balance of his term of office.
The only words which are added are "or if he resigns". We are following exactly the same policy as that which was followed in the case when a member dies. We are just providing for a case which had not been provided for, namely the case of resignation of a member, which happened last summer.


Howard Charles Green: Why should power not be taken at least to hold a by-election? The chances are that one could be held. Yet as the act will read, the government could not possibly call a by-election. Why not take the power 83276-79
Northwest Territories
to hold a by-election? Surely that method of filling a vacancy is to be preferred. Suppose the present member for Mackenzie River were to resign from the house. His seat would have to be filled by a by-election. Surely it is just as easy to elect a member to one of the territorial seats as it is to elect a member to the federal house representing the whole area, or easier. Why cut down the democratic rights of these people, as is obviously being done under the law at the present time?


Jean Lesage: As I have already explained, I and my officers believe that it is really important that each constituency should be represented at each session of the council. The council meets twice a year, once in the wintertime here in Ottawa and once in the territories early in the summer. After weighing the pros and cons, it was found that the only way in which to provide representation at each of the sessions of the council for every local constituency was to have the vacancy filled by appointment because the time of the year when it is impossible to hold elections in the territories is so long; it is practically five-sixths or at least three-quarters of the time.
As to the suggestion that the governor in council would have the option of deciding, should there be an election or should there be an appointment, that can be dealt with by the difficulty that 1 have just encountered. The hon. member for Mackenzie River says it is possible to hold an election in the wintertime.


Howard Charles Green: He probably knows.


Jean Lesage: I am advised by my officers and by the officers of the chief electoral officer's office that it is not to be recommended and that it is not feasible in a democratic way. I do not wish to be faced with that option at this time. I am ready to consider the whole thing again, but at this time I believe that if we want to have representation from each local constituency at every session of the council, it is important that the filling of a vacancy after a resignation should be provided for by appointment.


Howard Charles Green: What length of time is required for a by-election?


Jean Lesage: According to our experience in the first election and with the coming election now, it takes about six months to organize an election in the territories. One of the reasons why I asked the leader of the house to give some priority to the second reading of this bill is that we intend to hold an election in September, and it is urgently necessary that we start work now for an election in September.

Northwest Territories


Howard Charles Green: Is the fourth member of the council to be appointed or elected?


Jean Lesage: The fourth member of the council will be elected in the next general election. The provisions dealing with the reorganization of the territories into four constituencies will come into force by proclamation, and we intend to proclaim that paragraph or section of the bill when the council is dissolved after its next meeting which is to be held in Yellowknife on June 14 next.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I do not want to hold this matter up unduly, but I think there are times when a by-election might be held. For instance, if a man died or resigned any time prior to the month of June, it would be possible to hold a by-election in September. I think some provision should be made whereby there could be a by-election. I go so far as to say that I would go along with the minister if he would have the section worded in some way that would allow a by-election within six months of the death or resignation of the member. If they cannot call one within six months, then they can make an appointment.


Howard Charles Green: I think the representations of the hon. member for Mackenzie River should be given serious consideration. I am quite sure he knows the conditions there far better than anyone here in Ottawa. The whole democratic process is at stake. You are setting up a council, some of the members of which are elected. Yet there is this provision that there cannot be a by-election. The term of that council may end up with the whole nine having been appointed. I think we could well afford to go the whole way but at least provide that there shall be power to hold a by-election.


Jean Lesage: I just want to say a word, not to take exception to anything which has been said because I hate to take exception to what hon. members have to say. I agree that the hon. member for Mackenzie River knows much more about his constituency than do all of us in the house, but the chief electoral officer himself well knows how long it takes to organize an election in the Northwest Territories. He knows even better than I do how long it takes to organize an election in Montmagny-L'Islet; and he certainly knows better than does the hon. member for Mackenzie River how long it takes to organize an election in the district of Mackenzie. I am informed that it is necessary to pass the bill so that he can, starting in February, organize the election for next September.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Regulations respecting reindeer.
Howard Charles Green: On December 10 the minister promised that he would look into the question of the raising of musk-ox in the Northwest Territories and give a reply during the debate.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I may have been responsible for some misunderstanding here. I have been calling the clauses as renumbered. We inserted a new clause 1. The printed clause 4 is now clause 5. Therefore I think the hon. member's question comes under the original clause 5 which is now renumbered clause 6. Clause 5 as renumbered is carried and we are now on clause 6.


Jean Lesage: It is true, Mr. Chairman, that when we were at the resolution stage I undertook to give the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra some information regarding musk-ox. I have some here which I will give now if he wishes to have it.
In the early days of the fur trade a great number of musk-ox robes were taken. This led to a great reduction in numbers on the Canadian mainland. Exploration and development in the high Arctic led to similar reductions on many of the islands. The animals are easily destroyed as they form a defensive circle when attacked. This repels the wolves but leaves the musk-ox vulnerable to the rifle.
In 1917 the musk-oxen were given total protection and the export of robes from Canada prohibited. In 1927 the Thelon game sanctuary was established to protect the last stronghold of the species on the mainland, which area was thought to contain 250 animals. By 1937 the population was estimated at 290, and under continued protection the sanctuary population has continued to grow to the present estimate of 600 to 1,000.
In 1930 the total Canadian musk-ox population was estimated to be about 14,000 animals, 500 of which occurred on the mainland. In 1937 the mainland estimate rose to 1,200. The mainland population has continued to grow, though improved transportation facilities have no doubt led to increased musk-ox sightings and consequent apparent increases in population figures. At present herds outside of the Thelon game sanctuary are known to occur at the following localities: north of Great Bear lake, 90 animals; Bathurst inlet, 500 animals; and in the vicinity of Pelly bay where there is no count.

124&
The recent increased aerial reconnaissance in the Canadian Arctic archipelago has added considerable information to our knowledge of musk-ox distribution in that area. They are known to occur on Banks, Victoria, Prince Patrick, Melville, Eglinton, Bathurst, Cornwallis, Devon, Graham, Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere islands. The population on Ellesmere island is considerable. Herds of 500 and 200 have been estimated on the Fosheim peninsula and south coast respectively. There is every reason to believe that the population of this interesting Arctic mammal will continue to increase under proper management and may yet yield valuable products for the Arctic economy.
May I also mention at this point that when we were at the resolution stage some very high figures were mentioned for the population of reindeer. Following that discussion there has been mention in one newspaper, I believe, of the population of reindeer in Alaska as being 20 million. A few zeros should have been taken from that figure, for it is 20,000.


Howard Charles Green: Are there economic possibilities for the musk-ox herds in the north? My question of course is based on the article in Maclean's magazine for August, 1951, by Vilhjalmur Stefansson. In that article he referred particularly to the musk-ox. He seemed to place more importance on them than on reindeer. He told of spending a year on uninhabited Melville island which is north of the 75th parallel. He went to to say:
Our chief source of food was the shaggy, sheeplike, hulking ovibos, often miscalled musk-ox . . . The meat is excellent, the hair makes a wool finer than cashmere and does not shrink when dyed or washed.
He went on to say that a magnificent way to use much of the otherwise forbidding northern land would be by using it for the development of musk-ox herds. He then said:
The musk-ox, whose feeding habits are even better suited to the north than the reindeer, could do far better. I estimate that Canada's north could maintain a hundred million musk-ox, which is the equivalent of 400 million sheep. What such a vast industry would do for Canada, and what such supplies of food might do to assist in other developments of the north such as mining and oil, I leave to your imagination.
Those figures may be much too high but even if they are within shooting distance of the truth this development might be very significant. Can the minister tell us whether or not Stefansson was reasonably accurate in his statement?


Jean Lesage: The information given by Stefansson is of course accurate. The musk-ox can be used for its fur and for its meat, but it is because there are so few musk-ox that 83276-79J
Northwest Territories
we have to prohibit their killing. One thing must not be forgotten. While the annual increase of reindeer is about 25 per cent the annual increase of musk-ox is not more than 10 per cent. Musk-ox females have their calves only every two years. The rate of increase is very slow. We have to protect them, and it is still too early to think of drawing any economic benefits from the musk-ox which, by the way, is a wild animal while the reindeer is domestic.


Howard Charles Green: I hope it is the policy of the department to build up herds of both these animals. Is that correct?


Jean Lesage: That is correct. That is our policy, and that is why we have very strict regulations, in order that we may increase the population of both reindeer and musk-ox to the extent where they will be an economic, asset in the development of the north.


Mr. Knight:: I do not know whether the minister will remember that the last time this: subject was under discussion I brought to his attention certain allegations-they appeared to me to be allegations-that had been made in a book which I think should deeply touch our consciences, namely, "People of the Deer" by Farley Mowat. I am not sure, but I think that at that time the minister said he would look into the subject and see what he could tell me about it when this measure came up in committee. If the allegations contained in the book are true, it is a terrible indictment of neglect upon the part of somebody, and I do not know anybody better to blame than the department of the dominion government that handles these affairs.
It is true that some of Mr. Mowat's assertions were denied publicly, and to that denial he replied in terms which I see no reason to disbelieve. His allegations were that a certain tribe of Eskimos, who are not sea-going Eskimos and are not even found along the seacoast, have been allowed through various circumstances to disintegrate, and that in fact their numbers were decreased and even depleted by starvation. The theme of the book is that the natural way these people live is through the use of their natural food, the reindeer. They were coaxed away from their natural manner of life, and I think in some cases there is an allegation made against the Hudson's Bay Company. I did note that the Hudson's Bay Company was severely critical of the book, and I believe approached the library authorities of the provincial government in Toronto suggesting that perhaps the book should be removed from the shelves. I do not know whether or not that is true,, but that is what I have heard.

Northwest Territories
Now, the allegation is that these people were separated from their ordinary means of livelihood; that they were induced to work for private companies, notably certain fishing companies, and when the market for fish disappeared, these people were thrown back on their natural resources, but at that time the natural resources, the caribou, were not available. I have been able to give only an incomplete resume of the whole situation, but I should like to know if the minister has anything to tell us about it. It is a rather serious business. It involves the lives of people. It involves their extermination by starvation. As a matter of fact, the regulations concerning the preservation of caribou have improved, and I am glad to see that this section provides for that.
I was interested enough to write to my friend the minister of natural resources in Saskatchewan, Mr. Brockelbank. I need not read the whole of the letter. I was protesting that the government allowed hunting parties to go up there, particularly in aeroplanes, to bag these caribou. I am glad to say he has informed me the practice has been stopped, and that the year 1950-51 was the last year in which caribou were killed for sport. I take it these regulations in the bill will be strictly enforced. Mr. Brockelbank suggested that perhaps the worst offenders were not these outside people who came to enjoy the sport. By the way, I imagine it is an expensive sport and that most of the hunters come from south of the line in their own aeroplanes. It was suggested that the Eskimo themselves were not guiltless in the matter. I quote from his letter where he says:
However, I would point out that much more important in the question of preservation of the caribou is the conservation of the herds by the native people themselves. Too often in the past they have wantonly slaughtered the caribou for dog feed . . .
He goes on with some other matters that are not relative to the question. The thought of people dying out there for want of assistance certainly touched my conscience, if it did not touch the conscience of the people in the department.
I made some inquiries of the department in the last parliament by putting questions on the order paper. I have to say that the replies I received were not adequate. I would not like to call them evasive, but they certainly were not satisfactory to me at that time. I am informed now that this tribe, the so-called Ihalmiut-I am not suggesting that people should copy my pronunciation because I do not know how it should be pronounced- are now subsisting largely on the charity of the members of some military expedition

in that north country. The assertions are that such aid as the government did send to them, when it finally was seized of the importance of the question, was too little and too late. For example, white flour is not much good to an Eskimo.
I have covered a lot of ground. I have to admit my ignorance of the subject, but one of the purposes of a discussion in committee of the whole is to find out these things. Some time ago I gave the minister a warning that I would pursue the question. I notice he shakes his head, which means he has no recollection of such a warning. It was the former minister. In any event, I should like to have his comments on this matter.


Jean Lesage: The first important question is that the hon. member has suggested this book "People of the Deer" should be suppressed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have not suggested it. I say someone suggested it. I mentioned that it was rumoured that the Hudson's Bay Company thought it would be advisable to have this book suppressed from the shelves of certain libraries. I say that is a rumour, and I am merely giving it as such.


Jean Lesage: It amounts to the same thing if the hon. member thinks it might be advisable to suppress the book from the shelves-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, how many times, in my inadequate English, do I have to explain that I am not in favour of censorship or anything like that?


Jean Lesage: I am sorry; I misunderstood.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I said that certain people had reported to me, as a rumour which I cannot substantiate, that the Hudson's Bay Company -can the minister hear me?-suggested that perhaps, in view of the attack that had been made upon the reliability of Mr. Mowat's assertions, it would be a good thing if this book were suppressed from certain library shelves. May I say that I welcomed the writing of the book just as I welcome the writing of any controversial book which makes people think, and which might be the subject of a discussion such as the one we are having now. I hope we are now clear on that point.


Jean Lesage: I am clear, Mr. Chairman. Since I misunderstood the hon. member and had gathered that he was making the suggestion at that time, he will not be surprised if I say that I was surprised that a proposal for suppressing a book should come from a socialist. If the hon. member agrees with me, I would suggest the thing to do would be to take that book from the factual shelves and

put it on the fictional shelves of the library because it is based on false and partial information.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister has completely misunderstood me. He is putting too much emphasis upon this part about suppressing the book. Let us leave that out. What I am seeking is information from the minister concerning the allegations made in that book. What are the comments of the minister upon the whole situation, and the allegation that that particular tribe was allowed to be starved and separated from their natural means of livelihood? Let us have no red herrings. This book is merely a red herring.


Jean Lesage: I just said, and I do not believe I can say anything more, it is false, the allegations are false. If the hon. member wishes to have a detailed criticism of that book indicating the extent to which the information upon which the book is based is false, I am sure that my officers and especially my deputy would be delighted to send it to the hon. member so he will have an opportunity to peruse it. There is nothing more false than that part of the book which says that a certain tribe was allowed to perish by starvation. There is no ground at all for that allegation.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Does the minister say, then, there have been no such occurrences as the one described concerning any tribe of Eskimos in that territory?


Jean Lesage: Years ago there were some cases of starvation, I am afraid. One can appreciate how difficult communications were in the north before it was possible to have air patrols up there. There might very well have been cases of starvation because of the sudden disappearance of the caribou from their usual migration routes. The basic information in the book is false. It was based upon partial information. As I said, I do not have in my mind all the facts concerning the allegations in the book, but I shall be delighted to have an officer give the hon. member all the information he requires in order that his soul, as a member of this parliament, may be at peace and that he will not believe he has been at fault in allowing starvation to occur in this country without any measures being taken against it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Since the minister has said categorically that these things are false I should like to say that I, too, have information from what I consider a fairly competent authority stating that such allegations are largely true. I think it is only fair to the writer of the book that I should say that. The attack upon the book was made by A. E.
Northwest Territories
Porsild. While I do not wish to go into the whole matter, I may say that I have read Mr. Mowat's reply.
I would ask the minister if it is not a fact that a government department did receive from Mr. Mowat, and from others who were investigating the problem at the time, certain reports, and if it is not true that there was a great deal of delay on the part of the department in investigating the truth of those reports, or sending relief as a result of them.
It is a matter which should be cleared up, in the public interest. Of course what is bygone is bygone; we cannot bring back lives. I bring this to the attention of the House of Commons, the department and the public generally in the hope that things like this will not occur again and that we may have more prompt action on behalf of people who are in difficult circumstances and people for whom, as in this instance, we have assumed responsibility.


Jean Lesage: At the time the book was written and the events occurred to which my hon. friend has referred, I was not very well versed in either northern affairs or Eskimo affairs. However, I am now informed by responsible officers in my department that the information in the book is false, and that the statement just made by the hon. member would not be exactly correct. My officers are in a position to give information to the hon. member which would satisfy him that there was no delay by the proper officers in doing whatever was necessary to cope with any emergency.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think it would be wise if the information, which the minister asserts his officers can give, were to be given publicly, to the whole country. I do not blame the minister, or any other minister; but I do say that if he will look into my question and the replies given-I cannot remember the exact date-he will admit that they are pretty vague and wobbly. Any department, or any minister as sure of himself as the minister seems to be now, would have been able to set forth information to prove that the allegations in Mr. Mowat's book were in fact false.
The minister's statement that these allegations are false is a pretty broad one. I take it that he makes the blanket assertion that the statements contained in the book are not in fact true. I do know that reports went in to the department.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Would it be possible to have Dr. Porsild's monograph on the subject given to those members who may be interested in it? I have listened to this controversy before,

Northwest Territories
and I would be interested in knowing what the facts of the matter are. I am a great admirer of Dr. Porsild, because he is the man who brought the reindeer from Alaska to the Northwest Territories, and one who probably knows as much about game in the Northwest Territories as any living man. While I have read the book, I have not read the monograph written by Dr. Porsild, and I would be interested to do so. Indeed, I think hon. members generally would like to see it.
Does the department make a grant to the Arctic Institute of Canada? Is the department carrying on any research with a view constantly to increasing northern limits of vegetation? If so, would the minister give us information on that, either from his department or otherwise? That is one of the most interesting subjects affecting the northwestern section of Canada.


Jean Lesage: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion and, if it suits the wishes of hon. members, I will see to it that Dr. Porsild's monograph is mimeographed and distributed to them. I shall undertake to do that. This would be one of the best answers to the allegations contained in the book "People of the Deer".
I might reply to the hon. member by saying that the department does grant $5,000 a year to the Arctic Institute. And, as to his question about developing agriculture in the north, I would reply that an experimental station is operated at Fort Simpson by the Department of Agriculture.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let me suggest that in all fairness in this controversy, one in which I am not taking sides-'because I am making no accusations-if Dr. Porsild's statement is to be made public then the reply by Mr. Mowat to Dr. Porsild's review should be made public so that hon. members could come to their own conclusions.
Mr. Mowat did spend a good deal of time in the north country and among these people in the study of their habits and to learn their language. I have in my hand a copy of the reply by Farley Mowat to A. E. Porsild's review, and I would be prepared to put it on the record. However, I do not want to hold up the discussion in committee by doing so, because a good deal of Mr. Mowat's work is not directed to the main question but rather toward certain allegations made ,by Dr. Porsild to the effect that he, Mowat, was not qualified and that he did not spend time in the north country so as to be sure of what he was talking about.

However, there is this reply, and in the interests of fair play, if Dr. Porsild's denials are to be published, then this should be published too. It is available.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the section carry?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: No. If the government is going to mimeograph Dr. Porsild's reply at public expense, then I suggest that it should mimeograph the other at the same time. It would require only a small addition. Does not the minister consider that that would be the fair way to handle the matter?


Jean Lesage: I do not want to enter into this controversy, and I can see no reason at all why we should perpetuate it. Under the circumstances, since the hon. member objects, nothing will be mimeographed.


Mr. Churchill:: Then are we simply left in the position that we have to accept the minister's statement that Mowat's book is false? That is what we are left with.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think that is a very
unsatisfactory statement to leave on the record. The allegation is correct or it is false. There is expert testimony on it. I do think the department owes it to this house to have that expert testimony made available.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I am somewhat at fault in this matter by allowing the discussion to have proceeded so far. We should have limited ourselves to a more strict consideration of the clauses themselves. However, my understanding is that the clause is carried.


Jean Lesage: May I say that anyone who
is interested in having any expert information has only to tell me or come to my office and he will easily get it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Resignation or death of elected member.
Jean Lesage: I have here an amendment
corresponding to the one which was made when we dealt with new clause 1, and I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to move the amendment.


Walter Edward Harris: I move:
That Bill No. 77, an act to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories, be amended by adding the following as clause 7 thereof:
7. Paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Northwest Territories Act, chapter 331 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, is amended by deleting the words "Resources and Development" and substituting

therefor the words "Northern Affairs and National Resources". And that the remaining clauses of part II of the bill be renumbered accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Would hon. members mind if I kept to the numbers which appear in the bill as printed before us?


Jean Lesage: No. Before we get to that
point I have another amendment that I should like to ask one of my colleagues to move. It is an amendment corresponding to the one which was made in the first part of the bill, following the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, which was accepted, to increase the number of elected representatives. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to move accordingly.


Walter Edward Harris: I move:
That clause 8, as renumbered, of Bill No. 77, an act to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories, be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
8. (1) Subsection (1) of section 8 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"8. (1) There shall be a council of the territories consisting of nine members, four of whom shall be elected to represent such electoral districts in the territories as are named and described by the commissioner in council, and five of whom shall be appointed by the governor in council."
(2) Subsection (5) of section 8 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (5) Where an elected member resigns or dies while in office, the governor in council may appoint a member in his stead for the balance of his term of office."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Clause 7 now becomes
clause 9. Shall it carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Clause 8 now becomes
clause 10; shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Clause 9 now becomes
clause 11; shall the clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Clause 10 now becomes clause 12; shall it carry?


Jean Lesage: I have another amendment to move, because this new disposition providing that there shall be four elected representatives cannot come into force before the present council meets next June. This new provision for four elected representatives instead of three on the council should come into force when the present council is dissolved and writs are issued for a general election which will be held next September.
Northwest Territories
That is why we have to provide that this part of the present amendment shall come into force on proclamation, which proclamation will be on the day the governor in council dissolves the present Northwest Territories council in order to hold an election next September. I would ask my colleague to move this amendment.


Walter Edward Harris: I move:
That Bill No. 77 be further amended by adding thereto immediately after clause 12 thereof, as renumbered, the following clause:
13. Section 48 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"48. This act or any provision thereof shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council."


Mr. Knowles:: This is new clause 13.


Jean Lesage: New clause 13. It is consequential to the other amendments.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That means that this act will come into force in two sections?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A dozen sections.


Agar Rodney Adamson: In a number of sections.


Jean Lesage: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The reason for this is the same as in redistribution legislation, that the redistribution act comes into force on the day parliament is dissolved.


Jean Lesage: That is right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But the other sections can come into force at once?


Jean Lesage: At the moment the Criminal Code comes into force. We are waiting for that to have chapter 331 come into force.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Apparently the period of gestation and the coming into effect of that act will be as long as the period of gestation of the musk-ox.


Jean Lesage: Well, it might be.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Garson:: During the discussion of the last order of business a remark was made about a certain developmental period in relation to that piece of legislation. Bill No. 7 has had an even longer period of development. A royal commission was set up to inquire into it, on February 3, 1949.
That commission reported in January, 1952, and the first bill consolidating the Criminal Code was introduced in the other place in May, 1952. At the end of that session it died on the order paper in the other place. It was then redrafted in the light of discussions in the other place and its committee and reintroduced in the other place in the fall session of 1952. It was reported from the other place on December 16 of that year with no less than 116 amendments.
That bill then came to the House of Commons in the early part of 1953 and was sent to a special committee of this house where it received detailed consideration, section by section, from beginning to end; and it was reported, as those members of the present house who were in the last parliament will recall, with some 70-odd amendments in addition to those which had been made by the other place.
The bill therefore which we are about to consider in committee has already received a very great deal of consideration indeed; first by the royal commission for a period of some three years, then by the drafting officers of the Department of Justice, then by the other place in two separate legislative sessions and by its committees, and finally at the last session of parliament by a special committee of the House of Commons.
Hence it should not be surprising if it would be possible for us in considering the sections of the bill in committee of the whole perhaps to be able to approve of them in an expeditious manner. To that end 1 would suggest there is no better method than to follow the procedure that was followed with great success in the committees of the other place and in the special committee of the House of Commons, namely that the sections should be called one by one.
Our experience in these other committees was that the great majority of sections, being merely a re-enactment of sections of the present Criminal Code which have been the law for a long period of time, are passed without comment. When we came to some particular section or group of sections of a more serious character, such as, for example, those relating to sedition, treason, criminal liability and the like, if any of the opposition

parties or for that matter the government members wish to examine such sections more carefully, we set them aside for this purpose. In the same way now, with a view perhaps to reconsidering the conclusion in relation to such clause which has been recommended by the special committee of the House of Commons, we might set aside such sections and come back and consider them after we had gone through the whole bill. In that way we can proceed with some expedition through the whole bill, and then come back and give regard to the difficult sections separately at the end.
I am sure I do not need to emphasize that the Criminal Code as we have it deals with a large group of subject matters that in the United Kingdom, which does not possess a criminal code, are covered by some 150-odd separate statutes. Each of these subject matters to which I have referred, such for example as treason and sedition, is most important. If therefore we feel that we should not accept the conclusions to which the committees of the other place and the special committee of the House of Commons have come, then I think we owe it to ourselves and the people who sent us here to give very serious consideration and subject to carefully considered debate every matter that is reserved in that way.
With that in view I would suggest that we might start consideration of the bill section by section. If there is any question in relation to any one of them which can be disposed of by brief discussion, then we might deal with those now and pass it. If we come to any question that promises to develop into a more serious debate, perhaps it would be better to set it aside and come back to it later on.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I can say at once on behalf of the official opposition that the procedure outlined by the minister is acceptable and conforms to the preliminary and informal discussions we have had outside the chamber as to the best and most efficient method of dealing with this very lengthy bill. I am grateful to the minister for making this statement because it will explain to the house and to the committee itself, and to others who may be watching our proceedings or be interested in them, what perhaps would otherwise be open to misunderstanding and subject to the interpretation that the members of the committee are not considering this serious and important legislation with the care it deserves.
What the minister has said makes it dear that what we are going through here is in

fact the last stage of a process of consideration which has occupied some four or five years-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Five years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and consideration by other bodies including this house and its own special committee. I would imagine that a large number of the sections will carry almost automatically, but that does not mean they have not already received the serious consideration which they deserve.


Angus MacInnis: I think the method outlined by the minister will be entirely satisfactory to us. The minister was good enough to talk the matter over with me before the Christmas recess, and I indicated at that time that I thought it was the most satisfactory way of dealing with this very important bill.
May I say, as an incentive to the minister to do the best he can here, that if he will be as fair on this committee and as anxious to get every point of view as he was in the parliamentary committee last year, then we will get along very well indeed.
I would make only one further observation to the committee, and it is one that I found it necessary to make to the minister on several occasions during the sitting of the committee last year, namely that this is no mere consolidation. There is an enormous volume of new material in the new Criminal Code, and we should be very careful that in so far as this is a change from the old code it is a change for the better. I will say again that I have no doubt we can deal with this last phase of this very exhaustive examination of the matter satisfactorily.


Mr. Thomas:: I just want to say that we have no objection whatsoever to examining this bill in committee as suggested by the minister. We feel there is no reason to hold up the non-contentious items. There is no reason why we cannot get through with them and hold up the others for further consideration. I will not say any more at the present time, but undoubtedly on some of the individual items I will have more to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just make one point so it will be clear. My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has already indicated that we are in agreement with the procedure suggested by the Minister of Justice. The one point I had in mind is this. Obviously there will be many sections, in view of the exhaustive consideration that has been given to them, which we will agree to without asking that they stand or without asking questions. However, it may develop 83276-80
Criminal Code
that after some section has gone by, something that develops later will have a bearing on an earlier section or that a member will wish to say something about a section about which nothing was said in the earlier discussion. I am sure the minister is agreed- I know it from something he said to me privately-that so long as there is good faith on both sides we can go back to such a clause. I thought that point should be made clear now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am glad that my hon. friend has raised this point, because it was one that I did not cover in my own remarks and I think perhaps I should have done so. In the special committee at the last session, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who was then the hon. member for Vancouver East has just said, we found that we were able to achieve a great deal of harmony in the committee by addressing ourselves to the task of getting as good a code as possible and not showing any interest whatsoever in scoring procedural victories over one another. I think I am correct in saying that at any time a member wished, for substantial reasons-and he never asked to do so for any other reasons-to reopen a section, there was never any hesitancy in so doing. We found that by opening up a section, instead of arguing whether it should be reopened, very often we could get the whole matter disposed of and get on to the next section in the time which would have been taken in arguing whether or not it should be reopened.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the section carry? Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not too fast, Mr. Chairman. There are a great many pages.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-General.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question about paragraph 1 of section 3? This is not anything that is important enough-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I make this observation at this time. It will perhaps put the chairman in a difficult position to decide how long a debate is going to take place on any particular section. I was wondering whether it would not be a more satisfactory procedure simply to allow to stand a section on which any questions were to be asked.

Criminal Code
The chairman cannot possibly anticipate in advance how long debate or questioning will take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister's suggestion on that point should be considered. I think this section is a good example. The question I wish to ask about this section is just a question for the purposes of information so that I, as a layman, might understand the wording. I do not think it is worth letting it stand over. I believe hon. members themselves will know whether the questions or the points they are raising are likely to be contentious and prolong the debate, or whether they are really just something in passing.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I think probably our experience in the other committee last year indicated that it was not hard to determine almost at once whether a certain topic could be concluded fairly quickly or was going to develop a long discussion. Our practice in the latter event was for the government to throw in the sponge at once by agreeing to set it to one side, and not waste time in carrying on an argument as to whether or not we should adjourn it. I think we might follow that practice in the present case. I think perhaps we can dispose of my hon. friend's question right away, if he will ask it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. I am sure this is a question that will not make it necessary for the government to throw in the sponge; not yet, at any rate. That will come later.


Mr. Sinclair:: Not in your time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister tell us in simple language what section 3, paragraph 1, means? I wonder whether it would not have been possible to word the clause in a way that would have been clearer to some of us ordinary people?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At the risk of being thought facetious, Mr. Chairman, I think it means what it says.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But does it say what it means?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; it says what it means. Any difficulty that my hon. friend experiences in interpreting it arises from the fact that one of the functions which a legal draftsman has to perform carefully is to make sure that it does say what it means even though, in some cases, in doing so it may not be, on the surface, too intelligible. The paragraph reads as follows:
For the purposes of this act a person shall be deemed to have been of a given age when the
[The Chairman.]
anniversary of his birthday, the number of which corresponds to that age, is fully completed, and until then to have been under that age.
When the anniversary of his birthday, the number of which-we will say the tenth anniversary of his birthday-corresponds to that age, then until that tenth birthday is reached, he is nine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. I thought I understood it; but in view of the minister's explanation I am now not so sure. The minister said that until that person's tenth anniversary is reached or until his tenth birthday is reached, he is still nine.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the meaning of the words in the paragraph to suggest that it is until that anniversary is fully completed? When is the person ten years old in relation to his tenth birthday? Let us say a child's tenth birthday is on July 1. When is he ten years old?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At midnight of that day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Midnight of the 1st of July?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Midnight between July 1 and July 2?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Punishment only after conviction.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question which I think is a relatively simple one to answer. I am not raising it as a point of substance, although I would ask the minister just to give it something more than cursory consideration. I refer to subsection 2 which, according to the explanatory note, is new and which provides as follows:
Subject to this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada, no person shall be convicted in Canada for an offence committed outside of Canada.
It may be-and I should be glad to know whether this is the case-that this merely puts into statutory form what is already followed in practice or perhaps is a rule of law. But if it is new legislation, I just wish the minister would tell us what was the reason for it. I think it could be urged, on superficial grounds at any rate, that there are cases in which it would be desirable to convict a person in Canada for an offence committed outside of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This provision puts into statutory form the practice which has always

been followed; and in that sense, while the wording is new and the fact that there is a statutory provision is new, there is no change in the practice. If my hon. friend reads the provision he will see that it says:
Subject to this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada . . .
So if in any other given act it was desired to exercise our extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to a certain offence, we could do so under that other act and it would not affect the operation of this section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps this will dispose of it. Would it be the case that a person who contracts a bigamous marriage outside of Canada could on his return be convicted of bigamy? Let us say that he has married a girl in Canada, has gone away to some other country and contracted another marriage there and has now come back to Canada. Could we convict him of bigamy under the Criminal Code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In a case of that sort my hon. friend would have to look at the provisions relating to bigamy in this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada. If the provisions relating to bigamy cover an extraterritorial crime then he could be convicted, but not otherwise. The nub of the matter is found in these words:
Subject to this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada, no person shall be convicted-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What would be the situation with reference to a crime committed on a Canadian ship on the high seas?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Speaking offhand, I would think the Criminal Code of Canada would apply to offences committed upon a ship of Canadian registry on the high seas, because a ship of Canadian registry is a part of the Canadian realm.


Harold Edward Winch: On that very point I should like to get a clearer explanation as to what is meant by an offence on a ship of Canadian registry and what is meant by "on the high seas." I draw to the attention of the minister the case of Mr. Harold E. Graham, who was on board a tug operating outside of the harbour of Vancouver. The tug was tied up at the dock in Bellingham, Washington. As it was to be there for several hours the crew did a little imbibing, and while the tug was actually tied up at the dock in Bellingham two of the seamen got into a brawl. One man was knocked out. He was checked by the officers of the tug and there was no question that he had had a beating.
Several hours later the tug sailed from the port of Bellingham. One hour later the 83276-80i
Criminal Code
injured seaman was checked and the chief engineer reported to the captain of the tug that he thought the man was dead. The tug proceeded on its way until it reached Vancouver. A coroner's inquest was held at Vancouver, and according to the report of the doctor who did the autopsy the man had actually died before the tug had left the port of Bellingham. The man who committed the assault was charged in Canada and is now serving a term in the British Columbia penitentiary.
I should like to have that situation clarified. The man was on a tug which was tied! up in a United States port. The brawl which resulted in the death of the man occurred in the United States. How does what the minister has said with respect to the interpretation* of subsection 2 of section 5 apply to the situation I have described? The brawl and the homicide occurred in the United States but the man was tried, convicted and jailed in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It would be very difficult if not impossible for one to express an opinion-* and that is really what my hon. friend is asking me to do-upon the facts of the case he has just recited without checking the facts very carefully as they were established in the legal proceedings which subsequently took place in Canada. If my hon. friend is right in the latter part of his statement, when I understood him to say that the man was killed not on the Canadian tug but on United States soil-


Harold Edward Winch: On the tug but at the dock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Right; but if he is on the tug it is one thing and if he is on United States soil it is another. In any event, with respect, I do not think this matter has any particular relevance to section 5, subsection 2, because all it says is that subject to the provisions of this act or any other act of parliament, like the Canada Shipping Act, which may create extraterritorial jurisdiction over offences committed outside of Canada, no person shall be convicted in Canada for an offence committed outside of Canada. But I am sure my hon. friend will find, if he examines the proceedings in Vancouver with care, that they were taken under some act of this parliament.
For another reason, my hon. friend will see that the case he cites has no relevancy to this particular section. As he can see from the opposite page, this is a new provision, and as the bill has not yet been passed this new clause has not gone into effect and it is not yet law.

British North America Act


Harold Edward Winch: I know that, but I had reference to the minister's statement that what was being put into the statute now was what had been the custom in the past.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What had been the custom, subject to the various acts. In other words in the past it has not been the custom to charge people with such offences committed outside of Canada; and the reason an offence was charged in the case to which my hon. friend has referred is presumably because it was covered by some existing statute law which he has not cited to us.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Application of criminal law of England.
John George Diefenbaker: Section 7, subsection 1,
reads as follows:
The criminal law of England that was in force in a province immediately before the coming into force of this act continues in force in the province except as altered, varied, modified-
And so on. What has the minister to say with reference to this section in so far as the law of mischief in the matter of peeping Toms is concerned? Will the law against peeping Toms be in effect? The minister will remember that there was a case which came before the Supreme Court of Canada. In view of the decision in that case what change, if any, will be effected as a result of the enactment of this new section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The law with regard to peeping Toms is covered in new section 162 of the present bill. When that section goes into effect, this offence will be defined by it and not by the law of England.
Section 7 reads:
7. (1) The criminal law of England that was in force in a province immediately before the coming into force of this act continues in force in the province except as altered, varied, modified or affected by this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada.
(2) Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada, except in so far as they are altered by or are inconsistent with this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada.
In other words, as I indicated on the second reading of the bill, so far as procedure law is concerned, and to use the language of the bill, any circumstances which constitute "a justification or excuse", the English law in relation to these is retained, but not as to the definition of criminal offences. By means of this present consolidation we are providing that after it has been passed there will be

no offences for which a Canadian can be tried except such as have been defined by this legislation, or other acts of this parliament.


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



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 81, to amend the British North America Acts 1867 to 1952, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Harris: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is about to speak, and that would close the debate on second reading of this bill. I was hoping that earlier in the course of his remarks on the bill he might have indicated a desire to deal with it in the same manner as we did on the former occasion, namely that we should have the matter considered by the committee on rules. This committee, having had two or three years of rather extended consideration of some factors in connection with our procedure, I should think would be prepared to deal seriously and at some length with the matters that come before it. For that reason I would hope we would not make a decision on this particular point in the house now, but rather deal with it as part of the larger picture and as part of the effort to obtain a more expeditious procedure in the house.
I repeat my request, therefore, that the hon. member give consideration to following that course. If he chooses not to do so I feel that I should dispose of it in the same manner as I did on the former occasion. I leave it to him to decide at the moment which he would prefer to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of privilege, if I may be considered as making an interjection in the remarks of the minister, I would point out that it is not within my power to move that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the committee on procedure; that is something the minister could do. The minister said he was hoping I would express the same wish concerning the course to be followed in connection with this bill that I expressed last year. If my memory serves me correctly it was the minister who expressed the view that the subject matter

should be referred to the committee on procedure, and I went along with the idea. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that if the same proposition is made again by the minister I would give it the consideration it merits.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, perhaps without actually so moving and in order not to dispose of the bill-I would prefer not to do that for the hon. member's sake-would he consider merely allowing the motion to stand on the understanding that the matter would be discussed with the rules committee reasonably soon?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you would overlook the impropriety of this back and forth discussion, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I welcome the suggestion the minister is now making. I feel it is a better one than was made last year. So far as I am concerned, if he wishes to move the adjournment of the debate or if he wishes to let any other member speak and then move the adjournment of the debate, I would be prepared to follow that course and let the motion for second reading of the bill stand on the order paper pending a discussion of the question of the quorum in the committee on rules, in view of the undertaking the minister has given that we will study the question in that committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the bill cannot stand. The debate will either have to proceed or be adjourned.


Walter Edward Harris: I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Harris the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The business under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will resume the business which was under consideration at five o'clock.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law-Mr. Garson-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 7-Application of criminal law of England.
William Alfred Robinson: We were considering section 7. Had the explanation been completed on section 7?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Criminal offences to be under law of Canada.
Criminal Code
John George Diefenbaker: I should like an explanation from the minister concerning the reason for this new section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is a continuation of the idea that was considered in part by the preceding section, concerning which the hon. member asked some questions. This is the section which states that from now on all of the offences for which a Canadian can be tried must be those which are covered by this bill. From now on it will not be possible, in Canada, to charge a Canadian with a common law offence. If the crime for which he is to be charged cannot be found within the limits of the Canadian Criminal Code or another act of parliament, then he cannot be charged at all.
It might be thought, perhaps, that in adopting the new rule we were leaving some gap that was formerly covered by common law offences. Before we put this section into the bill we went carefully over the records and checked with the provincial law enforcement officers to get a full list of all the common law crimes that had been charged in Canada since the code was first passed in 1892. All of those common law crimes which have been charged in the interval have now been incorporated in the present Criminal Code bill. The only possible gap there mignt now be would be if there were some form of common law crime which we have not had occasion to charge in past Canadian history. We think if a case of that kind were to come up-and it seems most unlikely-it might be better at that time to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code making provision for such an offence. For we believe if we are to have a Criminal Code in Canada it is desirable that we should be in a position to say to all Canadians, "Here is an exhaustive list of Canadian crimes. Unless the offence can be found in this code it cannot be charged."


John George Diefenbaker: That is a very commendable purpose, but I find it difficult to understand section 7 (1) when read in conjunction with section 8. Section 7 (1) is in these words:
The criminal law of England that was in force in a province immediately before the coming into force of this act continues in force in the province except as altered, varied, modified or affected by this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada.
And section 8 is in these words:
Notwithstanding anything in this act or any other act no person shall be convicted
(a)	of an offence at common law,
(b)	of an offence under an act of the parliament of England, or of Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or
(c)	of an offence under an act or ordinance hi force in any province-

Criminal Code
And so on. How does the minister make those two sections coincide with each other?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought I had already done so.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I did not follow
the minister in that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then I shall try to repeat,
perhaps more briefly, what I said before. Section 7 says that the criminal law of England is in force with regard to all matters of procedure and evidence, and those circumstances which constitute a justification or excuse. But so far as the definition of crimes is concerned, section 8 says that from and after the passage of this bill the law of England shall not be in effect in Canada as regards the definition of crimes. It is in effect for procedural matters, but not for the definition of crimes.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the
purpose, but I am wondering whether the wording covers that purpose. Section 7 (1) does not say anything about procedure. It simply says that the criminal law of England that was in force in a province immediately before the coming into force of this act continues in force in the province except as altered, and so on.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Except as altered, modified or affected by this act or any other act of the parliament of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Surely that is a most roundabout wording to achieve a narrow result. I can understand the purpose of section 7 (1), and that section 7 (2) is a matter of procedure. But when we read section 7 (1) in conjunction with section 8, then it seems to go a long way around to express a very small thing, and with the use of a lot of unnecessary words. Who drafted this new section? Was it the law officers, or was it drafted by the commission?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The whole bill, including the section to which my hon. friend has referred, was first considered by the royal commission, whose names I have already placed on the record.


John George Diefenbaker: I know that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: These were men of great eminence in the field, as I am sure my hon. friend would be the first to admit. Then after they had drafted the bill it was gone over by the parliamentary draftsmen in the Department of Justice. Then the bill, including these sections, went to the other place, and was considered there at great length by the banking and commerce committee of the

other place, and particularly by a subcommittee of that committee consisting of Senators Salter Hayden, J. W. deB. Farris and A. W. Roebuck.


John George Diefenbaker: That is immaterial; they are all good men.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is conceded that they were good counsel. The minister need not go into that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: After it was considered by this subcommittee composed of eminent counsel, as my hon. friends agree, it then came before the House of Commons special committee and was considered at great length by it. We can only take the position at the moment that the wording which my hon. friend criticizes has received the approval of these bodies to which I have referred. It would not be in the form in which it appears here if it had not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 9 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-Insanity.
John George Diefenbaker: This is one of the sections which deserve consideration, and cannot be carried quickly. It covers the whole defence of insanity, and is one of the most important sections in the Criminal Code.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the minister deals with any particular point of view, would he tell us when it is anticipated that the royal commission to which this subject will be referred will be set up. Has he in mind any of the persons who will be appointed to it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. As the hon. member for Prince Albert has said, this is an important section in that it sets out the defence of insanity. As the hon. member for Kamloops has indicated, it is a matter which we had proposed to remit to a royal commission for consideration. It is our wish to set up that commission at the earliest possible moment.
I may say that already I have been discussing the matter with a man whose eminence and abilities in our opinion entitle him to consideration as a possible chairman of the royal commission, and I have discussed with him the possibility of finding time from his other preoccupations to act for us in this capacity. I have received a tentatively favourable answer, but he has not been able to assure me formally that he can act until he takes up with his colleagues the matter of whether he can get the necessary time off. However, as soon as he, or smother person of equal ability, agrees, we can proceed to collect the

other personnel. We do wish to set up the commission as soon as we possibly can.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it possible that the commission might recommend) amendments to this section? Perhaps it would be better if it were allowed to stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is possible; but on second
reading of the bill I indicated that when the present bill comes into effect it will abolish the existing code, and we cannot leave a gap in the law on this subject. Therefore I suggested to hon. members that these subject matters which are being remitted, in the one case to the royal commission and in three others to a special parliamentary joint committee, might be passed in their present form in order that we should have that part of the law covered; and then when we get the reports back from the royal commission and the parliamentary committee we would proceed to bring in amendments to carry into effect their recommendations.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the
royal commission, can the minister take the committee into his confidence a little and say how many members are going to be on this commission, and whether it is intended to have on the commission at least as many who have been outstanding counsel for the defence as those who have been crown counsel; for this is the type of section that deserves the consideration of a commission on which neither crown nor defence shall be overweighted.
This is a section that more and more is affording a defence to those charged particularly with capital offences. The reason for that is simply the fact, as someone said the other day-and I am not referring to another debate, Mr. Chairman-that if juries can find reasonable grounds for believing that insanity exists to such an extent as to have dethroned the reason of the person charged with the offence, they bring in verdicts of manslaughter even when manslaughter ought not to be the verdict, but in point of fact the verdict should be not guilty by reason of insanity. Certainly the law of insanity as applied today does not meet with the advances that have been made in recent years in the matter of mental diseases.
This is a section that will deserve the serious attention not only of the committee of parliament and of the royal commission that is to be set up, but the utmost consideration on the part of penologists and those who are specialists in mental diseases, so as to bring the criminal law up to date. As
Criminal Code
the minister knows, this is one of the major means of exculpation that exist today in the criminal law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am in complete agreement
with my hon. friend as to the importance of this subject. We are hopeful that we can get men-and we think on this commission we should have at least one lady-of real eminence in their fields. We think, although this is not a final decision by any means, that the number of the royal commission might properly be seven. We have no idea of making it up entirely of lawyers-either for the prosecution or for the defence-because we think that there should be at least one psychiatrist upon it, in view of the fact that the subject of psychiatry is involved.
In our search for proper candidates for such a commission we not only have to find men and women who are properly equipped, but in these busy days it is sometimes very difficult to find those who are properly qualified and who also have the necessary time which they can devote to work of this sort. Sometimes a first-rate potential appointee simply cannot get the necessary leisure from his other duties in order to discharge a task of this sort. We want to have legal representation on it; we want to have the fair sex represented; we want to have psychiatrists represented. But we do not think it would be appropriate to have the commission made up of psychiatrists and lawyers. And seven is the number we have in mind.


John George Diefenbaker: I have one other question. Without identifying the person to whom the chairmanship has been tentatively offered, would it be an improper question to ask whether or not that person is a member of the judiciary?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I mean no offence to my hon. friend, but it would be an improper question, because it might indicate some time later on that the candidate whom we finally selected was not the first choice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would it be appropriate to
suggest that this section stand? I do not want to press that, but I want to make certain other observations with regard to insanity, and I should like to ask some questions as to the scope of the intended reference to the royal commission and so on. I do not wish to delay the committee. While I do not want to go into technicalities and the law of insanity, because it is going to be referred to the royal commission, there are those aspects as to the scope of the

Criminal Code
reference, whether insanity with its relationship to the defence of provocation is also going to be referred, and so on. So it might be better to have this section stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have no objection. This is in accord with the spirit in which we are approaching the whole thing. I am sure my hon. friend is not urging that we should stand it over permanently.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, just for later discussion.


William Alfred Robinson: Section 16 stands.
On section 17-Compulsion by threats.


Mr. Nesbitt:: There are a number of offences listed in this section which are separate. In spite of that, compulsion is no excuse for an offence. I should like to ask this question. Would there be some merit in separating the words "immediate death or grievous bodily harm"? A person may believe that the person compelling him may carry out the crime of murder, let us say, at the point of a gun, and that may well be an excuse for committing this offence; whereas the threat of grievous bodily harm could very well not be accepted. Can the minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to that? This puts the person in a position where he might commit the crime of arson, of robbery or even of murder merely in order to save his own life? Has that been considered?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps the question of my
hon. friend might be put in this form. This new section 17, apart from one or two small consequential changes, is in substance identical with old section 20, which apparently through the years has stood the test of time. We thought if it had been challenged, or any difficulty had been found with it, that it would likely have had at least decided cases that would have resulted in our changing the wording somewhat. But we followed what I think is the right practice in that the sections of the old code that have been found to be workable have been retained, and it is only those in connection with which difficulty has been experienced that we have changed. We have not changed for the sake of changing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Compulsion of wife.
Harold Edward Winch: Should the woman not have some protection?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In section 18? You mean both ways; should the man not have the same protection?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.
IMr. Fulton.l


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With ladies in the committee I feel rather shy about expressing this thought, that I think this is a reflection of the old theory that a man can compel his wife but not vice versa.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 19 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On section 32-Use of force to suppress riot.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister will agree to let sections 32 and 33 stand for more complete discussion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: Sections 32 and 33 stand.
Sections 34 to 45 inclusive agreed to.
On section 46-Treason.


John George Diefenbaker: I submit this should stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was about to suggest that sections 46, 47 and 48, being a group related one to the other, should stand if that is agreeable.


William Alfred Robinson: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Section 49 agreed to.
On section 50-Assisting alien enemy to leave Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think this should stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.
Section 51 agreed to.
On section 52-Sabotage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think this also should stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.
Sections 53 to 56 inclusive agreed to.
On section 57-Offences in relation to members of R.C.M. Police.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 57 stand.
Sections 58 and 59 agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sections 60, 61 and 62 stand.
Section 63 agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sections 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 I think should stand and be considered in relation to sections 32 and 33 which were set aside earlier.


William Alfred Robinson: Sections 64 to 68 inclusive stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I should have included section 69.


William Alfred Robinson: Section 69 stand.
Sections 70 to 76 inclusive agreed to.
On section 77-Duty of care re explosive.


John George Diefenbaker: On section 77, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister why the new section was not left to common law rule. Before the establishment of this section was this not the rule of law under the Criminal Code, and why was it necessary to make a new section?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When one started out to make the Canadian Criminal Code sufficiently exhaustive to cover all Canadian crimes it was necessary in connection with those crimes relating to dangerous substances to insert section 77, as having a necessary bearing upon the definition of crimes relating to such substances.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 78 to 80 inclusive agreed to.
On section 81-Engaging in prize fight.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, section 81 reads as follows:
(1) Every one who
(a)	engages as a principal in a prize fight,
(b)	advises, encourages or promotes a prize fight, or
(c)	is present at a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer, or reporter, is guilty o 1 an offence . . .
"Prize fight" is defined as:
... an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons who have met for that purpose by previous arrangement . . .
What is the difference between a prize fight and a boxing contest? I see no reason why this section should be continued at all. At the time it was actually made law it was a serious offence to hold prize fights and in 1913 or 1914, I believe it was, I remember the occasion in Calgary when Arthur Pelky was indicted for manslaughter arising out of a prize fight held with the then champion of the world, Luther McCarthy. As far as the jury were concerned they said the law was there, but they brought in an acquittal. I would ask the minister how many times this section has been used since 1914, and why it is necessary to incorporate a section in the law which to all intents and purposes has no application today.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I think if my hon. friend had just kept on reading the section-


John George Diefenbaker: I know the section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -beyond the point where he left off he would have found the answer to
Criminal Code
his question. Perhaps I had better read the whole of paragraph 2 of section 81, which reads as follows:
In this section, "prize fight"-
-the participation in which is the offence specified in the first subsection of this section-
-means an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons who have met for that purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them, but a boxing contest between amateur sportsmen,-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, between amateur sportsmen.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, but just let me finish.
-but a boxing contest between amateur sportsmen, where the contestants wear boxing gloves of not less than five ounces each in weight-
Now here it is here.
-or any boxing contest held with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board or commission or similar body established by or under the authority of the legislature of a province for the control of sport within the province, shall be deemed not to be a prize fight.
In other words, in the course of consolidating the code we have dropped the present sections 104, 107, 108, 627, and 628 because they are no longer of any use, and because most boxing contests are now staged under the authority of a provincial boxing commission. The only residual offence to which this section relates is a professional prize fight staged outside the authority and control of a provincial commission. I am sure my hon. friend would agree it is desirable, if we are going to control boxing, that we be able to prohibit all unauthorized contests.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask the minister how many provinces have no athletic boards today. Are there not only three provinces with this type of board or commission?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question, but if my hon. friend suggests three, my view would be that there were more. There must be commissions of that sort in British Columbia, Alberta, I think Saskatchewan, certainly in Manitoba and Ontario, and they have prize fights in Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Prize fights?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I beg your pardon; boxing contests within the meaning of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will be in a fight if you say that.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think the minister has made that section very clear, to me at any rate. It would appear a prize fight means an encounter where boxing gloves are not used,

Criminal Code
and in the latter part of the section it states that in a boxing contest gloves must be used. I do not know very much about prize fights, but I understand that in all prize fights today boxing gloves are used. I do not see the difference, since all boxing contests today are fought for a prize. There is a cash prize for one person, or it is divided between the two. Under this section could a prize fight with gloves between two professional boxers be allowed if authorized by these boxing commissions?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think so. It would mean that-
. . . any boxing contest held with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board or commission or similar body established by or under the authority of the legislature of a province for the control of sport within the province, shall be deemed not to be a prize fight.
In other words, if amateur sportsmen desire to get together at the Y.M.C.A., at an athletic club, a boys' camp or something of that sort, not for money but as amateurs and have a boxing match, and wear gloves of at least five ounces in weight, they are not covered by the section. Nor does the section cover contests which are held under the auspices of a provincial commission set up for that purpose. However, other contests are covered.
With his usual acumen my hon. friend has put his finger on the point. If money is involved, if they are not amateurs, and if they do not have the authority of the provincial commission, then they have committed an offence under the section. The purpose of the section, having regard to the point which was raised by my hon. friend the member for Prince Albert, is to cover all efforts to stage a professional prize fight which has not been authorized by a provincial boxing commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 82 and 83 agreed to.
On section 84-Carrying concealed weapon.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no specific amendment to suggest or anything of that nature, but I want to ask the minister whether he is able to say what consideration was given, as a matter of general policy, to making it more difficult to obtain pistols or revolvers. While I observe that section 84 continues section 117 and therefore is not any new law, it seems to me to make it easier or to lay down a certain immunity for a person who carries a pistol or revolver, whatever may be the intent with which he is carrying it. I should have thought that it might be somewhat more difficult for a person who has a

nefarious intention to carry out that intention with a shotgun than with a pistol or a revolver; yet he is prohibited from carrying a shotgun, even a sawed-off shotgun. In other words if he can conceal his shotgun he might carry out his intention with immunity.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. If my hon. friend will look at the next clause, he will see that that matter is covered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is covered in section 85.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Section 85 simply makes it an offence to carry a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 20 inches in length.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is only a sawed-off shotgun that could be tucked inside one's coat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point exactly. The other type of weapon cannot be concealed. A pistol or a revolver is easily concealed. Therefore I am wondering why section 84 was not changed. A pistol or revolver can be concealed very easily. It seems to me that the person who carries a pistol or a revolver should be under some onus to explain for what purpose he is carrying it. He is not guilty of an offence under section 84. Perhaps, to make the matter clearer, I should put it in this way. By section 84 he is absolved from committing an offence when he carries a pistol or a revolver.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. Section 84 provides as follows:
Every one who carries concealed an offensive weapon other than a pistol or revolver is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But in another part of this little code on firearms my hon. friend will see that, in order to carry a pistol or a revolver, he must get a permit from the police to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know that. But in order to carry a shotgun you have to have a licence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; not a shotgun.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not under this section, but under most provincial statutes you do.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point I am raising is the general point as to whether it would not be desirable to make it more difficult to obtain pistols and revolvers. I know there are some authorized revolver clubs. I am not suggesting that their activities should be curtailed in any way. I am really asking what consideration was given to making it more difficult to obtain pistols and revolvers in Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As a member of the last parliament my hon. friend will recall that in the year 1951, if I remember aright, I brought into the house all these sections dealing with firearms that we now see in this new Bill 7 pretty much unchanged. At that time this code of law dealing with the possession and the registration of firearms had been passed upon by the mounted police in consultation with the various police forces in Canada. I think it was in view of this recent consideration of the whole subject matter that the royal commission and all the subsequent bodies who have considered this Bill No. 7 thought the law in this respect was quite up to date and hence left it pretty much in the form in which it was brought into the house in 1951.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask a question with regard to section 84. Having regard to the reading of the section, what is the position of a man out in the woods who has a hunting knife underneath his mackinaw? Is that against the law here? I know that is the regular thing out in the woods. It might also be interesting to know what is the position of the policeman, because he has a baton underneath his coat and that is described as an offensive weapon, I know.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at page 4 in the interpretation section at the beginning of the bill, he will see that "offensive weapon" is defined. It will be found at the bottom of page 4, paragraph 29. The definition reads as follows:
"offensive weapon" or "weapon" means
(a)	anything that is designed to be used as a weapon and
(b)	anything that a person uses or intends to use as a weapon, whether or not it is designed to be used as a weapon, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm, air-gun or air-pistol and ammunition for a firearm, air-gun or air-pistol;
It may be the case that, under that definition, the possession of the knife would be regarded as an offensive weapon, although I wonder. Would one consider that the knife which the person my hon. friend has in mind, out in a camp and which he has in his pack for perfectly peaceful purposes, was designed to be used as a weapon? Would he say that knife was designed to be used as a weapon? I suppose that argument could be made, but I cannot conceive of any prosecution ever being launched against such an individual unless it was under some set of circumstances in which it appeared that he intended to use it as such. I do not think there is much likelihood, for example, that if a chap out hunting has a hunting knife along with him to skin a moose he has killed, the mounted police are going to come along, pick him up and charge him with
Criminal Code
carrying an offensive weapon. It depends on the circumstances of the individual case.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 85 and 86 agreed to.
On section 87-While attending public meeting.
John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in knowing the reason for the need for protection of those who are at a public meeting. Section 87 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act, every one who has an offensive weapon in his possession while he is attending or is on his way to attend a public meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is a new section. I was wondering whether the law previously lacked any provision designed to protect those who are at public meetings, or the reason for this new section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that include rotten
tomatoes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My answer to that would be
an unhesitating no. A provision to this effect was in the law prior to 1951. It was then removed, and it has been thought desirable to restore it. As to its purpose, I think it is obvious from a perusal of the section. It is to guard against people carrying offensive weapons to public meetings.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister
will explain what was the justification for removal in 1951 and the need for restoration in 1954. Has anything happened in the interval? Have there been any incidents at public meetings for which there was no applicable punishment for the carrying of such instruments?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The note I have on this
clause is that it was felt that persons should be prohibited from attending public meetings while armed, whether or not they had permits to carry revolvers. A man having a permit to carry a revolver or pistol could, in the absence of a clause like this, rely upon his permit to carry it to a public meeting. Under section 619 justices had power to seize offensive weapons from persons attending public meetings. Sections 620 and 621 provided for the restoration of such weapons after seizure. It was felt that these weapons should not be restored but should be forfeited.
As the result of the inclusion of this section, however, sections 619, 620 and 621 have been dropped. In other words, instead of having the provision that was in the law previously, namely that a justice of the peace

Criminal Code
could go and take these weapons away from a man, it was thought that there was more common sense in saying that he could not take them there in the first place, and that if he did it would be an offence.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it to protect political speakers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Prince
Albert raises an important point. He asks whether it is designed to protect political speakers. If that were so I would say it would be a very laudable objective.


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pouliot:: I regret very much that this
clause is new. It should have been in force at the time my father was in politics, when Sir Charles Tupper was prime minister of Canada and the Intercolonial Railway kept men at the Riviere du Loup shops to use crowbars and other iron bars to disturb Liberal meetings. That was the way the Tories acted at that time, and this provision should have been in force then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since this question has
been raised, if one were to go to a Liberal meeting armed with a copy of the Liberal platform for 1919 for the purpose of throwing it at the speaker would that be considered an offensive weapon?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will examine the definition of "offensive weapon" on page 4 of the bill he will see that it does not include what he thinks is an offensive weapon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words it was not
intended to use the 1919 Liberal platform.


Mr. Campbell:: I should like to ask the
minister how strict the regulations are with respect to the issuing of permits. It seems to me that some people are able to get hold of revolvers too easily. What are the regulations? Is it easy for me or anybody else to go and get a revolver?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend, having
the bill before him, will look at page 31 he will see in sections 93, 94 and 95, which take up a page and a half, the procedure that has to be followed to secure a permit. I think by the time he has read those sections he will come to the conclusion that it is not an easy matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 88-Delivering firearms to minors.
Harold Edward Winch: I am not quite certain that
this is the right place, but I think it is the only place I can raise a matter upon which

I should like the minister to comment. I raise it under section 88 because in answer to a previous question he was in doubt but he thought perhaps a knife would come under the definition of "offensive weapon" on page 4.
Section 88 deals with the selling, giving, lending or transferring of certain types of offensive weapons to children. Has any consideration been given under this section or otherwise to dealing on the same basis with the selling, giving, transferring and lending to children of these vicious things called spring knives or switch knives?
In recent years a serious problem has developed across Canada-I know it has in the west-in that some young punks, whether because of the type of literature and comic books they read or the type of training they receive, think they are big shots and gangsters and carry in their pockets not only on the streets but to school functions these very vicious spring knives. I know there have been incidents in Vancouver where at a school dance, school reception or during the recess period some young boy did not like the attitude of somebody else and whipped out one of these definitely dangerous and offensive weapons.
From my own personal knowledge I know that young boys have been severely slashed and required a great many stitches and other medical attention to close their wounds. I understand that at the moment there is no provision whereby the authorities can deal with such situations and stop these young people from having these dangerous weapons in their possession. I should like to know whether or not the minister or his department have had this matter brought to their attention and if they feel, although it may be a rather difficult problem, that there is any way under this or any other section by which this situation can be dealt with.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Six o'clock.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Perhaps I might attempt to answer this question. I would refer my hon. friend to the definition of "offensive weapon" which means "anything that is designed to be used as a weapon". I think he would agree that a spring knife is not for manicuring. Without any question it is an offensive weapon. If he will look at page 28 he will see that section 82 reads this way:
Every one who carries or has in his custody or possession an offensive weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.

He will also see that section 84 reads this way:
Every one who carries concealed an offensive weapon other than a pistol or revolver is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Harold Edward Winch: What about section 88? It is not mentioned as an offensive weapon in section 88. That is my point. It just mentions firearms.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite right, but it does cover the case to which I understood my hon. friend was referring, where these young chaps come along, flash these knives at a dance or a gathering of that sort and carve up their associates with them.
They would clearly come under section 84 and possibly section 82, because the weapons which they had would be offensive weapons. Under section 84 they would be concealed weapons, and if used for a purpose dangerous to the public peace they would come under section 82.


Harold Edward Winch: It would not come under section 88, on the basis of sale?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose at six o'clock section 87 had been carried. We will now proceed with the consideration of section 88.
On section 88-Delivering firearms to minors.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, continuing the discussion on section 88 following the intermission, I have given a great deal of thought to the statement of the minister as to how other sections of the bill cover varying aspects of the problem where a person may have in his possession a knife or, in particular, a spring knife. I am certain the minister is correct in his interpretation of the other sections, but I should like again to draw to the minister's attention the fact that the point I have in mind is not covered by section 88, because it will be seen that it is in these words:
Every one who sells, barters, gives, lends, transfers or delivers a firearm, air gun or air pistol or ammunition therefor to a person under-
-a certain age. This section does not use the expression "offensive weapon'' but merely has reference to a certain type of firearm, air gun or air pistol. I am strongly of the opinion, in view of what many of us
Criminal Code
have read and know in connection with the use of the type of knife I have described, that it is an offensive weapon. I feel if it is wrong to have other types of offensive weapons sold to those under a certain age, the minister might consider some slight alteration in the wording of section 88 so as to introduce into the Criminal Code an additional deterrent to the use and sale of these spring knives.
Has the minister given any more thought to this matter, and does he not consider this would be the logical place to introduce words to take care of the situation I have described? While it might not be a major deterrent, I believe he recognizes the fact that it is a help.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Upon reflection, and after listening to what the hon. member has just said, I am of the view there is considerable merit in the point he makes. I am wondering however whether it would necessarily be limited in its application to persons under the age of 14 years. I am wondering if the hon. member would leave the matter with me, with a view to including the substance of what he has in mind either in section 88 or in some other section that might be even more appropriate.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall section 88 stand?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I wonder if I might ask a question-


William Alfred Robinson: If the section is to stand, should not the question be asked when we are dealing with it later.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the hon. member wishes to make a suggestion I would rather have it now so we could consider them at the same time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This section states clearly that everyone who sells, barters, gives, lends, and so on, to a person under the age of 14 years, who does not have a valid permit, is guilty of an offence. Has the minister considered whether the question of motive or intent of the person selling could be used as a defence? In other words, if we refer to section 150, and particularly to subsection 5 which deals with comics, we see that it says:
For the purposes of this section the motives of an accused are irrelevant.
Then subsection 6 of section 150 states that the fact that an accused was not aware of the objectionable material in the crime comics is not a defence.
Would the minister consider in this case that if an accused sold an article to a minor, the question as to whether or not he thought

Criminal Code
the purchaser was under age should also be considered, or allowed as a defence? The burden of proof in that instance would not be on the accused, to show that the purchaser was not under 14 years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think there is any analogy between sections 88 and 150. Section 150 deals with crime comics and obscene literature, and there was a special reason connected with the contents of that section which made it necessary to include the subsection to which the hon. member has referred. But so far as section 88 is concerned I do not think there is any considerable element of mens rea. It says that everyone who sells, barters, gives or lends to a person under 14 years is guilty of an offence, and I think the offence would be complete if it were simply proved that this was done. Proof of age would be established in the same way it is always done in connection with sections of this nature.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Once the crown had established the fact that an offence had been committed, and that it was in respect of a person under 14 years, would not the normal defence be that the accused did not know, or that he had no way of knowing? Should not the burden be placed on the person who is selling, just as it is under the liquor control act in Ontario, where a waiter selling to a person under 21 years of age has first to satisfy himself as to that person's age?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I must say I am not temperamentally enthusiastic, as a general rule, about shifting the burdens of proof to accused persons. I think in most cases magistrates would not have too much difficulty in reaching opinions on the facts, as to whether accused persons have given satisfactory explanations for having sold to other persons under the age of 14 years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We must keep in mind that it is the Criminal Code which is up for review. If it is felt to be an offence to sell a dangerous weapon to a person under 14 years, I wonder if it would not be well, while the minister is considering this section, as he has indicated he will, for him also to consider that there should not be left open to an accused person the defence of saying, "I did not know the boy was under 14 years." After all, if a person is accused of the offence, he is accused of selling a dangerous weapon to a minor, to a child; and it seems to me that when people undertake to sell dangerous weapons, and when they are going to make a profit out of selling them, there should be cast upon them the absolute duty of ascertaining that the person to whom they sell is a fit person to receive such an article.

Therefore we should not leave it open to them to say, "I had no mens rea; there was no element of intent, because I did not know and could not be presumed to have known that the boy was under 14 years." The hon. member has suggested that the minister should consider casting that burden on the accused at the same time he is considering enlarging the list of weapons with respect to which this offence would lie.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The minister is always prepared to consider reasonable requests; and in this instance I have no objection to giving further consideration. If there is some way in which we can meet my hon. friend's point without introducing the rather bad principle of casting the onus upon an accused, we will be glad to do so.


Mr. Enfield:: I was wondering whether
hon. members had discussed the age under section 88. Then, there would be no offence if you sold it to a person who had a valid permit. The question of age could surely be covered in the permit concerned. In other words, how could anyone get a valid permit to own a firearm if he was under the age of 14 years? Therefore if they present a valid permit to the person vending the article in question surely he should go free in so far as the age question is concerned. That was the question in my mind with respect to the permit.
One does not like to see the burden of proof thrown on the accused, to show that he did not know the person was 14 years of age. There is a very good principle there that we should try to uphold, the principle that you have to prove the intent of the person who is accused of committing a crime. If you start to make inroads on that principle I do not think generally it is a very good thing.
Before we leave the question of offensive weapons-and this applies to section 88, because the question of defining offensive weapons arose here when the hon. member for Vancouver East was speaking-may I say that in the 1927 Criminal Code offensive weapons were defined in a rather long list. In 1951 the definition was cut down and made more general in its scope. I wondered what had happened in so far as case law was concerned regarding the definition of offensive weapons to bring about a more general definition. Has it been found to be more efficient and to give a better picture of conditions since 1951? Has the problem of the definition been considered in the new amendments to the code?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On two or three different
occasions during the progress of the present

bill, at various stages, I have emphasized that one of the most important instructions given to the royal commission was that they should endeavour to bring the substance of the law into as small a compass as possible, the law set out in the 1,150 odd sections of the existing code. In the existing code there are, for example, a large number of sections and a great mass of language used to describe a number of different kinds of theft. In Bill No. 7 we have been able to cover, we think quite satisfactorily, the whole field of theft by the use of perhaps not more than 25 per cent of those words. In this bill's definition of offensive weapons we are trying to cover the field with the use of a lot fewer words. The result in each case is easier for the average man to read and convey a clearer impression to him. It also produces an act which now has about 750 sections whereas the present code has 1,150.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 89 agreed to.
On section 90-Unregistered firearm in dwelling house.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister just tell the committee, please, what are the present requirements with regard to registration? I notice that section 93 reads:
The commissioner shall cause a registry to be maintained in which shall be kept a record of every firearms registration certificate that is issued under the authority of this act.
Then other sections provide for registrars of firearms; but I wonder whether it is generally realized, if my understanding is correct, that a person is required to register every firearm which may be in his possession, even though it is not a pistol or a revolver. I know that during the war the requirement was insisted upon, and everybody knew that you had to register a shotgun, a sporting rifle and so on. While I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, it does occur to me that this might be the appropriate time, if it is the case, to point out for the benefit of the committee and the public generally that even though there is not a war on, people who are in possession of shotguns and other sporting firearms are under obligation to register them.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Has my hon. friend looked at section 98 on page 33 of the bill? Section 98, (b) reads:
"Firearm" means a pistol, revolver or a firearm that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is an automatic.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.
Criminal Code


Edmund Davie Fulton: But those firearms which are covered by this section of the code dealing with the registration of firearms-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With respect, I do not think it covers shotguns or rifles and so on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is fine, if it is given appropriate publicity.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 91 to 95 inclusive agreed to.
On section 96-Search and seizure.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like the minister to make a few comments on section 96. We have already been referred a number of times to the definition of offensive weapons which is found in section 2, subsection 29, and that definition does seem to be rather wide. In the light of that, the point upon which I would like the minister to comment is the authority given to a peace officer to make a search without warrant. I should like to know whether that phrase "without warrant" is new. Even if it is not new, will the minister comment on it in relation to, as I understand it to be, the general practice that searches are not made except with warrants?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On the last point that was made by my hon. friend, it is not new; it is the present section 128. My hon. friend will perhaps recall that when in 1951 this series of sections of the code dealing with the registration of firearms, containing amongst others this provision, was before the house, there was a debate upon this point as to the propriety of permitting the peace officer to make this search. He will perhaps recall that upon balance it was thought to be in the public interest that he should have the right to do so whenever he believes on reasonable grounds that an offence is being committed or has been committed against any of the provisions of sections 82 to 91. The section goes on to say that he may search, without warrant, a person or vehicle or premises other than a dwelling house, and may seize anything by means of or in relation to which he reasonably believes the offence is being committed or has been committed. But unless there is that necessary antecedent of reasonable grounds he will not have the right to make the search or seizure. Only then can he do it.
When we take into account that if a peace officer on reasonable and probable grounds believes that certain offences have been committed by an offender he may without warrant arrest him, it would not seem that the

Criminal Code
powers given under this section are an unreasonable addition to the other powers which he always has had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was perhaps because of that discussion a few years ago that the thought has been lingering in my mind. I do not wish to appear to be saying anything that would seem to condone the concealment of any of the really offensive weapons that are referred to in the sections to which there is cross-reference in this section, but I did wonder if there was any kind of restraint on a peace officer under those conditions. What would happen if for example, despite the fact that in the opinion of a peace officer there were reasonable grounds, it turned out there were no such reasonable grounds?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The law says when a peace officer believes "on reasonable grounds", not upon grounds that he believes to be reasonable. The reasonableness of the grounds is an absolute condition. If he believes upon grounds which in fact are not reasonable then he is exceeding his jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are these "reasonable
grounds" defined in any way?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, because it would be very difficult to define them. The grounds in a case of this sort, will vary a great deal from one case to another, but under language of that sort the onus is upon the peace officer to show, if his action is challenged, that the grounds upon which he acted in a particular matter were in fact reasonable, and he has to convince not himself but other people.


Harold Edward Winch: He has already made the
search, has he not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, he has already made a search or it may have been a trespass or an assault if he has stepped in and made a seizure like that upon grounds which are not reasonable. If the person against whom the seizure is made attacks the search or seizure, the peace officer has to defendi his position by showing that he acted upon grounds which were in fact reasonable.


Harold Edward Winch: I am very interested in this section. I honestly admit that I am in search of information so as to completely understand it, because in my estimation it is a very important section. Anything that deals with the civil rights of the individual and a denial of these rights to the extent that a person can be searched, his offices can be searched or his place of business can be searched without a warrant, is something that should be understood in all its implications, and it should be fully interpreted before it is placed in the Criminal Code of this country.

For a long time I have been interested in knowing just what amounts to "reasonable grounds". If the Minister of Justice were not as well known as he deserves to be, and he was in front of the Canadian Bank of Commerce here in Ottawa, walking back and forth repeatedly and looking around him suspiciously-I know this would never occur -because his wife had arranged to meet him there at three o'clock and he had misunderstood and thought she had said two o'clock, would that be reasonable grounds for searching the minister without a warrant, simply because he was loitering around the bank? It may seem rather far-fetched, but I simply wanted to give that illustration.
Under no circumstances would I want to be misunderstood. The people of this country have to be protected and their property has to be protected; therefore peace officers must have certain powers. That a man's home is his castle is well recognized under this section, because the section does not apply to a person's own dwelling. As I read section 96 in that case a peace officer must be in possession of a search warrant; and if that is a recognized principle as regards a person's home just where does the principle vary to permit a search of his office or his place of business, without a search warrant?
I am particularly interested in the right to search a person without a warrant. There is a very grave matter here of civil rights and I would like to have, if at all possible, the clearest indication and interpretation of the administration of this particular section.
Just one word in regard to what the minister said a moment ago about the responsibility of the officer in having to show, if challenged, the "reasonable grounds" on which he acted. The fact remains that the act of search has already been concluded and the embarrassment that might result is already there. It is just a matter then of the pride of the individual as to whether he wants to take the matter into the court.
My hon. friend is shaking his head. Perhaps he can explain. The fact is that there can be a search without a warrant. An officer or anyone with the necessary authority can, if he so desires, search a person and go right through with the search and there is nothing you can do about it. At least that is my understanding. I do not know if I have made myself clear. I would certainly like to have from the minister the clearest possible definition of what is meant by "on reasonable grounds". I would also like to know what the position of a person would be if they objected. Suppose a search is made, and as I interpret the section it will be made

if the officer so desires; what is the right of the citizen in this matter if it is proved he was searched on unreasonable grounds.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if the hon. member would care to give us his interpretation of what he might consider to be "reasonable grounds" for search?


Harold Edward Winch: I will answer that by saying I am not a member of the legal profession. I am not bringing in this act. I am asking those responsible for bringing it in to explain it so I can use my own good judgment on their explanation. I will say this, though; that my interpretation would depend on what province I was in.


Jean-François Pouliot: But that is not the answer. The hon. gentleman has been discussing law for a long time, and I am sure he knows what he speaks about. I therefore ask him to kindly clarify what he means by "reasonable grounds" himself, or if he thinks there are none.
I am very much interested in what the hon. gentleman says, for he speaks with authority in this house. I would like to enjoy a part of his knowledge. I have been listening to him for a long time, since the beginning of the session, and always with interest for he speaks with clarity and with knowledge. My only complaint is that he does not speak often enough. He should speak more. I want more enlightenment from him and I am sure he will not be stingy enough to refuse me or refuse his colleagues. It is a joy to listen to the hon. gentleman. He is a born speaker, a born philosopher, and every time he speaks it is only drops of wisdom that fall from his lips. I have been here a long time but I have never listened to an hon. gentleman who spoke with such ease and fluency.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, surely it is not too much to ask the hon. gentleman to tell us what he means by "reasonable grounds" so his constructive suggestion may be taken note of by the minister. I am sure he knows what he speaks about. Therefore why should he be adamant in refusing to give the simple explanation that we are asking from him?
I am not asking much. He says a great deal. I do not understand the meaning of what he has expounded, and it is necessary for me to know a little bit more. Perhaps all I want is a dot over an "i", a comma or something like that, just a tiny little bit of information that will help me, the minister and the whole committee to understand something in the fine demonstration of oratory the hon. gentleman has given.
Criminal Code
Some hon. gentlemen are smiling. I am extremely serious. I want to know what it is about. I am ready to learn. I am in the learning stage. I am not doctrinal. I am not ponderous; at least, I do not think I am, except when I am serious. This point I must insist upon. I want the committee to realize that this is a serious question. I want to know what is in the mind of the hon. gentleman because unfortunately I am not a mind reader.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman would be very gracious if he were kind enough to make another short, didactic speech to us. My knowledge of the English language is not extensive, but I will use the adjective "didactic"; I want to learn. I am ready to listen to the view of the hon. gentleman provided that I know what he is speaking about.
The matter of "reasonable grounds" has been mentioned. May I say that I am on reasonable grounds when I am asking my question. It is a reasonable ground because this is a serious question and I am just as anxious as is the hon. gentleman that no one should suffer any injustice.
There are courses provided for the R.C.M.P. constables. They are told how to proceed when they have cases to investigate. They must be told what is a reasonable ground for searching a place or an individual. If the hon. gentleman does not find that the act is clear enough, it is unfortunate. He says he is not a legal man, but he is a man with great experience in politics and in debate in particular. He could quote examples to illustrate his view. That is the method teachers use, at blackboards with chalk in hand, in order to explain problems. This time no blackboard or chalk is necessary. The hon. gentleman has only to open his mouth and let the drops of wisdom fall from it.
That is all I want. I do not want any more than that. Then the hon. gentleman would confirm his reputation as a debater of note, and I would know what he is speaking about.


Angus MacInnis: After having listened to these pearls of wisdom, Mr. Chairman, may I draw attention to the fact that as to this right of search in section 96, the purpose is extremely limited. It all has to do with something about firearms, the possession of them, the buying of them and so on. As I understand it, it must be in the code now. If it is not, the policemen in Vancouver are violating this code every day. Whether or not the officer would feel that he had reasonable ground would depend upon where the individual might be.

Criminal Code
I am quite sure that in the circumstances in which the hon. member for Vancouver East found the Minister of Justice, the officer would take one look at him and conclude that there were no reasonable grounds, and that would be the end of the matter. But if, for instance, in the city of Vancouver a policeman were to find the hon. member for Vancouver East and myself walking in the lane between Cordova and Powell streets on a foggy night, he would very likely tap us on the side to see what we had on us and with a warning he would let us go. If he found us up by the Hudson's Bay Company's store at Granville and Georgia streets he would not bother us at all. In the committee I thought there was something sinister in this section; but if the hon. member for Vancouver East will read it I think he will find that it is very limited in what it allows.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, does not the question of urgency enter into the matter? If the officer has to wait to get a warrant he may find that the crime will be committed before he gets it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, let us not carry this matter to the farcical stage. I thought I made the point clear that, as far as I was concerned, we all fully understood that there must be certain rights and authority in the hands of the police officers of this country. There is no question about that whatsoever. My hon. friend who has just spoken knows that. On this question of what is meant by reasonable grounds, may I say that I greatly appreciate the remarks of my friend the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is everybody's friend.


Harold Edward Winch: As a matter of fact I am starting to wonder whether the minister, in holding over section 88, should not also take under consideration the banning of switch knives, not only those up the sleeves but also the linguistic ones of my hon. friend. I know he said he is very ignorant, but since I have been here I have noticed that he is one of the most politically wise men I know of the 265 members in the house.


James Sinclair: How the compliments are flying.


Harold Edward Winch: He is not ignorant at all. He did me the great honour of asking me to explain this matter. That was a great honour. With all his wisdom and experience I think he should have explained it. But as he does not require an explanation from himself, he is asking me the very question we are asking the minister who introduced this bill. Surely it is an axiom that, before passing legislation,

we should ask from the one who introduces it just what is the purpose of it, the meaning and the interpretation.
I have just one further word to say. The question of what is reasonable will have as many interpretations as there are police officers. Any clarification on that point that can be obtained will be most useful, and also with reference to the search of premises without a warrant. We must go every step of the way that is required to give police officers the means to protect property and society, but I would emphasize again that in the granting of such authority we must also not overstep the mark so far as the protection of the civil rights of the people of Canada is concerned.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank my hon. friend for his little speech. I am sorry there was no more enlightenment, but I will explain to him what I understand by this provision of the law. I wonder what his reaction will be and whether or not he will agree with me. We must take a classic case. Police constables are on duty on a street and they hear the noise of guns. They go to the corner, and they see a man running away. They cannot recognize him because they see him from the back, and looking at him from a distance they see him go into a house. They have not seen his face. They go into the house and they see some men there wearing clothes of the same colour as those of the man they are pursuing. Would my hon. friend have any objection to the searching of those men by the constables who were running after a man who went into the house?


Harold Edward Winch: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, then, that is a reasonable ground.


Mr. Jones:: May I point out to the hon. member that he has not read the clause. Dwelling houses are exempt. Policemen cannot enter dwelling houses without a warrant.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the law should be amended in order to include rooming houses. I want my hon. friends, or any one of them, to mention the flaw in the law. The law must be more severe than it is now to meet emergencies, and of course most arrests are emergency arrests. I could ask the Minister of Justice whether the largest number of arrests are not made without warrants right on the spot by the constabulary, whether federal, provincial or municipal. These men are on duty to protect human life and property, and when they receive a telephone call at night they do not go to a magistrate to get a warrant. They are on the spot and they make the arrest. This is how they do

it, and I am not speaking as a lawyer. I am speaking as a man on the street. It is general knowledge. Therefore they must be empowered to act.
I will agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East that there are some constables who have no judgment. It happens in any class of society. There are men without judgment, and there may be errors. It is unfortunate, but on the other hand there must be protection of the people. This is very important, and this is the very reason we are now discussing this piece of legislation. It is all right, as my hon. friend has said, to protect liberty and freedom, but those who want to enjoy liberty and freedom must abide by the law of the land. I do not see why we should be more indulgent to thugs, bandits, housebreakers and all those who create disorder and are a plague on society.
The other day I heard one hon. member say that in the future when we are more civilized punishment will not be so harsh as it is now, and that this will be a sign of progress. What I maintain is that progress will be achieved through abiding by the law. That will be progress. When constables are on duty and risking their lives to protect the Canadian people they deserve consideration. They are not all perfect. I give some of them the benefit of the doubt. They are entitled to it because they risk their lives at every moment of the day.
My hon. friend enjoys liberty. I do also, and we all do, but we want the Canadian people to enjoy the same liberty that those who do not respect the law are supposed to have, according to some hon. members. If I spoke in a jocular or light vein in the first place, I am very serious now. There are those who contend, like the hon. gentleman, that we will have progress in Canada when the law is not respected or when those who infringe the law go scot free, but I say if that happens we will have chaos and anarchy in the country. I want order in the country. I want good government, and we have it. I want order, and I hope we will have it. That is the purpose of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Sir, there were ten commandments given by Jehovah to Moses a long time ago by which the world was ruled for centuries, and the penalty was to come from God in the other world. But now mankind has grown so wicked that there cannot be enough law to maintain order not only in this country but in all countries of the world. Therefore I hope that my hon. friend will realize that
Criminal Code
it is important to have an enactment like this which will permit constables to protect human life and property in Canada.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The manner in which the debate on section. 96 has proceeded has pointed up a difficulty which I am experiencing, and which I pointed out I would experience when the bill first came into committee. Apparently I am not bound by the ordinary rules of the house whereby I should call the bill section by section, owing to an agreement among hon. members that we will call the sections in order but that certain sections will stand and we shall then return to them in an orderly manner at a later date.
This rule would be easy of application, but unfortunately a rider was added under which certain clauses were not to be dealt with if, in the words of the minister, the debate seemed to be proceeding too far. It is impossible for me to decide when the debate is proceeding too far. The minister assured me he would throw in the sponge when he decided it had gone too far. I believe the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that we would know from the sense of the house when the debate had gone too far. In my opinion section 96 must stand, or the debate must be concluded, or we must go back to the regular rules of the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I was waiting for an opportunity to answer the very fair question which was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I doubt very much whether I can improve upon the answer which was given by his own colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must ask whether this agreement is to stand, whether we are going to proceed with an unlimited debate on the section at this time, or whether we must proceed to deal with the bill section by section.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I help the minister with a suggestion? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made his suggestion earlier, and I wonder if I might make this suggestion now. While we appreciate to the full the difficult position in which this unwritten agreement places you, Mr. Chairman, we are all endeavouring, so far I think it is fair to say with considerable success, to live up to the spirit of that agreement. If on any side of the house, either the minister or his colleagues, here in the official opposition, my friends of the C.C.F. or the Social Credit, we should feel that the discussion has proceeded to a point beyond which it is not sensible to go and there is no indication the section will

Criminal Code
be carried in a few minutes, then one of us will indicate that we think the section should stand.
I would suggest to you, sir, with the greatest respect possible, that until you receive such an indication from one or more members of the house you might allow the discussion to continue in the expectation, which I think is reasonable, that so long as no member says the time has come to stop this discussion and have the section stand, of concluding the debate on it within a time which appears reasonable to us. I can assure you that when any one of us feels that that time has come and we must put a stop to this, one of us will so indicate and then perhaps you, as chairman, could say that the section should stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I doubt very much whether I can improve upon the excellent explanation which was given by the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Let me take the case which was cited by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I discuss this with some modesty. If a police officer proposed to search me without a warrant, merely because he saw me waiting for my wife, he would not be acting upon reasonable grounds, I suggest, under all the circumstances.
On the other hand, if a police officer were looking around at night in a dark alleyway at the back of a warehouse and discovered one man lifting another through a window which had just been broken open, and he proceeded to search them for weapons, I would think he would be acting upon reasonable grounds. As to whether, between those two extremes, the facts of a particular case constitute reasonable grounds, that is a matter the peace officer must establish in each case in order to justify his search. The idea that he can just do these things without reasonable grounds and shrug off responsibility is without foundation.
If the hon. member for Vancouver East will go back to section 28 and following sections in this bill he will see there set out the circumstances under which a peace officer is protected from criminal or civil liability in respect of the actions which he takes as a peace officer. In a free, democratic country, such as we have in Canada, a peace officer has little more power than the average citizen. He is strictly answerable for his conduct. He must find, under the code, legal support for whatever action he takes.
Now, it may be that in so far as his civil liability is concerned he would not have the financial resources to make a suit for damages worth while. But I am sure the hon. member

has heard of cases in which a private detective operating in and for a department store detained a person suspected of shoplifting upon what he thought were reasonable grounds, and to his consternation discovered later that his employer was on the receiving end of a heavy suit for damages. That is the kind of liability which arises when a peace 'officer exceeds his powers under the law.
In this particular case, as has been explained by other speakers, the question with which we are faced is whether we shall ask a peace officer, when he finds men under those conditions I have cited-in the course of breaking into a warehouse-to get a police magistrate or justice of the peace out of bed in the middle of the night to obtain a warrant and then go back to search or arrest the men. The only other way in which he could make a search is upon reasonable grounds.
I must confess that when I first saw the section my reaction was somewhat along the lines of that of the hon. member for Vancouver East. When I read that a peace officer had the power to search a structure, I rather objected until I saw that a dwelling was excepted from it, and that as a result our homes were still our castles. When this section is confined to those cases in which reasonable grounds can be shown, and when it only applies to premises that are not dwellings, I really do not think it is as exceptional as the hon. member for Vancouver East has thought.


Mr. Michener:: To my mind the minister's explanation leaves one point obscure which I think the house ought to appreciate. The object of this section is to give the peace officer power to search vehicles and premises only in a limited number of cases. In the cases that have been presented to the house we have had conjured up crimes of violence, forcible entry and robbery. Those cases are not covered by this section. The code does contain, and very properly, provisions which not only permit but exhort even ordinary citizens to arrest persons committing acts of violence. It is the duty of people to do that, without any such section as we have here. This section gives the peace officer the right in a limited number of cases, namely cases involving carrying firearms-am I right?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. According to section 82-
Every one who carries or has in his custody or possession an offensive weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace-
In other words, if a burglar is going through a window he can be searched to see if he has a revolver on him.


Daniel Roland Michener: I follow what the minister says, but the section is limited to searches under sections 82 to 91, and those sections involve carrying or dealing in offensive weapons or firearms. For example, section 84, which we discussed earlier, deals with concealed weapons. A peace officer may come up to a person on the street, and noting a bulge in his coat conclude that he had a concealed weapon. Then, if his grounds were reasonable, he could make a search to make sure whether it was or was not a concealed weapon. But that is not the kind of offence where anyone is immediately in danger. So I do think the committee should appreciate that this sort of leeway given to a police officer is for a different kind of case from the hot pursuit of a criminal who has just committed a crime, or when a crime of violence is imminent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With great respect to the hon. member I suggest that he might keep in mind the very case I cited, that dealing with the two men who got through a warehouse window in the middle of the night. One of the things of which they are guilty, before they have begun to commit the robbery of the warehouse, is that under section 82, which is covered by section 96, they are carrying or they have in their custody or possession an offensive weapon for the purpose of endangering the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.


Daniel Roland Michener: I appreciate what the
minister has said, but I do not believe I follow his reasoning exactly. The person to whom the minister has referred, who enters a warehouse for the purpose of committing a robbery, would be committing the crime of breaking and entering.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And also the crime of having in his possession an offensive weapon.


Daniel Roland Michener: And therefore he could be searched or arrested without the benefit of section 96 at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: So if section 96 were used, it would be because of some weapon being carried?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Daniel Roland Michener: So I suggest the distinction should be borne in mind that we are extending it to a classification where there is no imminence of a crime. It is just the fact of carrying a dangerous weapon that has to be considered.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I cite a case to my hon. friend where two gentlemen are not going
Criminal Code
through a window. These two gentlemen are walking up and down behind a warehouse, or in the alleyway adjoining a store. A policeman comes along and, as my hon. friend has said, sees something bulging in their pockets. Would he not be under some compulsion, in the discharge of his duties, to make a search for offensive weapons?


Daniel Roland Michener: I would answer in this way, that in my view unless there is some more serious crime involved or suspected by reason of that loitering, it is not enough to give the right to search a person without a warrant, simply because he is suspected of carrying firearms. After all, the inviolability of the person is something we should not give up lightly, unless a serious crime is involved.


Mr. Hahn:: Under this section would a police officer be privileged to, let us say, pick up a youth if he thought the youth had in his possession certain things taken from a building that had been entered? Could he pick up that youth, if he saw him in that area?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I understood the hon. member's question.


Frederick George Hahn: I am referring to a youth or some other individual whom a police officer might have seen near premises, and of whom he had reason to be suspicious at, let us say, four o'clock in the morning. The boy might not have a gun, or anything like that, but he might have in his possession some money or some other things he had stolen.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Under this section the officer would be confined to the power given by it, and for any other purpose he would have to find his authority in some other section of the Criminal Code.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suppose if a police officer arrested this person for some other motive, that is to say if he suspected this person of some crime or an attempt to commit a crime but picked him up on the grounds of having a weapon, following which it was found that he had not committed a crime and did not have a weapon, the police officer would still be liable to proceedings for unlawful arrest?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I apprehend that when a
police officer takes this action he is in a position where, if the validity of what he has done is challenged, he must show that he acted upon reasonable grounds. Canada is not a police state. The police here do not have unlimited powers. They have only those powers given in the statute. A police officer acting under this section must show

Criminal Code
in every case reasonable grounds to protect himself against both criminal and civil responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If a police officer arrested a
person on some fancied or unreasonable grounds because he thought such person was guilty of a crime, and used this section as an excuse, it would not protect him from proceedings for unlawful arrest?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, or assault.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 97 and 98 agreed to.
On section 99-Interpretation; "evidence".
Agar Rodney Adamson: I would call attention to
subsection (c) (ii) which says:
-before the Senate or House of Commons of Canada or a committee of the Senate or House of Commons, or before a legislative council, legislative assembly or house of assembly or a committee thereof that is authorized by law to administer an oath-
I have been a member of the house for some time and have served on committees. What committee is authorized to administer an oath?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the answer to my
hon. friend's question will be found in the rules of the house. Then he will recall that in the setting up of committees they are usually empowered to call witnesses and administer oaths. They derive their authority in that way.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I realize that that is so,
but I do not remember any case where a witness has been examined under oath by a parliamentary committee. I think it is a retrograde step in a parliament under the British system to have the power to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths to them. I am asking the minister to explain the system, because our system has been one of voluntary witnesses appearing before parliamentary committees to give their evidence or their opinions. The committees in turn are responsible to the house. What I am really driving at is to indicate the difference between our system and that in the United States today, where people can be brought before a house committee and summoned for contempt of court. I would ask the minister to explain that one point in the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have known of witnesses
being sworn before the prices committee, and before other committees of the house. And if the hon. member for York West wishes to visit a committee where witnesses are sworn every day, let him visit the divorce committee in the other place.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: What the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre has said is perfectly true. While it is true that probably there are more committees of the house before which witnesses give their evidence voluntarily, and without being sworn, there are plenty of examples where it is deemed wise by the committee to have the evidence taken under oath. This is done in those cases where it is considered that an oath is required in relation to the evidence given, such as in divorce proceedings.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Not being a senator, I have not sat on those committees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 100 and 101 agreed to.
On section 102-Frauds upon the government.
Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me attention
should be drawn publicly to the wording of subsection 2, which is as follows:
Every one commits an offence who, being a party to a contract with the government directly or indirectly subscribes, gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration
(a)	for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to the parliament of Canada or a legislature, or
(b)	with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in the parliament of Canada or a legislature.
Perhaps at the same time I should put subsection 3 on the record, which prescribes the punishment for the offence against the subsection I have just read. It reads:
(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go back as far as Beauharnois, but I do recall that about 1946, I believe it was, when the question of the increase in the price of steel was under investigation by a committee of this house, Mr. Hilton, the president or the head of the Steel Company of Canada, was before that committee. If I remember correctly, one of the bits of evidence he gave was that that company had made contributions to both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties. He was asked whether he had gone any further than that, and it was clear that he had not. It was the company's own statement that contributions were made to these parties. Well, surely contributions of that kind come within the definition spelled out in subsection 2 of this section.
I confess that I have not any evidence at the moment on this further point, but it does occur to me that it is very likely that

the Steel Company of Canada, being the large company that it is in the field of steel, in view of the defence requirements of this country, undoubtedly has contracts with the government of Canada. I should like to know what the application of this section is to the Steel Company of Canada or to any other company that has any kind of government contract and makes contributions to the funds of the Liberal party or of any other party in this house.
Some of my Conservative friends around me are drawing my attention to the point that the Steel Company of Canada is not a person. I am prepared to hear comments on that point. It does seem to me that a corporation surely cannot get out from under the law. Surely if this means anything it should be brought to bear on the kind of case to which I have just referred. I should like to hear from the minister as to what he thinks is a proper interpretation of this subsection.	I should like him to tell us
whether there have been any persons or firms charged under this section. I should like him to tell us whether the government is serious in having this section continued on the statute books of the country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the minister does that he might also like to take into account this possibility. I mention it as a possibility, because I am sure the state of affairs my hon. friend has in mind would not be referred to by him otherwise than as a possibility, either. My hon. friend believes that unions should be free to make contracts with the government. I believe that my hon. friend's party also believes that unions should be free to contribute to the political funds of the party of which he is a member. Therefore I wonder whether the minister would take that possibility into consideration when he comments.


Daniel Roland Michener: Will the minister also take this possibility into consideration? There are a great many farmers on the prairie provinces who have contracts for the sale of their wheat. It is true that they are not directly with the government, but with an agency of the government. I am sure they would like to be free to make contributions to any party.


Mr. Ellis:: I should like to know from the hon. member for Kamloops what unions have ever had contracts with the government or have been doing business with the government in the manner in which the Steel Company of Canada might be said to be doing business with the government.
Criminal Code


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have just said it is a possibility. The hon. member and his party have always advocated the right of unions to make contracts.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are waiting for the minister; we are all ears.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid I did not get my hon. friend's question. Would he please repeat it. Is he opposed to the section?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By no means. I could make the speech again, if the minister did not hear it when I made it before.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just the question, that is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question is, has anything ever been done to a company like the Steel Company of Canada which admitted through its president in 1946 that it made contributions to the Liberals and the Conservatives and which has, I would assume, because of the field in which it is working, contracts with the government; or has any person or any company been charged under this section? My last question was, is the government serious in having this section on the statute books? Does it intend that it shall be enforced?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The government is certainly serious in having it on the statute books, and it has been on the statute books, as my hon. friend is aware, for many decades.
Now, as regards my hon. friend's allegations with regard to the Steel Company, or any other company, it is very easy to make them. But if my hon. friend is under the apprehension that the Steel Company or any other company has committed an offence under this section, then if the prosecuting officers whose responsibility it is to lay charges in these matters do not do so, there is nothing in the world to prevent my hon. friend, in the discharge of the same virtue which he displays here on so many occasions, himself going down to the police court and laying a charge against the Steel Company, which would then be prosecuted.


Mr. Nicholson:: I happen to have the evidence that was placed before the committee in 1946.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think my hon. friend should be informed that the statute of limitations takes effect after about six years. The right has now expired.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That did not prevent my hon. friend from laying the charge before the expiration of the time limit.

Criminal Code


Stanley Howard Knowles: There have been two elections since then.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


James Sinclair: How did you do?


William Alfred Robinson: Might I now take this opportunity of saying to the committee that I am afraid we shall make very little progress if hon. members choose on particular sections to bring up matters of certain particularity. I would like to see hon. members confine their questions to interpretation, to meaning or to matters pertaining directly to the section, and not to some particular case which has come to their knowledge.


Angus MacInnis: I do not think you should be too impatient. We are making excellent progress. You must remember that the Criminal Code has not been revised since 1892. That is a long time for people to accumulate grievances. We are doing excellently; do not try to limit us too much.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The fact that we are dealing with section 102 indicates that we have really made excellent progress, but it appears that immediately we reach an interesting point we are told we should close the discussion.
At this particular time perhaps hon. members would be interested to learn that on July 23, 1946, the question the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was discussing was before the special committee on industrial relations. Mr. Case, a Conservative member, had made a good deal of the fact that the unions had made contributions for political purposes, and apparently no member of the committee took any exception to the questioning. The following day my hon. friend the member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked a perfectly logical question of Mr. Hilton, president of the Steel Company of Canada. The question was this. "Do you or your company make contributions to political parties?"
That appeared to be a somewhat embarrassing question and it was not answered immediately, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, then as now, was a very persistent person, and he was able to convince them that this question was very reasonable. Finally, after a good deal of bickering, Mr. Hilton said, as reported at page 179 of the proceedings of the standing committee on industrial relations, dated July 23, 1946:
If the committee feels that the question should be answered, yes; we make contributions to political parties.
Then it was the hon. member for Trinity, I think, who followed up with some more-
[Mr. Garson.l


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I hope the hon. member will be able to conclude his remarks by relating them to the section under consideration and by asking the minister a question which will have pertinency to the section under consideration.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, let me call the attention of the committee to section 102, which states:
(2)	Every one commits an offence who, being a party to a contract with the government directly or indirectly subscribes, gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration
(a)	for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to the parliament of Canada or the legislature, or
(b)	with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in the parliament of Canada or the legislature.
(3)	Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a pertinent question, as to whether the government has been serious about this section and if there have been prosecutions. I was on the point of asking if anything had been done about the questioning by Mr. Skey. He asked Mr. Hilton whether Mr. Hilton had come to Ottawa to make representations to the wartime prices and trade board with a view to increasing their income by $2,500,000, and Mr. Hilton had. I submit, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Hunter:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the purpose of this committee is to study these sections and see whether they are desirable or whether they should be amended. If the wording is agreeable they should be passed. We are not here to examine some specific act that may or may not have occurred or to examine some alleged offence against the section. We are here simply to determine whether a section is good or bad law and whether it should be adopted, and if it is not good law how it should be changed. We are not here to try any alleged offence but simply to look at the wording and to see if it is desirable law for the people of Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am about to conclude my remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -but I submit that if we are going to keep this section on the statute books we should know whether the government has taken action-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I assure the hon. member for Mackenzie that I would not interrupt him if he were merely using a

specific instance for the purpose of clarifying this section in some way. He will notice, however, that this section sets out a great many elements in the offence and I think, on his responsibility as a member of the house, he would be loath to mention any particular name unless he wishes to make an allegation that the offence embraces all these elements.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not taking any risks whatsoever when I read from a record placed before the house some years ago. If I had not been interrupted so many times I would have been through a long time ago. I think the minister should make some statement as to whether any action has been taken by the government when instances such as the one I have mentioned in connection with the Steel Company of Canada have been brought to the attention of the government.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly disabuse my hon. friend's mind so far as I am concerned, because I was not here in 1946. I did not come here until January, 1949, and I must say that the remarks of my hon. friend and his colleagues of the C.C.F. party this evening are the first I have heard of this matter. If, therefore, my hon. friend is looking to me to elucidate it for him he is not going to get much comfort.


Mr. Barneii:: Mr. Chairman, in rising on this point I do so believing there should be some reasonable method in this country by which a private person or a corporate body can back their political beliefs and faiths with their dollars. But there are one or two things in this section which give me pause for thought. Section 102 says:
(2) Every one commits an offence who . . . directly or indirectly subscribes, gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, . . .
As in section (b) where it states:
(b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in the parliament of Canada . . .
The illustration which comes to my mind and which gives me pause for thought arises out of my recollection that in British Columbia we have an organization known as the British Columbia federation of trade and industry. It is a rather all-inclusive organization as far as some of the corporate interests in that province are concerned. Now, can this section as it now reads be interpreted to mean that a certain corporation, being a member and contributor to that federation of trade and industry, which publishes large advertisements and so on at 83276-81
Criminal Code
election time, is thereby committing an offence if it happens to have a contract with the government of the day?
I wonder whether this section should not be considered for some possible rewording in that direction. If it is going to be out of line with what in many ways is becoming the accepted practice with regard to supporting and influencing an election then I think perhaps we should reconsider the section from that point of view; or are we going to agree that the method whereby certain interests in the province of British Columbia are continuing to influence elections is not right and proper and should not be continued? I feel this section should certainly have some further study before being passed in its present form. The use of the words "directly or indirectly" is subject to a very wide interpretation and it may very well be that charges could be laid.


An hon. Member:: What political party do they support?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: They do not advertise in
specific detail which of the political parties they wish to help. They seem to be helping a multiplicity of parties.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, in this regard the wording of that section states:
(2) Every one commits an offence who, being a party to a contract with the government directly or indirectly subscribes, gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration
(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate . . .
And so on. Has the minister in this case envisaged a situation where a firm had a contract with this or any other government which might be completed in a matter of a week, and in a case of that kind would a person be committing an offence if he contributed to a campaign fund after the contract technically had expired? Would he be committing an offence just if he gave funds at the time, or does the time when the election is going to come up have a material bearing in this case? There is a time factor here that is extremely important.


Mr. Philpoii:: It seems to me that a strict interpretation of this section, as it stands now, would make a great many corporations in Canada liable to court process. It would also be embarrassing for a good many governments in Canada, including the present federal government, the Social Credit government of British Columbia, the Social Credit government of Alberta and also, I might say, the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan. I believe a strict interpretation of this section would make liable to some kind

Criminal Code
of process of law not only any corporation that ever subscribed to campaign funds but also I think certain trade unions that have political levies and also have contracts, for instance, in connection with transportation in some of the provinces.
I am wondering whether the minister would care to let this clause stand over and perhaps reword it in order to give it the meaning that everyone commits an offence who, in order to 'obtain a contract with the government, directly or indirectly, and so on. It seems to me that would better carry out the meaning of the section.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, there is one suggestion that I wish to make. I am going to move an amendment at line 22, with regard to the words in subsection (a) "for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class". I am going to move that "or a class" be deleted. We in Canada pride ourselves that we are a classless democracy. We have no class in Canada. There is no upper class, no lower class, or no labouring class; we are all Canadians. I think that to have in the Criminal Code these words "or a class" is an archaic thing and denotes that horrid word "colonialism". I believe the words "or a class" should be deleted from the Criminal Code. We have done away with titles. Regularly we pass in this chamber bills about discrimination. To have the words "or a class" in the Criminal Code is to me archaic and wrong. If I am in order, I move that the words "or a class" be deleted from this section. I will write out the amendment, Mr. Chairman, if I must.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The word is used in schools, so why not in the Criminal Code?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the section stand?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think we had better allow the section and my hon. friend's amendment to stand. I doubt whether the word "class" in this context has the meaning which my hon. friend describes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am glad to hear the Minister of Justice say it does not, but it certainly seems to me something which is perhaps undemocratic.
Section stands.
Sections 103 to 113 inclusive agreed to.
On section 114-False statements in extrajudicial proceedings.


Mr. Nowian:: This section deals with the ordinary formal statutory declaration which can be made at any time or at any place. I notice that the punishment provided for that offence is 14 years-that is, of course, the

maximum-which is the same as that provided for perjury of the very worst kind. Although the notes refer to sections of the code, yet in the code that exists today there is not such a severe sentence provided.
It seems to me that you are bringing into disrepute one or the other if you classify somebody making a false declaration on matters that cover everything under the sun in the same way that you classify somebody who goes into a courtroom and deliberately commits perjury. It seems to me that there is a matter of undue emphasis here, and that the sentence is altogether too severe. I think you are bringing the matter into disrepute by doing that.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend is aware, the penalties which are provided in the code, such as this one, are all maximum penalties. Under this section, if the circumstances and facts are of a particularly heinous character the magistrate or judge may impose a penalty of as much as 14 years. On the other hand if they are not serious he may impose a penalty of one day in order to meet the ends of justice as he sees them.
In this connection I think I should say that one of the main objectives of the draftsmen of the new consolidation bill has been to widen the scope which is given to the courts in fitting the punishment to the crime, by giving them a broad discretion from the maximum down to the minimum. I have sufficient confidence in our courts to feel that they will exercise this discretion properly.
I agree with my hon. friend that it is rather difficult to imagine a case of a false oath being taken in, say, a statutory declaration, which would be of a sufficiently serious character to warrant the imposition of a penalty of 14 years. But it is conceivable that such might be the case. I can recall one instance in my own province where it was on the basis of a declaration of this sort that determination was made of the validity of a will which diverted an extremely large estate to other people than those who would otherwise have been the heirs. In a case of that sort, if it could be shown that it was deliberate, and if it was in relation to a large sum of money like that, I do not know any reason in the world why the penalty for an offence of that character should be any less severe because the oath was taken in the form of a statutory declaration rather than by a witness in court.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of course, with due respect to the minister I think he will agree it is no

answer to say that the section is only providing the maximum and therefore you do not have to impose that. If that were logical, then I would suggest to him that we could shorten the code a great deal by putting in one section and saying that the maximum punishment for any offence will be imprisonment for life; then you would not have to deal with these matters at all. But that is not the practice we have adopted in this code, and we do try to differentiate.
As the minister knows, it is always possible to reach into experience or history and find some isolated example or something which you can say justifies a certain act, such as the statutory declaration to which he refers. Yet I think he will agree that ordinarily the class of crimes contemplated by that section falls far short of perjury.
The code provides two years in one section and seven years in the other; I refer to the existing code. Now we are jumping the penalty to 14 years. You are either cheapening perjury or you are exaggerating the taking of a statutory declaration, one or the other. Can this offence be punishable on summary conviction? Can this offence be tried by a stipendiary magistrate and, on speedy trial, are we giving to the magistrate power to impose a punishment of 14 years? I am not clear on that matter right now. I should like the minister to cover it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the section carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just speaking from memory, I think the only magistrate who can try an offence of this character is a magistrate in a larger city, as the summary trial of an indictable offence. He is usually a man whose experience will compare favourably with that of a superior court judge.


George Clyde Nowlan: He would be limited to two years under that section.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Surely the proper measure of a maximum penalty for an offence is the maximum culpability which can occur in association with that offence. In that connection I would remind my hon. friend that even in court proceedings there are some whose religious beliefs prevent them from taking an oath in the ordinary sense, and they would have to take a statutory declaration.


George Clyde Nowlan: This section refers to "every one who, not being a witness". I draw that to the attention of the minister. This section 83276-814
Criminal Code
does not deal with a witness in judicial proceedings, so it does not include that particular case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right, but I think my hon. friend will agree from his experience as a lawyer that there are cases in which a statutory declaration of this sort can have, and in some cases has had, consequences just as great and just as deliberate as in any court proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 115 agreed to.
On section 116-Witness giving contradictory evidence.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have certain very deep-rooted objections to this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Me too.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the section stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thought we could perhaps dispose of it on an adverse vote tonight.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think the arguments for and against with respect to this section are sufficiently strong that it might be better to present them on another occasion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right.
Section stands.
Sections 117 and 118 agreed to.
On section 119-Obstructing justice.


Harold Edward Winch: Subsection 1 of section 119 reads as follows:
Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to* imprisonment for two years.
I would be very happy if I could obtain a definition of what is meant by "the course of justice". Is it used in the sense that it is used in legal circles and in the act, or does it mean obstructing, perverting or defeating the-application or course of statutory authority? Basically is that the meaning of "the course of justice"?
I know that on the basis of justice a person can take action which may be in opposition to statutory authority. Back in the hungry thirties-and I hope such times will never return to Canada again-I can remember that under statutory law the mayor of Vancouver determined that he was going to go ahead and read the riot act when there were 5,000 hungry men gathered in Victoria square in Vancouver. That might have been all that was required to bring about a serious situation. A number of people, including members of the legislature, took the

Criminal Code
position in the interests of justice that the riot act should not be read and endeavoured to persuade the mayor, in the interests of justice, not to take this action, although he would have been doing so in the course of statutory law.
I do not want to go into too much detail, but perhaps I have said enough to have my hon. friend realize what I have in mind and why it is of the utmost importance as far as I am concerned to know what is meant by "the course of justice", and whether it means the course of statutory law.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question I would ask him to permit me to refer first of all to subsection 2 of section 119, which reads as follows:
Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,
(a)	dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence,
(b)	influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means, a person in his conduct as a juror,
(c)	accepts a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror,
(d)	before or after being released from custody under recognizance, indemnifies or agrees to indemnify in any way, in whole or in part, his bondsman, or
(e)	being a bondsman, accepts or agrees to accept indemnity, in whole or in part, from a person who is released or is to be released from custody under a recognizance.
It is noted that subsection 2 covers a judicial proceeding existing or proposed, and I can cite my hon. friend the case of St. Jean v. The King, 69 Canadian Criminal Cases, at page 240. I think that probably covers my hon. friend's question. The phrase "attempts to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice" is spelled out in this section itself.


Harold Edward Winch: That is my very point. It is my understanding that when you first have a subsection which sets forth very clearly the intent of the subsection and you then have a subsection which says "without restricting the generality" of the first subsection, you leave in full power and effect the wording of the first subsection. If we are not concerned with all the details of subsection 2 and the clauses thereunder we can consider subsection 1, and there is no control over subsection 1 except its own wording which says very specifically that every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for two years.
TMr. Winch.]
There is no restriction of that power in subsection 2, absolutely none. Therefore I am asking what is the interpretation of the words "the course of justice" in subsection 1.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am just as convinced as I
was before my hon. friend began his argument that subsection 1 also refers to a judicial proceeding, but just to make sure that I convince my hon. friend more effectively I suggest that we let this matter stand and I will bring forward additional material which I hope will convince him.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not see how it could
be given any other meaning, and the language used in subsection 2, "without restricting the generality of the foregoing", really is illustrative of what would happen under subsection 1.
Section stands.
On section 120-Public mischief.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the
minister a question or two regarding section 120. I note from the reference on the opposite page that this is a new clause, and I may say quite frankly that the comments I am making arise out of certain remarks made to me by a friend who is a lawyer. It does look to me as though the section in its present wording makes it possible for a person to be charged with an offence for doing something that really was not wilful or intentional on his part. For example, I think the point I have in mind could be made if I could simply refer to subsection (c), which reads:
Every one who causes a peace officer to enter upon an investigation by wilfully
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
In my view the quality of knowledge ought to be put into that section. The reference ought to be to a person reporting that an offence has been committed when he knows or ought to have known that it has not been committed. The same idea occurs to me with regard to paragraph (b), but I shall not spell it out for the moment because I am interested in what may be the meaning of the gestures the minister is making toward me at the moment.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My gestures meant that if the hon. member had finished his remarks I would be glad to try to answer him. Earlier I indicated that one of the purposes of the present consolidation of the code was to make the definition of Canadian crimes set out in this new consolidation bill inclusive of all the

crimes that could be charged in Canada. To that end I stated that we went back to 1892 and took a record of all the common law offences which had been charged, and one of those is the common law offence of public mischief. The reason this section is new is that this is a codification of the common law offence of public mischief.
The hon. member says he objects to paragraph (c) of the section because he thinks that under it a man who had innocently reported that an offence had been committed, when in fact it had not been committed, might be charged and perhaps convicted under this section.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And sent down for five years.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would ask the hon. member to read the whole of the section carefully. He would see that it reads this way:
Every one who causes a peace officer to enter upon an investigation by wilfully-
I emphasize that word.
-reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed-
In other words, in order to establish that the accused is guilty of an offence under this section it is necessary for the crown to prove a guilty mind or mens rea. If the accused could say truthfully and convincingly "I am sorry that I passed on to you a report of this thing that I thought was true but which has proven to be untrue" I believe that would clearly establish a defence for him. The crown has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt when the word "wilfully" is used. The accused can meet the prima facie case which has been so proven by establishing that, although he did report an offence had been committed when it had not been committed, he did not so report wilfully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I enjoy these free lectures in law that one gets along with being a member of parliament, but it seems to me that the word "wilfully" does not cover the question of knowledge. It seems to me that a person could wilfully and, shall I say, intentionally make a report to a peace officer because he believed such and such had taken place, but
Criminal Code
it just so happened that it had not taken place. It seems to me it could be established that the accused had done this wilfully. He meant to do it, but because he did not know the facts of the case he was in error. It seems to me that to write something into the Criminal Code that provides a five year penalty for that is a little bit stiff.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sure we should not get into a technical discussion of the law, but does the minister not consider he is giving a meaning to the word "wilfully" which, if it were in fact to be written into the section, would require the use of the words "with malice aforethought", or some reference to maliciously or fraudulently? I do not think the word "wilfully" goes to the question of motive. The minister is quite right when he says the crown has to prove it was done deliberately, but as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that does not go to the question of motive. Before taking his seat, he said that words ought to be inserted in paragraph (c) concerning the reporting of an offence which he knows or ought to have known had not been committed. Otherwise you might get a man who made an innocent statement that an offence had been committed convicted and sent up for five years, when he acted in good faith.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As in the special committee of the House of Commons, I am quite prepared w'hen we meet again to convince hon. members that what I have just said is right, or accept their wording.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I intimated on Friday evening that on Thursday we would start the housing bifi.


Mr. Fleming:: The first thing on the order
paper?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 20, 1954